[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 93 (Monday, July 17, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7569-S7623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FETUS FARMING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

      ALTERNATIVE PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL THERAPIES ENHANCEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 12:30 having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of S. 3504, S. 2754, and H.R. 810, en bloc, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 810) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
       A bill (S. 3504) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from 
     fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other 
     purposes.
       A bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell 
     lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may use 
this hourglass during the course of the debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is difficult to characterize the 
importance of the debate which the Senate is now beginning because the 
most fundamental aspect of human life is our health. Without our 
health, there is nothing we can do. Medical research has performed 
wonders, and stem cells, which came upon the scene in November of 1998, 
have the most remarkable potential of any scientific discovery ever 
made with respect to human health. These stem cells have the capacity 
to regenerate disease cells in the human body and have the capacity to 
cure maladies of all sorts, including cancer, heart disease, 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord--the long litany of maladies 
which confront mankind.
  The stem cell debate began with the hearings conducted by the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, which 
I chair and on which Senator Tom Harkin is ranking member. We began 
those hearings within days of the November 1998 announcement and have 
had some 18 hearings on stem cells to explore all ramifications of the 
potential of stem cells.
  There is now an avalanche of evidence that the use of stem cells in 
scientific research has boundless potential. The state of the law is 
that federal funding may only be used for a limited number of obsolete 
stem cell lines.
  The bill which is the fundamental issue before the Senate today is 
H.R. 810, which Senator Harkin and I introduced as a Senate bill with 
some 42 cosponsors, which would allow research on embryonic stem cells.
  There are two other bills at issue. One is S. 2754 which Senator 
Santorum and I have introduced which relates to long-range research not 
involving the embryos, but it is totally separate and distinct from 
H.R. 810 in that it does not have the potential that the embryonic stem 
cells have and it is long range.
  The third bill is S. 3504 which relates to fetus farming prohibition, 
and I believe there will be little controversy about this bill. The 
bill would deal with two unethical activities--the solicitation or 
acceptance of human fetal tissue knowing that a pregnancy was 
deliberately initiated to provide such tissue and the solicitation or 
acceptance of tissues or cells from a human embryo or fetus that was 
gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal. I believe there will be no 
contest about that.

  I expect relatively little contest about S. 2754, which does not in 
any way relate to the importance of research on embryonic stem cells.
  The embryonic stem cells are used from many embryos which have been 
created for in vitro fertilization. Customarily, a dozen or so are 
created, maybe three or four are used, and the others are then frozen 
and ultimately will be discarded. There are some 400,000 of those 
embryos which are frozen today, and the likelihood of their being used 
is nil.
  Senator Harkin and I introduced legislation to provide for Federal 
funding to encourage adoption of these embryos. If they could be used 
to create human life, I would not in the remotest way contend that they 
ought to be used for scientific research. But the fact is that they 
will either be used for scientific research or thrown away.
  When the issue of adoption was raised, as I say, we took the lead in 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee in the 
year 2002 and appropriated $1 million and since then have appropriated 
more in succeeding years.
  As of May 31, 2006, the Snow Flake Organization, one of the 
Department of Health and Human Services' embryonic adoption grantees, 
had a news conference announcing that there had been 100 births since 
1997. As of May 31, 2006, the National Embryo Donation Center had a 
total of 28 deliveries or ongoing pregnancies. Out of the 400,000, even 
with Federal funding available to encourage adoption, the number is 
128, which makes it conclusive that these 400,000 embryos will either 
be used for scientific research or thrown away.
  The bill which Senator Harkin and I have introduced is very carefully 
structured to be sure that it satisfies the strictest ethical scrutiny.
  This is the essence of the bill: first, that the stem cells were 
originally created for fertility treatment purposes; second, are in 
excess of the clinical need; third, the individual seeking fertility 
treatments for whom the embryos were created has determined that the 
embryos will not be implanted in a woman; fourth, they will be 
otherwise discarded; and fifth, the individual for whom embryos were 
created has provided written consent for embryo adoption.
  This bill does not allow Federal funds to be used for the derogation 
of stem cell lines, a step in the process where the embryo is 
destroyed--the lines are created and the embryos are destroyed before 
they are subjected to research which is funded by the Federal 
Government under the bill which Senator Harkin and I are promoting.

[[Page S7570]]

  The evidence of the utility of these embryonic stem cells is 
unquestioned, and the need for more stem cell lines similarly is 
unquestioned.
  On August 9, 2001, President Bush made an Executive determination to 
allow Federal research on some 60 existing stem cell lines. It was 
later determined that there might be as many as 70 lines. It has since 
been determined that there are no more than 20 lines, and perhaps even 
fewer. These existing lines are tainted with mouse feeder cells, which 
is a technical consideration that they can't be used.
  The experts in the field: Dr. Nabel, Director of the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, focused on 
the unavailability of stem cells for research, noting that only four 
stem cell lines are currently in common use.
  The enormous advantages of stem cells were outlined in some detail by 
the various Directors of the NIH.
  Dr. Zerhouni, Director, NIH, said:

       Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for 
     treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease, 
     as well as revealing important basic mechanisms involved in 
     cell differentiation and development.

  Dr. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases, said:

       NIAID believes that embryonic stem cell research could be 
     advanced by the availability of additional cell lines. 
     Individual stem cell lines have unique properties. Thus, we 
     may be limiting our ability to achieve the full range of 
     potential therapeutic applications of embryonic stem cells by 
     restricting research to the relatively small number of lines 
     currently available.

  Dr. Battey, Director of the Deafness Institute, said:

       The more stem cell lines available for study the more 
     likely a cell line will be maximally useful for a given 
     research, and potentially clinical, application . . . the 
     scientific community would be best served by having a greater 
     number of human embryonic stem cell lines available for 
     study.

  Dr. Nabel, the director of the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 
said:

        . . . we recognize that the limitations of existing cell 
     lines are hindering scientific progress among a community 
     that is very eager to move forward in this promising area. We 
     support the creation of dissemination of newer stem cell 
     lines in the expectation that it will advance this field and 
     hasten progress in basic and clinical research.

  Similar opinions were articulated by Dr. Tabak, director of the 
Dental Institute; by Dr. Volkow, director of the National Institute of 
Drug Abuse; by Dr. Collins of the Human Genome Institute; by Dr. 
Neiderhuber, director of the Cancer Institute; by Dr. Rodgers, acting 
director of the Diabetes and Digestive Disease Institute; by Dr. 
Landis, director of the Neurology Institute; by Dr. Berg, director of 
the General Medical Sciences Institute; by Dr. Alexander, director of 
the Child Health Institute; by Dr. Sieving, director of the Eye 
Institute; by Dr. Schwartz, director of the Environmental Health 
Institute; by Dr. Hodes, director of the Aging Institute; by Dr. Li, 
director of the Alcohol Abuse Institute; by Dr. Alving, acting director 
of the Center for Research Resources. All concur with the need for 
additional stem cell lines for research in dealing with the maladies in 
their own particular area.
  By way of a strictly personal note, I had a little root canal work 
done this morning. The dentist asked me what was going on in the Senate 
today. I told him about stem cell research. He said: I hope you win 
your case because it will help us on root canal work. The embryonic 
stem cells can be injected into the canal with the diseased tissue, and 
you can have a third set of teeth.
  Wherever I turn, people in the medical research field--and I regret I 
have had a lot contacts--extol the enormous virtues of stem cells--that 
they have the capacity to replace diseased cells. If you deal with a 
heart problem and you have a diseased area, the stem cells can be 
injected. These embryonic stem cells have remarkable flexibility and 
capacity to provide a healthy cell to replace the diseased cell.
  We have had remarkable articulation of support from Members of the 
Senate, as well as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The 
House bill was passed with a comfortable margin, with some 50 
Republicans crossing party lines. In the Senate, we have many Senators 
who are most actively known in the pro-life community, and while they 
would not make a woman's right to choose available, they do actively 
support stem cell research. It is important to focus on the difference 
that being against a woman's right to choose has nothing to do with the 
issue of stem cell research. They are entirely separate.
  Authors of the June 4, 2004, letter to the President on stem cell 
research include some of the strongest pro-life Senators in our body, 
including Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Lamar 
Alexander, Senator Thad Cochran, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator 
Trent Lott, Senator John McCain, and Senator John Warner. There is 
every expectation there will be more Senators from the strong pro-life 
community who will be supporting embryonic stem cell research.
  We have support from two of our colleagues who were very active on 
the pro-life side, former Senator John Danforth and former Senator Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell.
  On the strictly personal level, I have noted the declaration by 
President Nixon in 1970 when he declared war on cancer. Had that war 
been pursued with the same diligence we pursue other wars, I believe 
cancer would long ago have been cured. Without unduly dwelling on my 
own situation with Hodgkin's, a year of chemotherapy, I think had the 
research been fulfilled, I would have been spared that malady.
  The maladies such as heart disease, cancer, Parkinson's, and 
Alzheimer's disease strike approximately 110 million Americans a year. 
We all know people close to us who have been stricken with cancer or 
heart failure. My own chief of staff, Carey Lackman, a beautiful young 
woman of 48, was stricken with breast cancer and died 2 years ago. My 
son's law partner, Paula Klein, a beautiful woman with two young 
children, age 55, died of breast cancer. A Federal judge, Edward R. 
Becker, well known to the Senate for his active work for more than 2 
years on asbestos legislation, died in May 2006 from prostate cancer 
which had metastasized. Those are anecdotal, typical of tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who have died or are 
incapacitated from diseases which could be cured with stem cell 
research. It is not only the individuals who contract the maladies, it 
is their families. It is their loved ones.

  President Reagan's wife, Mrs. Nancy Reagan, who is a very nonpublic 
retiring person, has taken a public stand in support of embryonic stem 
cell research because of the understanding and impact on her life when 
President Reagan had Alzheimer's and she had to care for and watch her 
husband suffer from that malady. We have had very extensive indicators, 
evidence, that stem cell research could delay the onset of Alzheimer's 
and, perhaps, cure it entirely.
  The conflict which we have on this issue between ideology and science 
is one which mankind has faced repeatedly in the course of our 
historical experience. A century from now, people will look back at 
this debate on stem cell research and wonder how we cannot possibly 
utilize all of the benefits of science to stop people from dying, to 
stop people from suffering, when we have these embryos which are either 
going to be thrown away or used. They are not going to create living 
people. If they were, no one would be suggesting they be used for 
scientific research.
  There are a number of striking examples of rejection of scientific 
knowledge at various stages in our human history which, in retrospect, 
are absurd. For example, in 1486, a committee of the Spanish Government 
concluded that the voyage proposed by Christopher Columbus should not 
be funded because ``the Western Ocean is infinite and perhaps 
unnavigable . . . [and] . . . so many centuries after the Creation, it 
was unlikely anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value.''
  Fortunately, Queen Isabella, disagreed.
  Galileo was imprisoned for his support of Copernicus' theory that the 
planets revolved around the Sun. This allowed the acceptance of a 
theory upon which all of modern astronomy and space travel are based 
and what we know from our own experience in the solar system.
  Michael Servetus has research on human anatomy. Pope Boniface VII 
banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s. This stopped 
the practice for over 300 years and greatly

[[Page S7571]]

slowed the accumulation of education regarding human anatomy. Finally, 
in the 1500s, Michael Servetus used cadaver dissection to study blood 
circulation. He was tried and imprisoned by the Catholic Church.
  Anesthesia for women in labor was founded by James Simpson in 1848. 
Reporting his discovery that anesthesia could be used to lessen pain 
during child birth, the Scottish Calvinist Church objected to the use 
of anesthesia during labor because ``pain of child birth was God's 
will.'' The Scottish Calvinist Church stifled anesthesia use by 
refusing to baptize any children who were born while a person was 
anesthetized.
  Thomas Edison, who brought electricity to us, had a similar 
experience. The Committee on Lighting by Electricity in the British 
House of Commons did not believe that electricity was practical, 
saying:

       There is not the slightest chance of [electricity] 
     competing, in any general way, with gas. There are defects 
     about the electric light which, unless essential changes take 
     place, must entirely prevent its application to ordinary 
     lighting purposes.

  Fortunately, that view did not prevail. Fortunately, since it is 102 
degrees today and we have an air-conditioned Senate Chamber.
  Vaccines, in 1772, in response to the new science of vaccination, 
Rev. Edward Massey declared:

       Diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin, 
     and the proposed attempt to prevent them is a diabolical 
     operation.

  Had vaccines been outlawed, millions of lives would have been lost.
  In the 1820s, Dr. Dionysus Lardner, Professor of Natural Philosophy 
and Astronomy at University College, London, stated, referring to rail 
travel:

       Rail travel at high speed is not possible because 
     passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.

  If it were true, I would not be here today. I would have had to find 
another way than rail travel to come from Philadelphia to arrive in 
time for this debate.
  I go through this list, and it is only an abbreviation of a much 
longer list to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look 
foolish, look absolutely ridiculous.
  When we see in our everyday existence the enormous suffering from so 
many maladies, there is just no sensible, logical reason why we should 
not make use of stem cell research.
  When I joined the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services in 1981, 
the budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was a little 
over $3 billion. With the leadership of that subcommittee, those funds 
have now been increased to almost $29 billion annually. We are being 
outstripped by other countries which are undertaking embryonic stem 
cell research. They are taking our scientists. We have the capacity 
with the NIH and the Federal funding to make enormous additional 
progress on medical research to save lives, to save pain and suffering. 
We ought to do so. We ought to pass the Specter-Harkin bill--the 
Senate's version of the House-passed bill--and seek to persuade the 
President of the United States that this is a bill which ought to be 
signed into law.
  I know my 30 minutes is up, so I yield to my distinguished colleague 
from Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Specter on 
an exemplary opening statement on this 2-day debate we will be engaged 
in and also thank him, as I will in my formal statement, for his 
leadership over the past several years on so many issues of health 
care, and this one in particular. I am proud to join him in this 
effort, as I have for the last year, to try to get H.R. 810 to come up.
  Mr. President, we have waited a long time for this day to come, I 
think too long. We could have and should have voted on H.R. 810 more 
than a year ago after it passed in the House with a strong bipartisan 
majority. So we have lost some valuable time. But more to the point, 
America's best medical researchers have lost valuable time. But be that 
as it may, H.R. 810 has finally come to the Senate floor, and we will 
vote on it tomorrow afternoon.
  I thank majority leader Bill Frist for brokering the agreement to 
make this vote possible. It took courage for him to announce last 
summer that he supports the bill. And it took courage for him to 
schedule this vote. I have already commended him privately, and I 
commend him publicly as well.
  Again, I thank Senator Specter for leading the effort to promote stem 
cell research for so many years. He chaired the very first hearing in 
Congress on embryonic stem cells, as he said in his remarks, in 
December of 1998. And, again, just repeating what Senator Specter had 
said--but for the sake of emphasis--our Labor, Health, and Human 
Services Appropriations Subcommittee has held 18 hearings on this 
research since then.
  Senator Specter and I also introduced the very first bill in Congress 
on stem cell research in January of 2000. So Senator Specter and I have 
traveled a long road together, and I thank him for being such an 
extraordinary leader and partner in this effort.
  I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell research: Senator 
Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Smith, and Senator Kennedy. Counting 
Senator Specter and myself, there are three Republicans and three 
Democrats on the list who have led the effort to bring up H.R. 810 and 
pass it, and it has been a truly bipartisan effort all the way.
  Most of all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of families and 
patients who never gave up, who kept up the pressure to bring this bill 
to the floor, and who are so eager to see H.R. 810 sent to the 
President's desk for his signature. They have kept the faith. Now it is 
our job to see they are not disappointed.
  Under the UC agreement, we will debate and vote on three bills. But 
make no mistake, the only one that really matters is H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act. This is the one bill that, at long last, 
will unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern 
times.
  So, as we begin this debate, it is a good time to step back and ask: 
Why is there so much support for H.R. 810? Hundreds of patient advocacy 
groups have endorsed the bill; so have dozens of Nobel Prize winning 
scientists, dozens of research universities, and, I might add, so has 
the American public. Polls now show that 72 percent of Americans 
support embryonic stem cell research--72 percent--compared with 24 
percent who oppose it. That is a 3-to-1 margin. So the American 
people--three out of four--are in favor of embryonic stem cell 
research.
  Why? Well, the answer is very simple. Embryonic stem cell research 
offers real hope--real hope--for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, real 
hope for people with Parkinson's, real hope for people with spinal cord 
injuries, real hope for people with heart disease, real hope for people 
with diabetes, real hope for people with cancer, real hope for people 
who suffer from autoimmune diseases such as lupus. All told, more than 
100 million Americans have diseases that one day could be treated or 
cured with embryonic stem cell research. Here is just a brief list of 
them: cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, birth defects, severe burns--
millions of Americans who could be cured or helped with stem cell 
research.
  But it is not just Members of Congress who are saying it; we have 
asked top scientists. Senator Specter and I sent letters to the 
National Institutes of Health last week. Senator Specter referred to 
that in his remarks. We asked their top scientists for their thoughts 
on stem cell research. Every single one of them said embryonic stem 
cell research offers enormous potential. We asked 19 NIH scientists--
heads of the different individual institutes--and all 19 agreed.
  Here is what Dr. Zerhouni, the NIH director, wrote to us:

       Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for 
     treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease.

  This is from Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the director of the Heart, Lung, 
and Blood Institute. She wrote:

       Embryonic stem cell research has vast potential for 
     addressing critical health [care] needs.

  And it is not just NIH scientists who believe this way. In a letter 
from Dr. J. Michael Bishop, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 
1989, he writes:

       The vast majority of the biomedical research community 
     believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the 
     source of key discoveries related to many debilitating 
     diseases.


[[Page S7572]]


  I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Scientists 
agree: embryonic stem cell research offers enormous hope--real hope--
for easing human suffering.
  Now, some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already supports 
embryonic stem cell research. What about the speech the President gave 
5 years ago?
  Well, let me try to explain the President's policy as was enunciated 
5 years ago. He gave the speech on August 9, 2001. I remember it well. 
I was listening to it. I was on the road. I was listening to it on the 
radio.
  The President, at that time, said that federally funded scientists 
could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the stem cells 
had been derived prior to 9 p.m., August 9, 2001. Well, I thought to 
myself at the time--and I have thought since--that is rather odd. It is 
morally OK to do research on stem cells derived before 9 p.m., but it 
is not morally acceptable to do research on stem cells derived after 9 
p.m.? Well, I thought to myself, why not 9:05? What about 9:15 p.m. or 
9:30 or midnight? Why was 9 p.m. the magic cutoff hour on August 9, 
2001?
  Well, clearly it was totally arbitrary. That just happened to be when 
the President gave his speech. But for whatever reason, the President 
said only those lines derived by 9 p.m. August 9, 2001, were eligible 
for federally funded research.

  At the time, after I checked into it, some of us were hopeful that 
the policy would work. But it has not, and here is why. When President 
Bush announced his policy, he said 78 stem cell lines were available. 
Many people thought 78 stem cell lines might be enough, might have 
enough genetic diversity to actually do the kind of research we needed. 
But as the years progressed, we found that only 21--only 21--of the 
approved lines are actually available for study; not 78, only 21.
  We found out something else I did not know at the time. All 21 of 
these lines are contaminated by mouse cells. In other words, the 
embryonic stem cells were grown on mouse cells, so they are 
contaminated, making it highly unlikely ever to be used for any kind of 
human therapy. I ask: Would any of you want to have stem cells used for 
your illness if they were contaminated with mouse cells? I do not think 
so, and neither do the scientists. And the other thing we found out is 
that now many of the 21 lines are too unhealthy to use. They have 
actually become sick.
  Dr. Nabel of the NIH Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute wrote to me 
that only four of these lines are in common use--four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, 
another NIH director, director of the general medical sciences, said 
there are about six lines in common use.
  So what is happening now is that these policy restrictions are making 
our scientists work with one arm tied behind their back. It is having a 
chilling impact on scientists thinking about entering the field.
  Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the NIH Drug Abuse Institute, said it is 
stifling interest in research. She said:

       Despite general interest and enthusiasm in the scientific 
     community for embryonic stem cell research, the limited 
     number of available lines has translated into a general lack 
     of research proposals.

  Well, if you are a research scientist at one of our hundreds of 
universities around the country, and you are eligible for NIH funding, 
would you want to do research on only four lines that may not lead to 
anything? Would you put in a proposal to do that? You could be one of 
our budding genius researchers. You might want to put your efforts and 
endeavors into something else rather than a dead-end policy.
  So I submit that the President's policy is not a way forward, it is a 
dead-end street. It offers only false hope--false hope; not real hope, 
false hope--to the millions of people across America and the world who 
are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated through 
embryonic stem cell research.
  Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since 
the President's arbitrary deadline of August 9, 2001. These lines are 
uncontaminated. They are healthy. But they are totally off limits to 
federally funded scientists. I do not mean just scientists who work at 
NIH; I am talking about all the scientists who work in all of our 
universities and research institutions across America. They are off 
limits--off limits. They cannot use it. It is really a shame.
  I was listening to Senator Specter earlier talk about some of the 
earlier pronouncements, some by the Catholic Church, back in the Middle 
Ages, some by--he mentioned another Calvinist Church--I don't know who 
all he mentioned--but the views at that time and how we look back and 
say: How could they have been so blind to prohibit certain activities, 
such as using cadavers for scientific experimentation to learn how the 
body works so we could perhaps cure illnesses and diseases?
  I was listening to that, and I thought: We have new stem cell lines, 
uncontaminated with mouse feeder cells, healthy, ready to go. 
Scientists cannot use them. And I thought: We do not require 
astronomers today to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. We 
do not tell our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If 
we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our 
scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available.
  And, again, I would not want anyone to take just my word for it. I 
think Dr. James Battey knows more about stem cell research than anyone 
at the National Institutes of Health. He runs the stem cell task force 
there, and this is what he wrote when I asked him whether it would help 
our scientists to have access to more stem cell lines. Here is his 
direct quote:

       The more cell lines available for study, the more likely a 
     cell line will be maximally useful for a given research, and 
     potentially clinical, application. For this reason, the 
     scientific community would be best served by having a greater 
     number of human embryonic stem cell lines available for 
     study.

  That is from a letter to me from Dr. James Battey, chair of the NIH 
Stem Cell Task Force, dated July 13, 2006.
  Dr. Volkow of the Drug Abuse Institute was even more blunt. She 
wrote:

       Access to a wider array of embryonic stem cell lines would 
     definitely increase scientific opportunity and the chances of 
     breakthrough discoveries.

  I should note that scientists in many other countries around the 
world do not face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. When you talk 
to researchers in England, for example, our policy makes no sense to 
them. They cannot understand why stem cell lines derived on one date 
are fine to use, but if they are derived on another date they are off 
limits. They do not have arbitrary barriers like that in England, and 
that is a big reason so many of the major advances in stem cell 
research are happening there rather than in the United States.
  So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers real, 
meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what H.R. 810 
would provide.
  Under this bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem 
cell line regardless of the date it was derived as long as strict 
ethical guidelines are met. I think it is important to run through some 
of those ethical guidelines.
  First, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for federally 
funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise 
going to be discarded. As Senator Specter pointed out, there are more 
than 400,000 embryos in the United States left over from fertility 
treatments that are currently sitting frozen in storage. The moms and 
dads have had all the children they want; they no longer need any more 
of these embryos, and most of them will be discarded. It happens every 
single day at fertility clinics around the country. People have used in 
vitro fertilization, had their children, and they don't want any more. 
Rather than continue to pay the facility to store them and freeze them, 
they call up and say we don't want them anymore. The facility discards 
them. It happens every day.
  All we are saying is, instead of discarding them as leftover embryos, 
let's allow couples, if they wish, to donate them to create stem cell 
lines that can cure diseases and save lives. The choice is this: Throw 
them away or use them to ease suffering and, hopefully, cure diseases.
  It is the second choice that I believe is truly moral and truly 
respectful of human life. Again, I have to emphasize, as I will today 
and tomorrow time and time again, H.R. 810 does not create any new 
embryos. Not one new embryo will be created under H.R. 810--only

[[Page S7573]]

those left over in in vitro fertilization clinics, and only if the moms 
and dads give their written consent.
  As I said, the second ethical requirement requires them to provide 
informed written consent. Again, a lot of people don't realize this, 
but the President's policy is a little fuzzy on the matter of informed 
and written consent. Some of the 21 federally approved lines--
especially those coming from other countries--don't meet that 
requirement. So we need to pass H.R. 810 to tighten the ethical 
guidelines on stem cell research, so there is no question that the 
embryos were donated voluntarily.
  Finally, H.R. 810 prohibits anyone from being paid to donate embryos. 
There is no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go 
through the donation process against their will. So no money can change 
hands. The three ethical guidelines, to repeat, are: One, we can only 
use excess embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics; second, there 
must be informed written consent for the donation of those embryos; and 
third, no money can exchange hands to pay for any of these.
  Let me address one more issue, and that is the matter of the so-
called alternative ways of deriving stem cells. Some opponents of this 
will speak today and tomorrow and argue that we don't need to pass H.R. 
810. Instead, they say, we should put our current stem cell research on 
hold in hopes that some new way of deriving stem cells will pan out 
some time, hopefully, in the future.
  That would be a tragic mistake. I support any ethical means to 
improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. In fact, Senator 
Specter and I included language in our appropriations bill last year 
urging NIH to support research on alternative ways of deriving stem 
cells. But not one of these so-called alternative methods has ever 
succeeded in producing a stem cell line. Right now, they are just 
theories. Maybe one day, 5 years or 7 years or 10 years or 15 years 
from now, one of these methods will pan out. But maybe not.
  I think this chart tells the story. The NIH estimates that there are 
about 400 stem cell lines worldwide, almost all of which were derived 
after the President's arbitrary cutoff date of August 9, 2001. Every 
one of these lines was derived the same way, using embryos that were 
left over from infertility treatments that would otherwise have been 
discarded. So you see on the chart ``stem cell lines derived using 
current method,'' and we have about 400 stem cell lines worldwide. Now, 
how many lines were derived using unproven alternative methods? Zero. 
It is 400 to zero.
  Yet we will hear today and, I think, tomorrow from some who say we 
should pass other bills. We should not use the proven method we have, 
but we should go to alternative methodologies. We know right now that 
zero stem cell lines have been derived from using those alternative 
methodologies.
  Again, should we pursue these alternative methods? Of course. This is 
no prohibition against that. We should open every door we can in the 
ethical pursuit to cures. But meanwhile, people we love are dying from 
Parkinson's and ALS, and children are suffering from juvenile diabetes. 
Should we say wait another 5, 7, or 10 years and see if we can derive 
stem cells from these alternative methods? Maybe we can, maybe we 
cannot. If we cannot, what do we do then? Say the doors are all closed? 
Meanwhile, we have many stem cell lines derived from leftover embryos 
in in vitro fertilization clinics.

  Another point about the alternatives bill. Even if Congress were to 
pass it and the President signs it, it has absolutely no impact on the 
progress of stem cell research. That is because the other bills we are 
voting on here don't authorize anything NIH cannot do already. We had a 
hearing. Senator Santorum, the author of that bill, was at the hearing. 
We had people from NIH. Senator Durbin was there and he asked the 
question:

       Can you tell me whether S. 2754--

which is another one of the companion bills we will be voting on 
tomorrow--

     authorizes research on stem cells at the NIH that currently 
     is not permissible or legal?

  Dr. James F. Battey at NIH said:

       No, it does not.

  That was on June 27 of this year. So the alternatives bill, S. 2754, 
might not do any harm, but it doesn't do any good either. It just says, 
NIH, you can do what you can already do. Well, that is fine with me; I 
have no problem with that. But don't be fooled into thinking that S. 
2754 somehow takes the place of H.R. 810. It doesn't.
  That is one more reason we need to focus on H.R. 810.
  In closing, my nephew Kelly is one of the millions of Americans whose 
hopes depend on stem cell research. He has been a quadriplegic for 
about 27 years since suffering a spinal cord injury in a terrible 
accident while he was in the U.S. Navy and serving on an aircraft 
carrier. Kelly's hope has been that sometime scientists will finally 
find a way to mend his spinal cord so he can walk again. He has been 
following very closely the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research. 
His hope, like the hope of Christopher Reeve's, was--we all remember 
him, our first ``Superman''; he fought so hard for embryonic stem cell 
research before he passed away. They both hoped embryonic stem cell 
research would lead to a breakthrough that would allow them to walk 
again. Kelly asks all the time: When is the Senate going to vote on 
H.R. 810?
  You know, we have seen the videos of mice whose spinal cords have 
been damaged so they could not walk and were treated with stem cells 
from other mice and they are now walking again. As Christopher Reeve 
once said after reviewing the video of one of these white rats that 
could not walk but was given stem cells and now was walking, ``Oh, to 
be a rat.''
  Well, after more than a year of prayers and pressure, my nephew Kelly 
and millions of other Americans suffering from disease and paralysis 
will get their wish. I am optimistic that we have the 60 votes 
necessary to pass H.R. 810 tomorrow and send it immediately to the 
President's desk. There are a lot of stories. I am sure we all have 
family stories such as my nephew's.
  Here is a letter from the ALS Association--the Amyotrophic Lateral 
Sclerosis Association, also called Lou Gehrig's Disease. It says, in 
part:

       The advancement of stem cell research is vital for people 
     such as Roger Gould from Ames, IA. ALS has steadily eroded 
     Roger's ability to control muscle movement, limiting his 
     ability to speak, walk, move his arms, and lead the type of 
     life most all of us take for granted. Ultimately, the disease 
     will take his life. Stem cell research provides promise to 
     people such as Roger and his wife Cindy that one day an 
     effective treatment for ALS will be found. It also gives hope 
     to thousands of others that ALS no longer will mean death in 
     an average of 2 to 5 years after diagnosis; that one day we 
     may be able to prevent ALS from taking the lives of people 
     such as Rob Borsellino, a nationally recognized columnist 
     from Des Moines, IA, who lost his battle against ALS last 
     month, a year after his diagnosis.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record 
following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my time is up. Again, this is going to be 
a good debate, a good airing of the issues. Tomorrow we will vote on 
this bill and send it to the President. I am hopeful that the 
President, after reviewing it and looking at what happened in the 
past--the new things that have come to light because of the mouse 
feeder cells and the contamination of those lines--will sign the bill 
and give real hope to millions of Americans.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                           The Amyotrophic Lateral


                                        Sclerosis Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2006.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: The ALS Association (ALSA) strongly supports 
     the Senate's consideration of legislation to advance stem 
     cell research. We are grateful for the bipartisan efforts of 
     Senators to bring this important issue up for a vote before 
     the August Congressional recess and are particularly 
     appreciative of the leadership on this issue demonstrated by 
     Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-
     IA).
       We understand that the Senate will consider three different 
     stem cell initiatives during the week of July 17. We strongly 
     urge the Senate to pass all three proposals, including H.R. 
     810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. These 
     initiatives, and H.R. 810 in particular, provide our nation 
     with the best opportunity to fully explore the promise

[[Page S7574]]

     of stem cell research and the hope that it may lead to a 
     treatment and cure for ALS.
       The ALS Association is the only national voluntary health 
     association dedicated solely to the fight against Amyotrophic 
     Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's 
     disease. Our mission is to improve the quality of life for 
     those living with ALS and to discover a treatment and cure 
     for this deadly disease.
       ALSA supports the ethical expansion of the Administration's 
     stem cell policy as provided for in H.R. 810, permitting the 
     use of embryos originally created for fertility treatment 
     upon the consent of those individuals for whom the embryos 
     were created. Importantly, the bill would arm researchers and 
     scientists with the tools and resources they need to 
     determine the potential embryonic stem cell research has to 
     prevent, treat and cure countless diseases. This is 
     especially important for people with ALS, for there is no 
     cure for the disease and although there is one drug available 
     to treat ALS, it only prolongs life by a few months.
       The advancement of stem cell research is vital for people 
     like Roger Gould from Ames Iowa. ALS has steadily eroded 
     Roger's ability to control muscle movement, limiting his 
     ability to speak, walk, move his arms and lead the type of 
     life most all of us take for granted. Ultimately, the disease 
     will take his life. Stem cell research provides promise to 
     people like Roger and his wife Cindy that one day an 
     effective treatment for ALS will be found. It also gives hope 
     to thousands of others that ALS no longer will mean death in 
     an average of two to five years after diagnosis; that one day 
     we may be able to prevent ALS from taking the lives of people 
     like Rob Borsellino, a nationally recognized columnist from 
     Des Moines, IA who lost his battle against ALS last month, 
     just a year after his diagnosis.
       Through our innovative TREAT ALS program, The ALS 
     Association is pursuing an aggressive strategy to advance the 
     development of new treatments for ALS, bringing innovations 
     from the lab to the bedside faster than ever before. 
     Exploring the potential of stem cells is an important 
     component of this effort. In fact, recent research funded by 
     ALSA and published in the Annals of Neurology just this 
     month, shows that stem cell therapy can partially restore 
     motor function--function which ALS destroys. Other research 
     in stem cells also show promise for ALS. While translating 
     the promise of stem cell research into treatments and a cure 
     for the disease continues to be a hope for the future, it is 
     important that we explore all potential avenues for treating 
     this horrific disease. An expansion of the current federal 
     policy on stem cell research can only benefit the search for 
     a treatment and cure for ALS.
       Therefore, we urge the Senate to pass H.R. 810 and help 
     ensure that people with ALS can benefit as quickly as 
     possible from the very best that science and technology has 
     to offer, including the potential innovations that can result 
     from embryonic stem cell research.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Steve Gibson,

                              Vice President, Government Relations
                                               and Public Affairs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority 
controls the next 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to take 5 minutes of my allotted 15 
minutes to answer some of the questions raised by Senator Harkin and 
Senator Specter.
  I think it is very important that the American public understands 
what this debate is. We have heard a lot of statements this morning 
that there are no cures other than fetal stem cell research, and that 
could not be further from the truth. I am a practicing physician. I 
deliver babies. I have read almost every article published in the last 
12 months on stem cells, both embryonic and nonembryonic adult. The 
fact is there is not one cure in this country today from embryonic stem 
cells.
  We talked about 21 lines, but what they don't say is there is no 
limitation in this country at all on private research from any of the 
400 lines Senator Harkin mentioned. There also is a statement by the 
caretaker and many scientists that the lines are not contaminated. As a 
matter of fact, they are not contaminated. The question is, do we want 
to do what is best to get us further down the road to treat people? I 
am a two-time cancer survivor; I had cancer of the colon and melanoma. 
With the treatments that are available--I desire the treatments that 
can come out of stem cell research, there is no question. But every 
disease Senator Harkin listed--every disease save ALS--has an adult 
stem cell or cord blood stem cell cure that has already been proven in 
humans, without using embryonic stem cells. What is the science behind 
it? What is the science that tells us we are going to have trouble with 
embryonic but not with the other? It is called the mitochondria. If you 
study physiology at all, what you know is every cytoplasm of every cell 
has mitochondria in it.
  The only way to use an embryonic stem cell line and to use it 
effectively without falling into the trap of contamination or cross-
immunization--in other words, allergy to the treatment--is to somehow 
quiet mitochondria. They are the energy source for cells. They have 
DNA. So none of the problems that are seen with your own adult stem 
cells or cord blood from your own child will be existing in a treatment 
from your own stem cells.
  The reason we should spend more money on our own stem cell lines 
today is because there will not be complications from them as is noted 
in every study that has thus far been done on embryonic stem cells.
  The Senator mentioned the rats. The only study that shows neurologic 
improvement is when the rats were sacrificed at 8 weeks. Every other 
study, when they let the rats live to 12 weeks, show teratoma or tumor 
formation, which is the problem with embryonic stem cells.
  I hope the American people will listen. It is not about not getting 
where we want to go, but there is false hope, tremendous false hope in 
what we are about to do when, in fact, if we would redouble our efforts 
on the other areas of stem cells.
  One final point and then I will yield. There is a germ cell line, 
stem cell line, which goes against everything Senator Harkin says. It 
has been proven in this country; it has been proven in Germany. It 
comes from ovarian tissue and testicular tissue. It is, without a 
doubt, the greatest thing on the horizon for us because it has none of 
the problems associated--I am not talking the ethical problems, I am 
talking the scientific problems associated with embryonic stem cells. 
There are none of the problems with it.
  I have seen beating heart tissue from germ cell lines. It can create 
every area. There are three tissues, endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. 
That is the important reason why embryonic is thought to be so 
important.
  One final point on dedifferentiation, the ability to take a cell that 
is in your body today and make it go backward. That has been 
accomplished. We now see multiple lines of pluripotent cells from our 
own bodies.
  The choice is not destroy embryos, and if we don't, we will not get 
good research; the choice is go where the money is leading us, and the 
money is leading us into adult stem cells, germ cell lines, and other 
lines that have none of the problems of embryonic stem cells.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
his short, clear statement. I have some charts that will back him up.
  I am delighted we are having this debate. It is time. We last debated 
this issue on the Senate floor in 1998. A lot has developed since then. 
As my colleague from Oklahoma pointed out, much of the science has 
passed by the embryonic stem cell and the need for embryonic stem 
cells, as the science has gone to adult stem cells and cord blood, and 
that is where the treatments are. I will show pictures of patients in 
that area and what is taking place.
  I am delighted to be debating my colleagues. We have been debating 
this issue for some time. I think it is time we have a vote and look at 
this issue.
  When I was a young Congressman first running for Congress in Chanute, 
KS, a young man approached me. He knew me and knew I was running for 
office. He said: Can you answer one question for me?
  I said: I will try. I was anxious to be of help. I was anxious to 
prove I knew policy issues, I knew right from wrong, and I would be a 
good Congressman for him.
  He asked me: Why is it we will fine somebody up to half a million 
dollars for destroying a bald eagle's egg, and yet we will fund the 
destruction of young humans? Why is it Federal law, both cases at that 
point in time, as far as the funding of abortion--I don't remember when 
that was changed, although now we are talking about the destruction of 
young human life again.
  He said: Why is that?
  I thought for a while. I thought: That is a good question. I don't 
know why that is.

[[Page S7575]]

  I have a picture which may seem an odd place to start this debate, 
but it will tie in, and I will show how. I have a picture of a bald 
eagle's egg and a bald eagle. If I asked my 8-year-old children what 
happens if I destroy this egg, will I get this eagle? they will say: 
No, you don't get the eagle if you destroy the egg.
  Why not? That egg is not an eagle.
  I know, but the egg is the eagle because the eagle comes out of the 
egg.
  Well, he doesn't look like him.
  I know it is an eagle in the egg, and if you destroy the egg, you 
don't get the eagle. That is why we say in the Endangered Species Act, 
if you destroy this bald eagle's egg, you can have a maximum fine of up 
to half a million dollars.
  I want to show some other eggs, if I can. These are human embryos, 
fertilized eggs. They are fertilized eggs such as this bald eagle's egg 
is. This one, Mother Teresa once was a human embryo. JFK was once a 
human embryo. Martin Luther King was once a human embryo. Ronald Reagan 
was once a human embryo.
  Again, I think if we ask ourselves a simple question: If I destroy 
this, do I destroy this in the same way? Does it happen? If I destroy 
this human embryo--everybody on the Earth was a human embryo at some 
time--if I destroy that human embryo, do I somehow go ahead and get to 
be here anyway?
  The answer, of course, again, if you ask my 8-year-old children, is: 
No, you don't get to be here because you destroyed the very start of 
your life, you destroyed the beginning of it, you destroyed that 
biological entity you were because the same genetic material that was 
there was in Ronald Reagan, and it was a unique set of genetic 
material, unique to him. The same for Martin Luther King, JFK, or 
Mother Teresa, and the billions of people around the world. We all 
started as a human embryo, and if you destroy the embryo, you destroy 
the person.
  It is a unique set of genetic material right after the fertilization 
takes place. It doesn't matter where the fertilization takes place. It 
can take place in an IVF clinic or the old-fashioned way or it can take 
place by cloning. You still have this. You can have this, or you can 
destroy this and never get that. That is pretty direct, 
straightforward, nobody argues it. And we are not talking theology, as 
people try to drag this into the debate. We are talking basic biology. 
This is basic biology 101. If you destroy the embryo, you don't get the 
full-scale person. This is a genetic person, entity, special, unique, 
sacred, and so is this person.

  My point one of this is, if we use taxpayers' dollars to fund the 
expansion of embryonic stem cell research, you have to inherently 
destroy young humans to do this, and do we want to do that? What was 
previously said in Dickey-Wicker was: No, we will not use taxpayers' 
dollars to destroy young human life. Here we would change that and say: 
Yes, we do; it is for a special purpose, a special reason; these are 
unique; these are something we are really going to get cures for. And 
that is my second point, cures.
  The other side has talked about cures for a long period of time, and 
I want cures, and we are getting cures to take place. If we had taken 
the half a billion dollars, $500 million that we have invested in 
embryonic stem cell research in animals and humans and invested that 
instead in adult stem cell research and cord blood research, we would 
probably have a lot more people in clinical trials today. We would have 
a lot more people, I believe, being treated and alive today if we had 
taken the half a billion dollars that we put, in the last 5 years, into 
these areas of embryonic stem cell research and put them in adult stem 
cells and cord blood, we would have more people alive today, walking 
around, experiencing treatments and I believe cures. Let me show some 
faces of these people.
  This is a beautiful lady, Jacki Rabon. She was involved in a traffic 
accident. She is a paraplegic. She had to go to Portugal to get a 
treatment with her own adult stem cells. They are olfactory stem cells 
from the base of the nose. They take them out, grow them, and put them 
back in the spinal cord injury area. She had no feeling, no mobility, 
nothing below the waist. She is now getting feeling in her hips through 
this treatment, adult stem cells, her own stem cells. She is getting 
feeling in the hips and walking with the use of braces, but she had to 
go to Portugal to do this. Why isn't this being done in America? Why 
aren't we having people treated here? We are not adequately funding 
this area. She wants to walk and I want her to walk and she could, but 
we are taking money and putting them into these speculative areas when 
we have cures that are working. We have to go to Portugal to get them.
  Let's look at this next picture. This is an amazing story. This young 
man is named Ryan Schneider. I hosted him at a press conference 2 hours 
ago. He is 3 years old, a young man with cerebral palsy. His mother 
saved his cord blood.
  At 2 years of age, she started noticing that he was not growing and 
that his arms were retracting. She took him to the doctors and they 
said: Yes, CP; he has CP. The mother was devastated, but she would not 
give up.
  The morning after the diagnosis, she was lying in bed and she had 
this a-ha moment. She said: I saved his cord blood and let's use the 
cord blood and treat him with the cord blood because I think that can 
work and get him moving again.
  She called all around the country and couldn't find anybody willing 
to do this procedure. She was pleading with these doctors: It is simply 
his own cord blood, taking his own cord blood and putting it back in; 
this isn't going to hurt him.
  They said: We can't do it, not sure, we don't have FDA protocol.
  Finally, she finds a researcher at Duke University, whom we had in to 
testify, who said: Yes, we will do it, and the worst thing that can 
happen is nothing because nothing will happen, it is his own cord 
blood; it is not going to hurt him.
  She goes down to Duke University, takes his own cord blood, and they 
inject it in him. This is when he was 2. He was at a press conference 
today. There is no retraction taking place in the arms. He has full 
mobility. The thing he likes to do the most is bug his 8-year-old 
sister, which is what his mother said today: We like that, too, that he 
wants to do that. He has a word vocabulary that is normal for the age 
range. She said: Why isn't this an FDA-approved situation? Why are we 
not doing more research? Why aren't more people storing and saving cord 
blood so when this happens people can get cures?
  Well, we haven't put enough funding into it. If we had put the half a 
billion more dollars into this area instead of embryonic, we might have 
a bunch of kids treated for CP who are not getting treated and be like 
Ryan running around and bugging his sister instead of having CP.
  Here is a real interesting story, too, Keone Penn. We had him in to 
testify. He has sickle-cell anemia. He was dying. It is a real 
difficulty. Sickle cell is a very difficult problem to face, very 
painful problem for a child to face. He went through the New York Cord 
Blood Center, got treatment there, got a match. They had enough of a 
genetic match that it works for him. There are no indicators of sickle-
cell anemia today. None. He isn't in Washington today, but we have had 
him in to testify.
  We need a lot more cord blood stored. We need a lot more diversity of 
cord blood stored. We could use that half a billion dollars to store 
more cord blood and have more ethnic diversity so more people can get 
treated, so more people such as him will live, not die; so more people 
will not have to suffer what he went through. There could be real 
treatments with these dollars to help them.
  No. 1, why are we destroying young human life? We fine people for 
destroying life in other forms that we want to preserve, such as the 
bald eagle. No. 2, why would we take this money away from current areas 
where we can really treat people and especially in the areas where we 
are not getting any treatments, we are having all the problems with 
tumor formation, as Dr. Coburn noted. Why are we doing that? So that 
fewer people are getting treatments and people are having to go 
overseas to get these treatments? Why? And why would we ask to do more 
of it now? That is what this bill is basically asking to do: That we 
would change Federal law so you could destroy human life with Federal 
taxpayer dollars. No. 2, that we would use this money, and more of it, 
to fund speculative areas

[[Page S7576]]

that even their set of scientists are saying are a minimum of a decade 
or two away from treatments which we are not getting, and we have taken 
away from Keone Penn, and treatments that he could get. Why? What sense 
does that make?

  In 1943, C.S. Lewis delivered a series of lectures--this is the 
gentleman who did the Narnia series that has been made into a movie 
that a lot of young people have seen and read the Narnia series books, 
along with a lot of other pieces--a brilliant writer and a brave man. 
He did a lecture series called ``The Abolition Of Man'' in 1943, a very 
forward-looking series, and he noted at one point: ``If man chooses to 
treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be.'' It echoes 
themes of what we are hearing today. I don't give anybody over to a bad 
heart. I think everybody wants cures. I want cures. I see a way we can 
get treatments and hopefully cures. I want things done ethically. I 
don't give anybody over to a bad heart. But what we are doing is 
treating man as raw material--raw material to feed into a system that 
we hope will produce some results.
  Unfortunately, it is not the first time we have in human history that 
we have treated people as raw material. We have frequently, in the 
past, subjected the weaker to the will of the stronger, and we have 
always regretted it afterwards. We shouldn't do that today. It 
shouldn't have happened then, and we don't need to do it now. We are 
talking about the embryo, the young human life.
  I want to go through a couple of these points about what it is we are 
talking about. President Clinton's bioethics board defined young human 
life--and I want to give their definition for it. The National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission says that an embryo is: ``The developing 
organism from the time of fertilization''--the time of fertilization--
``until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism 
then becomes known as a fetus.'' So it is an embryo by that 
Presidential advisory bioethics analysis.
  And here is a definition taken from a textbook, the Human Embryology 
textbook states:

       Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a 
     critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a 
     new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. 
     The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus 
     results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote.
       Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic 
     genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.

  That isn't Sam Brownback saying this, this is Human Embryology, Third 
Edition, saying that.
  We have a distinct genetic entity once it is formed. It doesn't 
matter the location. It can be the old-fashioned way, as I noted at the 
outset, via the human body; in vitro fertilization; it can be what some 
refer to as somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, or what most refer to 
as human cloning. It is a separate entity.
  Pioneer stem cell researcher Jamie Thompson goes further. He says of 
human cloning: ``By any reasonable definition, you're creating an 
embryo. If you try to define it away, you're being disingenuous.'' 
Jamie Thompson. So we are talking about a human embryo.
  Now, some would say it is not big enough to be human life. Here I 
want to make a point, on this chart, if I could. My colleagues made the 
point that the human embryo is about this big; very small at its 
beginning of life. Therefore, because it is small and is fragile and it 
can't do anything on its own, you know, it is really not human life. 
And we should be able to destroy it, for a good purpose. We are doing 
this for a good purpose. This isn't us being malicious; we are doing 
this for a good purpose. Well, the interesting thing about that, as I 
said at the outset--of course, when you destroy this, you never get the 
full human at any point in time. This is a separate genetic entity, 
even at this point in time. Also, the point was made to me one time 
that if the Big Bang theory is correct, then at one point in time, this 
is the size of the universe. Then it is all condensed down, this much 
matter is condensed down to that infinitesimal, small size before it 
blows. So I guess if you destroy it then, it doesn't become the 
universe, but that doesn't matter. It is too small to be seen as 
significant, and it can't do anything on its own. It sits in a frozen 
state, and because it can't take care of itself, because it can't grow, 
because it can't breathe in this situation, then it is not human--
because it can't care for itself, because it is too fragile. It doesn't 
breathe. It doesn't do some of the things that we give over to the 
presence of life.
  I want to give some examples, real quick, of young people--let's use 
this one. This is Isaiah Sullivan Royal, born to Hannah and Jed Royal. 
Hannah works in my office. Isaiah was born significantly premature. As 
you can see, he is a fighter. He is a tough little guy. He has been 
through a lot--more medical treatments than most people would have gone 
through in their lifetime already. Without human intervention, without 
help, he doesn't survive and make it. Yet he is a young human, and he 
is beautiful. Talk to his parents about him. So the idea that just 
because of smallness, you can't take care of yourself doesn't make you 
human, is completely false. Do we want to say that because you are 
young and small and weak, you are worthless or helpless or you are not 
human, which would be even worse? That just doesn't stand. That doesn't 
stand to reason. Yes, human life is fragile, but it is of infinite 
worth and it is of infinite value.

  I want to now look at the overall issue of where we are with adult 
stem cell work. Dr. Coburn hit on this area, and I want to put some 
more points to it. We have, by peer review articles, 72 different 
areas, different human maladies being treated with adult stem cells or 
with cord blood--72. There was recently an article in one of the 
magazines saying: Well, we don't think the number is actually 72, it 
may be 68, it may be this or that.
  We can wait a day or two and it will be up to 72 because there are 
more coming out in all of the areas. Some people are quibbling and 
saying: Well, these are not in FDA treatment trials. That is true, a 
number of them are not because we don't have sufficient funding. A half 
a billion dollars would really help us to move that along to get these 
in FDA treatment trials. These are in human clinical applications, 
where there are human beings treated for 72 different maladies by adult 
stem cells or cord blood--72, and for embryonic, we have zero.
  We have known about embryonic stem cells in mice for 25 years. We 
have not been able to get them to work in this situation. They form 
tumors and they are rapid growing. With adult stem cells we know what 
they are about, we know what they are doing, and they are working, and 
people are being treated: 72 adult stem cell treatments to zero 
embryonic treatments. Again, you can quibble that they are not in FDA 
trials, not available to everybody. That is true. A lot of people are 
having to go overseas for treatments in some cases, and in some cases 
they are actually treatments that were developed in the United States, 
but because of FDA approval processes being long, they are having to 
get treatment overseas, even though the process was developed here.
  I want to show you the specific areas, and this is--I am breaking the 
rules on charts because this one has--this one is too busy, but it is 
the only way I can get it all on one chart: 72 current human clinical 
applications using adult stem cells.
  As I said, we could wait a week or 2 weeks, it will be more. Here are 
some of the amazing ones: Bladder diseases, they are developing, 
actually growing bladders with your own stem cells for people who have 
had bladder cancer or something of that nature, they are able to 
actually form a shell structure and the cells grow around it. The ones 
I like the best are in the heart areas, the cardiovascular. I had David 
Foege speaking at a press conference we had, he could hardly walk, 
advanced stroke, because of his heart problem, no infracturing rate. 
The physicians--I am sure I am butchering the words--I am a lawyer. I 
apologize for that. But he got this treatment, and he went first to a 
place in the United States, and they said: Look, you are just too 
advanced in your problematic stage. We are not going to treat you here 
because we want to treat early on and we only have so much money and we 
could use more, but we only have so much.
  So the guy goes to Thailand for the treatment--it may have been 
developed in the United States. I am not certain that it was developed 
in the United States, but it is used here but only on

[[Page S7577]]

people with great opportunity to make it through. He goes to Thailand, 
gets this treatment. His indicators of what happened to him in the 
stroke are diminishing. He is out walking. He spoke at the press 
conference that we had, and this man has got life again. Otherwise, he 
would, in all probability, be dead today. And how many people are like 
him, that because we have slowed the development of the adult field 
down by putting so many of our resources in the nonproductive embryonic 
area, and we are getting interesting science, but with adult we are 
talking about real people now. We are talking about real lives of 
individuals. How many more of them can get treated, and how many people 
can afford to fly to Bangkok to get this treatment? How many are able 
to do that? Yet they could go somewhere in the United States. I mean, 
my goodness, I hope we start thinking about the people involved in this 
and seeing the success in so many various and different fields. I think 
it is important we would do that.

  Mr. President, I want to point out we will have, as my colleagues 
know, three votes that will be taking place. I do hope people will 
support the fetal farming ban. We shouldn't be growing young fetuses 
and using them for research, period. Some people are wanting to grow 
them further, cells differentiate and use it then. What we are talking 
about is an actual ban on that. I am hoping my colleagues will support 
that because we should not be doing that. I hope everybody would see 
that there is a huge moral dilemma with doing that. It is a bill that 
will be put forward. There is an alternative bill coming up with these 
pluripotent cells that I am hoping my colleagues can support.
  The focal point is this, do we use taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer 
dollars, to destroy young human life for research purposes? I would 
hope it is seen that we could develop and put forward a very clear 
argument and rationale as to why you shouldn't do that. It is illegal. 
The Dickey-Wicker appropriations language, to start off with, that is 
the law we previously passed. It is immoral. We shouldn't use a weaker 
person for the benefit of a stronger person. And it is unnecessary. 
That is actually the beauty of it. We are presenting false choices to 
people. The choice that works has no ethical problem, and we can get 
broad-based support for it. Then, we can have more Jacki Rabons, Ryan 
Schneiders, and Keone Penns who are getting treatments now, and their 
lives are being saved, people staying in the United States for 
treatment rather than going overseas for the treatment, and we have got 
a lot of people being successfully treated and hopefully cured.
  I may use that term ``cured'' too loosely because these are at the 
early stages. These are treatments that are showing enormous promise, 
but we can't--they are not, many of them are not in any sort of FDA-
approved trial, so we can't use that term ``cure.'' But we have a lot 
of successes.
  The other road that is being talked about is the use of human life as 
raw material, and if we do that, raw material we will be. We will 
cheapen life. And we cheapen life any time we use it for anything other 
than the sacredness that life is. I hope, at the end of the day, that 
would be the thing we grab onto. Clearly, embryonic stem cell research 
is unnecessary. We don't want to cheapen human life.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. COBURN. Is there any prohibition in the United States today for 
private money to fund any type of fetal research, embryonic stem cell 
research?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Reclaiming my time, no, there is not. There is no 
limitation today on State dollars, private dollars, foreign dollars, 
whatever you want to call it.
  Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, California passed, I think, 
Proposition 71: $500 million over the next 10 years in fetal stem cell 
research?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I think actually the number is $3 billion.
  Mr. COBURN. Three billion dollars. So there is no limitation at the 
present time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. None whatsoever.
  Mr. COBURN. Is the Senator aware of the private investment dollars 
that are presently--the private investment dollars--not Government 
dollars, not State dollars--that are now going into embryonic stem cell 
research versus adult stem cell and germ line stem cell and cord blood, 
the ratio is about 100 to 1?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, it is, and it is a 
very interesting feature that where the private money is going, where 
people have to show production coming out of it, it is all going into 
the adult cord blood because people know the science. And that is why I 
want to conclude with what I started with.
  In many respects, the science has passed this debate by. The science 
is saying: Do the adult, do the cord blood. The embryonic is not 
working, and you have enormous ethical problems with doing that, and we 
don't need to go that way. That is where the private dollars then are 
going, which I would hope my colleagues would look at as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority 
controls debate for the next 30 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I don't know if there is a fixed order for 
the minority. If not, I will yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. We stand at the threshold of a new era of medical 
discovery. We can already glimpse the dramatic lifegiving advances in 
regenerative medicine that lie ahead, but we remain mired down at this 
point with breakthroughs on the horizon but not within reach unless we 
change the President's policy on stem cell research.
  Embryonic stem cell research could hold the key to curing diseases 
that no other research can cure. As best we know now, an embryonic stem 
cell is unique in nature. It and it alone can develop into any other 
type of cell in the body. An embryonic stem cell and an embryonic stem 
cell alone can become a nerve cell, a muscle cell, or any of the more 
than 200 types of cells in the body. The research into directing the 
creation and use of these cells may be extraordinarily difficult, but 
it is easy to understand how creating healthy cells could replace 
diseased cells and could save an untold number of lives.
  One example of the possibilities of stem cell research is the hope 
that it offers for those suffering from Parkinson's disease. 
Parkinson's disease is a motor system disorder that results from a loss 
of brain cells that produce dopamine. Individuals with Parkinson's 
disease often experience a trembling in the hands or arms or face and 
impaired balance and coordination. As the disease develops, it can 
become difficult to walk, talk, and complete other basic tasks. With 
research, scientists may be able to coax embryonic stem cells into 
becoming healthy neurons that produce the desperately needed dopamine. 
And if those neurons can be successfully transplanted into a patient 
with Parkinson's disease, that person could be cured.
  The list of other diseases ripe for stem cell research is long. Lou 
Gehrig's diseased is a progressive neuromuscular disease characterized 
by a degeneration of the nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord. 
Juvenile diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system 
attacks the pancreas, destroying insulin-producing cells.
  Alzheimer's disease is a form of dementia that afflicts the part of 
the brain that controls memory, language, and thought. Spinal cord 
injuries interrupt the sensory pathway between the brain and the rest 
of the body.
  Now, imagine if embryonic stem cell research could produce 
replacements for the nerve cells ravaged by Lou Gehrig's disease, for 
the insulin-producing cells destroyed by diabetes, for the brain cells 
washed away by Alzheimer's, for the neural pathways severed by spinal 
cord injuries. Stem cell research could offer the millions of Americans 
suffering from these and other diseases not just hopes but cures. It 
could give them and their families--who are often physically, 
financially, and emotionally exhausted--their lives back.
  Many technical hurdles stand in the way of that day. These 
discoveries will not be easy. But it is wrong to throw additional and 
unnecessary obstacles

[[Page S7578]]

in front of our doctors, researchers, and scientists. That is 
precisely, however, what the President's policy has done.
  On August 21, 2001, President Bush issued an Executive order that the 
Federal Government would only fund embryonic stem cell research on stem 
cell lines created before that date. ``Stem cell line'' is the name 
given to constantly dividing cells that continue to be derived from a 
single embryo. Most independent experts estimated at the time of the 
President's Executive order that only 80 stem cell lines, a totally 
inadequate amount, would be available for Federal research. Even worse, 
most of those 80 lines were determined to be polluted and unusable, 
leaving only about 20 stem cell lines actually available to scientists. 
That number is far too small to tap the vast potential of this 
research.
  The President did not question the legitimacy of the science being 
used in stem cell research but the ethics of using embryos, 
scientifically known as blastocysts, until implanted through in vitro 
fertilization. A blastocyst consists of around 150 cells, which is 
smaller than the point of a pin. While the blastocyst is destroyed 
during the process of extracting embryonic stem cells, the key fact is 
that any that are used for stem cell research would have been discarded 
and destroyed anyway. That is a fact that opponents refuse to deal 
with.
  These blastocysts are created by in vitro fertilization clinics and, 
for a variety of reasons, will not be used for implantation and will, 
therefore, eventually be discarded.
  Last month, the Detroit News editorialized against a Michigan law 
restricting embryonic stem cell research and used words that equally 
apply to the President's policy. The News wrote:

       The justification for this law is to protect human embryos, 
     but the fact that fertility clinics can simply discard them 
     means that the research ban is pointless.

  The logic of some embryonic stem cell research opponents is totally 
befuddling. They are apparently willing to ignore the discarding of the 
embryos by fertility clinics, but they label as morally objectionable 
the lifegiving use of embryos which would otherwise be discarded. I 
believe that embryonic stem cell research is truly a lifegiving, not a 
life-destroying, process because of the extraordinary potential for 
healing living, breathing human beings who have names and faces and 
loved ones.
  While the President is fighting against research in America, other 
countries are pressing ahead. America has always been at the forefront 
of scientific innovation, and we could do this research faster, more 
efficiently, and more ethically than most other countries. We also have 
an obligation to speed its potential benefits to the American people 
and to people around the world.
  The President's policy, however, has stifled private-public 
partnerships and has hindered our potential impact in this area. Today, 
other countries are poised to reap the lifegiving rewards of stem cell 
research while we fall further behind.
  Over a year ago, the House took a significant step toward overcoming 
Presidential opposition by passing the Stem Cell Research and 
Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, which would remove the President's arbitrary 
prohibition against using stem cells created after August 21, 2001. 
That is another fact that opponents refuse to deal with. The 
President's date of August 21, 2001, is breathtakingly illogical. How 
can the President argue that it is OK to use embryos created before 
that date for research, even though in his view it was the taking of a 
life but that after that date it is unethical to do so?

  H.R. 810 would pave the way for hundreds or thousands of additional 
stem lines to be made available. It is bipartisan legislation, and it 
passed overwhelmingly in the House.
  Shortly after the House made its strong statement in favor of 
exploring the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research, the 
Senate majority leader committed to bringing that bill up for floor 
consideration. Senator Frist understands how great the life-enhancing 
possibilities are, and he has chosen to side with his fellow physicians 
and with the future in supporting this research.
  This bill has the strong support of the American Medical Association, 
the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Association 
of American Universities, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the 
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma 
Society, the Parkinson's Action Network, and more than 200 additional 
organizations. More important, it has the overwhelming support of the 
American people. If the President vetoes this bill, I hope we will 
resoundingly override his veto.
  As part of the unanimous consent agreement to consider this 
legislation, we are considering two additional bills as well. The bill 
put forward by Senators Santorum and Specter would emphasize the use of 
adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells may 
have some potential, but they do not have the critically essential 
ability of the embryonic stem cell to become any other type of cell.
  Dr. Sean Morrison, the director of the University of Michigan's 
Center for Stem Cell Biology, and one of the top stem cell researchers 
in the country, wrote recently in the Detroit Free Press about another 
alternative to embryonic stem cells being touted, adult stem cells from 
umbilical cords. Dr. Morrison wrote:

       Umbilical cord cells are used clinically only to replace 
     blood-forming cells. There is no compelling evidence that 
     these cells could ever be used to replace cells in other 
     tissues. These cells are not an alternative to embryonic stem 
     cells, which can replace any cell type in the body. . . .That 
     is why there is near universal agreement among respected 
     scientists and patient advocacy groups that current 
     restrictions [against embryonic stem cell research] should be 
     relaxed.

  We may be on the cusp of one of the greatest miracles in the history 
of medicine. The door of possibility is ajar, inviting us to enter. But 
we cannot make these great strides if our researchers continue to be 
hampered by President Bush's overly restrictive policy. We owe it to 
everybody suffering from--or who may in the future be afflicted by--
these dread diseases to move boldly toward a brighter future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I speak in support of legislation 
this Chamber has been waiting to consider for more than a year. I am 
pleased that wait is finally over. I encourage my colleagues to join me 
in voting to give hope to millions of Americans living with diseases 
for which embryonic stem cell research offers their only real hope of a 
cure. These patients are often desperate and have been waiting for 
their Congress to take action for nearly 5 years, since August 9, 2001, 
when the President defied common sense and stifled the promise and the 
hope offered by stem cell research.
  This essential legislation has already passed the House of 
Representatives by an overwhelmingly large bipartisan majority. Today, 
I want to briefly share my thoughts on why the current policy on stem 
cell research is unsustainable and woefully inadequate, clarify some 
misconceptions about the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and share 
the stories of some South Dakotans who will enormously benefit from the 
passage of this bill.
  Current law allows federally funded research on only those stem cells 
derived as of August 9, 2001. At the time, there were more than 65 stem 
cell lines available worldwide. While this number represented marvelous 
progress from the first derivation of an embryonic stem cell in 1998, 
we know now that it was just the tip of the iceberg of possibility.
  Today we know only 22 of those first 65 lines are viable for 
research, and virtually none will produce medical therapies permitted 
for use in humans. This is because at the time the only way to maintain 
stem cell lines was to use mouse cells to help them grow. Since then, 
scientists working with private funds--and no thanks to the Federal 
Government--have developed stronger and more robust stem cell lines 
that are not dependent on mouse cells and could lead to therapies for 
actual use in humans.
  We must open these new lines to research supported by Federal 
funding. The United States is home to the world's largest and most 
distinguished organizations dedicated to maintaining and improving 
health through medical science. The National Institutes of Health and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conduct research that is 
critical to understanding

[[Page S7579]]

human disease and its treatment. These centers rely on Government 
funding to continue their work, and if we do not fund their research on 
embryonic stem cell lines, the United States will fall behind the rest 
of the world in scientific and medical advancement. If the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act does not become law, we not only risk the 
futures of Americans living with currently incurable diseases, we also 
risk our national reputation as the home of the world's most innovative 
and distinguished scientists working to improve the health.
  This is not just a matter of international medical research prestige; 
it directly goes to the millions of families around the world who will 
at last have hope that we can conquer the planet's most awful diseases 
and injuries.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act creates a closely monitored 
and controlled stem cell research effort. The bill will allow vital, 
life-giving research to progress using frozen fertilized embryos that 
would otherwise be incinerated as medical waste. The choice is simple: 
life-giving research or incineration of excess cells.
  Stem cell research is conducted with egg cells fertilized in a 
laboratory for the sole purpose of assisting childless couples who wish 
to have a baby. After choosing embryos for implantation in the mother, 
the remainder are routinely destroyed as medical waste. I believe these 
cells, of which hundreds of thousands are now stored at fertility 
clinics, would be better used to advance medical research that holds 
great promise for curing or preventing some of the world's worst 
diseases, as well as for repairing spinal cord and other injuries. I 
believe choosing research over incineration is a moral choice.
  My South Dakota values, my religious faith, and my commitment to 
South Dakota families tell me we must choose life-giving research over 
incineration of these cells.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act imposes tighter ethical rules 
than exist under current law. Any donated embryos must be created 
solely for fertility treatment and must be in excess of the clinical 
need of those seeking fertility treatment. Furthermore, the bill 
requires written consent from those who wish to donate the embryonic 
cells and prohibits financial incentives for donation.
  Stem cells in umbilical cord blood have provided effective therapies 
for diseases such as leukemia and sickle cell anemia. However, there 
are many other diseases, including type 1 diabetes, Alzheimer's, and 
Parkinson's, which doctors cannot treat or cure with cord blood stem 
cells. Because of this fact, we must advance research in other areas, 
including embryonic stem cell research, to access all available options 
for curing the debilitating diseases plaguing so many of our fellow 
Americans.
  Earlier, I mentioned that this bill gives hope to millions of 
Americans living with diseases for which embryonic stem cell research 
offers the only hope for a cure. I have been honored to meet many of 
these individuals in my home State of South Dakota.
  This bill gives hope to 3-year-old Alexander Sohl from Brandon, SD. 
His parents, Terry and Laurie, told me little Alexander's very first 
words were not ``mommy'' or ``daddy'' but ``no shot''--his insulin 
treatments began when he was just a baby. And it is stem cell research 
that gives his family hope that the daily inflicted pain and the threat 
to the very life of this small child can at last end.

  This bill gives hope to Bonnie Younkin. Bonnie lives in Huron, SD, 
and was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2002 when she was in her 
early 50s. Though living with her disease is a daily battle, Bonnie 
also serves as an advocate for awareness of the disease and increased 
funding for Parkinson's research as the State's action coordinator. It 
can run in families; Bonnie is the fourth female in her family 
diagnosed with Parkinson's, and she lives in fear that her three 
daughters and one granddaughter may have a similar diagnosis in their 
future. Bonnie called my office last week, to touch base in advance of 
this debate. Upon hearing that I remained committed to supporting this 
bill, she had just two words, ``Bless you.''
  South Dakota families are desperate for this research to commence--
and to proceed.
  Choosing research over incineration is a moral choice. I have prayed 
about this issue, and my deeply held religious faith tells me that 
respect for human life, respect for God's children, requires this life-
saving research to proceed rather than the continued incineration of 
frozen excess embryo cells that are sitting in fertility clinics 
classified as medical waste.
  Let there be no mistake: There are three bills being considered by 
the Senate this week. But unless a Senator votes for H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act, he or she will not have voted for this 
meaningful life- giving research.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in affirming that respect--that 
respect for life--by voting for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. 
Choose research and life over incineration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from a number of different 
groups endorsing H.R. 810. It is patient advocacy groups, health 
organizations, research universities, scientific institutes, religious 
groups, and others. There are 205 groups listed here. I will not go 
through all of them, obviously, but I think it is important that all of 
these groups be laid upon the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 14, 2006.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups, 
     health organizations, research universities, scientific 
     societies, religious groups and other interested institutions 
     and associations, representing millions of patients, 
     scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you 
     with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem 
     Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of 
     H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.
       Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810 
     will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is 
     the bill which holds promise for expanding medical 
     breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative 
     Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and 
     the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT 
     substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810.
       H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote 
     in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support 
     of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial 
     progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810 
     immediately.
           Sincerely,
         Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis; 
           Affymetrix, Inc.; Alliance for Aging Research; Alliance 
           for Stem Cell Research; Alpha-1 Foundation; ALS 
           Association; Ambulatory Pediatric Association; American 
           Academy of Neurology; American Academy of Pediatrics; 
           American Association for Cancer Research; American 
           Association for Dental Research; American Association 
           for the Advancement of Science; American Association of 
           Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological 
           Surgeons; American Autoimmune Related Disease 
           Association; American Brain Coalition; American College 
           of Neuropsychopharmacology; American College of 
           Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Council on 
           Education; American Council on Science and Health; 
           American Dental Education Association.
         American Diabetes Association; American 
           Gastroenterological Association; American Medical 
           Association; American Medical Women's Association; 
           American Pain Foundation; American Parkinson's Disease 
           Association (Arizona Chapter); American Parkinson's 
           Disease Association; American Pediatric Society; 
           American Physiological Society; American Society of 
           Clinical Oncology; American Society for Biochemistry 
           and Molecular Biology; American Society for Cell 
           Biology; American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and 
           Therapeutics; American Society for Microbiology; 
           American Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair; 
           American Society for Reproductive Medicine; American 
           Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists; American 
           Society of Hematology; American Surgical Association; 
           American Surgical Association Foundation.
         American Thyroid Association; A O North America; 
           Association for Prevention Teaching and Research; 
           Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine; 
           Association of Academic Departments of Otolaryngology; 
           Association of Academic Physiatrists;

[[Page S7580]]

           Association of American Medical Colleges; Association 
           of American Universities; Association of Anatomy, Cell 
           Biology and Neurobiology Chairs; Association of 
           Independent Research Institutes; Association of Medical 
           School Microbiology and Immunology Chairs; Association 
           of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs; 
           Association of Medical School Pharmacology Chairs; 
           Association of Professors of Medicine; Association of 
           Reproductive Health Professionals; Association of 
           Specialty Professors; Association of University 
     Anesthesiologists; Axion Research Foundation; 
     Biotechnology Industry Organization; B'nai B'rith 
     International.
         Broadened Horizons, LLC; The Burnham Institute; 
           California Institute of Technology; California 
           Institute for Regenerative Medicine; Californians for 
           Cures; Campaign for Medical Research; Cancer Research 
           and Prevention Foundation; C3: Colorectal Cancer 
           Coalition; Cedars-Sinai Health System; Central 
           Conference of American Rabbis; Childrens Hospital 
           Boston; Children's Tumor Foundation; Children's 
           Neurobiological Solutions Foundation; Christopher Reeve 
           Foundation; The CJD Foundation; Columbia University 
           Medical Center; Cornell University; CuresNow; Cure 
           Paralysis Now; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.
         Duke University Medical Center; Elizabeth Glaser 
           Pediatric AIDS Foundation; Emory University; The 
           Endocrine Society; The FAIR Foundation; FasterCures; FD 
           Hope Foundation; Federation of American Societies for 
           Experimental Biology (FASEB); Fertile Hope; Fox Chase 
           Cancer Center; Friends of Cancer Research; Genetics 
           Policy Institute; The Gerontological Society of 
           America; Hadassah; Harvard University; Hereditary 
           Disease Foundation; Huntington's Disease Society of 
           America; Institute for African American Health, Inc.; 
           International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery 
           (IFADD); International Longevity Center--USA.
         International Society for Stem Cell Research; Iraq 
           Veterans for Cures; Jeffrey Modell Foundation; Johns 
           Hopkins; Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy; 
           Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Lance Armstrong 
           Foundation; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; Lung Cancer 
           Alliance; Lupus Research Institute; Malecare Prostate 
           Cancer Support; Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource 
           Center; Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; Memorial 
           Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; The Michael J. Fox 
           Foundation for Parkinson's Research; Mount Sinai School 
           of Medicine; National Alliance for Eye and Vision 
           Research; National Alliance on Mental Illness; National 
           Association for Biomedical Research; National Caucus of 
           Basic Biomedical Science Chairs.
         National Coalition for Cancer Research; National 
           Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; National Coalition 
           for Women with Heart Disease; National Council of 
           Jewish Women; National Council on Spinal Cord Injury; 
           National Health Council; National Hemophilia 
           Foundation; National Medical Association; National 
           Partnership for Women and Families; National Prostate 
           Cancer Coalition; National Spinal Cord Injury 
           Association; National Venture Capital Association; New 
           Jersey Association for Biomedical Research; New York 
           Stem Cell Foundation; New York University School of 
     Medicine; North American Brain Tumor Coalition; Northwest 
     Association for Biomedical Research; Northwestern 
     University; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Parkinson's 
     Action Network.
         The Parkinson Alliance and Unity Walk; Parkinson's 
           Disease Foundation; Pittsburgh Development Center; 
           Project A.L.S.; Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum International 
           Quest for the Cure; Research!America; Resolve: The 
           National Infertility Association; RetireSafe; Rett 
           Syndrome Research Foundation; Rice University Robert 
           Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins 
           Rutgers University; Secular Coalition for America; 
           Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of 
           Gynecologic Oncologists; Society of Reproductive 
           Surgeons; Society of University Otolaryngologists; 
           Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Society 
           for Education in Anesthesia.
         Society for Male Reproduction and Urology; Society for 
           Neuroscience; Society for Pediatric Research; Society 
           for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; Society 
           for Women's Health Research; Stanford University; Stem 
           Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation; 
           Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Stony Brook 
           University, State University of New York; Student 
           Society for Stem Cell Research; Take Charge! Cure 
           Parkinson's, Inc.; Texans for Advancement of Medical 
           Research; Texas Medical Center; The Forsyth Institute; 
           Tourette Syndrome Association; Travis Roy Foundation; 
           Tulane University; Union for Reformed Judaism; 
           Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
         University of California, Berkeley; University of 
           California, Davis; University of California, Irvine; 
           University of California, Los Angeles; University of 
           California, San Diego; University of California, San 
           Francisco; University of California, Santa Cruz; 
           University of California System; University of Chicago; 
           University of Illinois; University of Iowa; University 
           of Michigan; University of Minnesota; University of 
           North Carolina at Chapel Hill; University of North 
           Dakota; University of Oregon; University of 
           Pennsylvania School of Medicine; University of 
           Rochester Medical Center; University of Southern 
           California; University of Washington.
         University of Wisconsin-Madison; Vanderbilt University 
           and Medical Center; Washington University in St. Louis, 
           WE MOVE, WiCell Research Institution, Wisconsin Alumni 
           Research Foundation; Wisconsin Association for 
           Biomedical Research and Education; Woodruff Health 
           Sciences Center at Emory University; Yale University.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from the American Society 
for Cell Biology. The letter was sent to Senator Hatch, dated July 17. 
It says:

       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 staunch supporters of biomedical 
     research and particularly research with hESCs, we 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 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 coverting 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 lines generated 
     outside the United States or generated in this country with 
     private funding.

  I note there are 27 leading scientists on this letter, 17 of them 
having received the Nobel Prize for medicine in one form or another.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The American Society for


                                                 Cell Biology,

                                      Bethesda, MD, July 17, 2006.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: 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 staunch supporters of 
     biomedical research and particularly research with hESCs, we 
     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 5 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 lines generated 
     outside the United States or generated in this country with 
     private funding.
       Also, S. 2754, the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell 
     Therapies Enhancement Act,'' sponsored by Senators Specter 
     and Santorum, seems to us, superfluous. Ostensibly, it is 
     intended to authorize research ``to derive human pluripotent 
     stem cell lines using techniques that do not harm embryos.'' 
     However, at present, such research is currently permissible 
     and, therefore, does not require congressional legislation; 
     indeed, the National Institutes of Health may currently be 
     funding such efforts.
       Moreover, all the alternative procedures advanced in the 
     report by the President's Council on Bioethics and other 
     alternative methods that have been suggested encounter 
     equally vexing ethical concerns. Hence, S. 2754 is unneeded 
     and if passed would deflect from the current urgent need for 
     generating new stem cell lines from excess IVF-derived 
     blastocysts.
           Sincerely,
       Peter Agre, M.D., Vice Chancellor for Science and 
     Technology, James B. Duke Professor of Cell Biology, Duke 
     University School of Medicine, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 
     2003.
       Bruce Alberts, Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 
     University of California, San Francisco, President Emeritus, 
     National Academy of Sciences.
       Mary C. Beckerle, Ph.D., Ralph E. and Willia T. Main 
     Presidential Professor, University of Utah, President, 
     American Society for Cell Biology.
       David Baltimore, President, California Institute of 
     Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1975.

[[Page S7581]]

       Paul Berg, Cahill Professor of Biochemistry, Emeritus, 
     Stanford University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1980.
       J. Michael Bishop, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 
     1989.
       Helen M. Blau, Ph.D., Donald E. and Delia B. Baxter 
     Professor, Director, Baxter Laboratory in Genetic 
     Pharmacology, Stanford University School of Medicine.
       Michael S. Brown, M.D., Nobe1 Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 1985.
       Linda Buck, Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 
     Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research 
     Center, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2004.
       Johann Deisenhofer, Regental Professor, Investigator, 
     Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The University of Texas 
     Southwestern Medical Center, Nobe1 Prize in Chemistry, 1988.
       Joseph L. Goldstein, M.D., Regental Professor of Molecular 
     Genetics and Internal Medicine, University of Texas 
     Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Nobel Prize in 
     Physiology or Medicine, 1985.
       Larry Goldstein, Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical 
     Institute, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 
     University of California, San Diego School of Medicine.
       Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D., Dallas, Texas, Nobel Prize 
     in Physiology or Medicine, 1994.
       Paul Greengard, Professor, The Rockefeller University, 
     Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2000.
       Lee Hartwell, Ph.D., President and Director, Fred 
     Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Nobe1 Prize in Physiology 
     or Medicine, 2001.
       Dudley Herschbach, Baird Research Professor of Science, 
     Harvard University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986.
       H. Robert Horvitz, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts 
     Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 2002.
       Douglas Koshland, Carnegie Institution, Investigator, 
     Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
       Paul C. Lauterbur, Center for Advanced Study Professor of 
     Chemistry and Distinguished Professor of Medical Information 
     Sciences, University of Illinois, Nobel Prize for Physiology 
     or Medicine, 2003.
       Sean J. Morrison, Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical 
     Institute, Director, Center for Stem Cell Biology, University 
     of Michigan.
       Eric N. Olson, Department of Molecular Biology, University 
     of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
       Thomas D. Pollard, M.D., Sterling Professor and Chair, 
     Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale 
     University.
       Randy Schekman, HHMI Investigator, Dept. of Molecular and 
     Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
       Phillip A. Sharp, Institute Professor and Center for Cancer 
     Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize 
     in Physiology or Medicine, 1993.
       Maxine F. Singer, A.B., Ph.D., D.Sc., President Emerita, 
     Carnegie Institution of Washington.
       Harold Varmus, M.D., President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering 
     Cancer Center, Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Public 
     Policy, Former Director, National Institutes of Health, Nobel 
     Laureate in Medicine or Physiology, 1989.
       Eric Wieschaus, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton 
     University, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1995.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. Is the Senator aware of the research that has been done 
on juvenile diabetes thus far in terms of embryonic stem cell research 
and adult stem cell research?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am not intimately knowledgeable of all of the nuances 
in research that is being done. We had hearings, and we have the 
information in our hearing record on a lot of that. Standing here now, 
I don't know all of that.
  Mr. COBURN. Is the Senator aware that the only successful treatments 
for juvenile diabetes to come from stem cells have come from adult stem 
cells, and in fact that the embryonic stem cells have one-fiftieth the 
amount of insulin, were not effective, and ended after about 80 days 
after transplantation? Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator repeat that? I was reading something.
  Mr. COBURN. Is the Senator aware that of the human studies which have 
thus far been done on juvenile diabetes in fact the successful one was 
adult stem cells and the unsuccessful one was embryonic stem cell? Is 
the Senator aware of that fact?
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me respond this way: First, I note that the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation, which represents families all over 
America who are affected with juvenile diabetes, is in support of H.R. 
810. I want that on the record. In fact, they have been one of the 
strongest supporters.
  Second, the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic cells is 
already known to reverse the most damaging symptoms of type 1 diabetes. 
The problem with that is the limited number of organ donors out there 
who donate pancreases. That seems to be the problem.
  Could I ask the Senator, are there enough pancreas donors out there 
to take care of everyone with juvenile diabetes?
  Mr. COBURN. It is not required. Actually, today the science shows 
that ductal cells from the patient's own pancreas can be induced to 
become stem cells that then produce insulin-producing cells. There is 
no transplantation needed. In fact, these ductal cells have been proven 
and demonstrated to produce the same eyelet cells that the patient did 
initially when they were grown as an embryo.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have heard this argument before. I am not a scientist. 
I don't know all of the nuances, I would be the first to admit. I do 
know, however, that every time that has come up, the Juvenile Diabetes 
Research Association disagrees that this is a viable pathway toward 
curing all of those with juvenile diabetes.
  Mr. COBURN. They cannot disagree. It has only been done for 3 months, 
and it is successful. There have been no successful embryonic cells 
taken from the duct of the pancreas of children with diabetes, 
converted into cells, and have in fact cured their diabetes.
  Mr. HARKIN. How many people have been cured of juvenile diabetes with 
this?
  Mr. COBURN. For 3 months is all we know. I don't know the numbers. I 
think it is eight or nine. This protocol is being done in Europe at the 
present time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is it not being done in the United States?
  Mr. COBURN. No, it is not being done in the United States.
  Mr. HARKIN. Have any of these findings been published?
  Mr. COBURN. They have been published in peer-reviewed articles. I 
would be happy to submit them for the Record.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would appreciate that.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask those 
questions.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. There is a good colloquy.
  I would further ask the Senator from Oklahoma--this has been done for 
3 months--do we have any data to show that this does cure juvenile 
diabetes? Does it abate it somewhat? I don't know what the outcomes 
have been for these eight or nine people.
  Mr. COBURN. Here is the key point that needs to be made in this 
debate: If you use your own cells, you will not have tumors, you will 
not have teratomas, and you will not have rejection. If you use 
embryonic stem cells, you will have tumors, you will have teratomas, 
and you will have rejection.

  That is what we know. That is why I, as a scientist, have not raised 
the life issue here once, but I am adamantly pro-life. I believe the 
science is so far ahead of this debate. When everyone knows what is 
really going on in terms of research, they are going to want the 
dollars put into the stem cells, both in terms of dedifferentiation--we 
know we can differentiate cells backward to make them pluripotent--and 
also to isolate cells from our own human body to use back on us. That 
is an important part of the debate.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  I again say that all the Nobel scientists, all of the leading 
scientists in America simply do not agree with the Senator from 
Oklahoma. These are the people involved in cell biology and that kind 
of research.
  The Senator says embryonic stem cells will produce tumors. We do not 
know that is true. We do not have any real long-term data to know 
anything about how embryonic stem cells will work later on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the previous order, the majority is recognized for the next 30 
minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. I inquire of the Chair, under the previous order, if the 
majority is not here, who assumes control of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is reserved for the majority to be 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Frist 
has this time. He has advised me I can use the time until he arrives.

[[Page S7582]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I will spend a few minutes. This is a very emotional 
debate for every family in this country. Every family in this country 
has someone who, in fact, has a disease that will be impacted in the 
future by research that is ongoing in terms of stem cell research.
  I make a couple of points. We have heard today a couple of very 
strong statements that are highly inaccurate.
  One is that the only way you will cure this is with embryonic stem 
cells. No one knows that. As a matter of fact, most of the cures in 
science have come not by what we thought was going to happen but by 
what happened that surprised us. That is not true.
  No. 2, there is no ban at the present time on research in this 
country on embryonic stem cells. What there is a ban on is using 
additional Federal funds to create additional stem cells, but 
additional stem cells can be created outside of the Government.
  The Senator from South Dakota created a false choice. The false 
choice is not incineration. There are 400,000 embryos that are frozen 
in this country today; 93 percent of those the parents want to save for 
themselves. So that leaves us a smaller portion. If you look at the 
numbers, when you thaw embryos, you have a 50-percent wastage, you lose 
50 percent of them. The false choice Senator Johnson put forward was 
this: they either get burned up or they get used for embryonic stem 
cell research. This last week, the 108th baby was born through this 
Operation Snowflake--which is adopted embryos--so that is not the only 
choice.
  The other thing is, if everyone will recognize, in the fertility 
community in this country, that in Europe, they do not have a problem 
with excess embryos. We overdo it in this country in terms of creating 
embryos for fertility clinics. We create about four times as many 
obstetrician and fertility specialists as the rest of the world. The 
choice is not incinerate or use for embryonic stem cell research.
  The majority leader has arrived. I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for the 
superb comments thus far over the last 30 minutes but, indeed, since we 
started at 12:30 today.
  As I opened this morning, I made it clear that this debate would be 
the first of the 21st-century dilemmas that involve ethical 
considerations and considerations around science, probably the first of 
many. I say the first; obviously, we have dealt with some other ethical 
issues in medicine over the last 5 years, but much of the discussion 
will focus around science and ethics and that nexus, that crossing of 
those two, and the interplay.
  It is important that we debate this and that all concerns are put on 
the table, ultimately. These three bills give that opportunity.
  Let me add that this probably will be the first of many debates like 
this in the Senate. I know there are a lot of my colleagues who asked: 
Why are we bringing this up now? Why are we talking about these tough 
issues which do force us to address issues about the distinctions of 
life, the early days of life and also the hope and the promise of 
science as it goes forward and that interplay? This Senate will have to 
get used to it.
  This Senate will have to focus on those issues as we move forward 
because science, where it used to be growing at a small clip, is now 
growing at leaps and bounds, not exponentially but close to 
exponentially, and will continue to do so.
  Less than a century ago, we did not have antibiotics, we did not have 
vaccines. We had measles, mumps, smallpox, polio--all diseases that 
ravaged our populations, in this country and around the world. Because 
of science, because of public health initiatives, they have essentially 
been eradicated. We will see forward momentum. That momentum will be 
accelerated in biomedical research.
  I mentioned earlier today in opening the debate that when people look 
back at the 21st century, I would say maybe the next decade is the 
decade of the cells. Much of our discussion is about developmental 
biology. That has built upon the foundation of the shoulders of new 
knowledge regarding molecular and cellular development, coupled with 
the new understanding that is a product of a sequencing of the human 
genome from a decade of the last century.

  What is important is that the rules, regulations, guidelines, and the 
framework must be defined and in large part must be defined by this 
Senate. That is our responsibility as Senators, as representatives of 
the American people, their attitude, their thought, their philosophies. 
They are our constituents.
  A second point I made when I first started talking about stem cell 
research 5 years ago is we will have to continually assess and then 
reassess in light of advancing science certain rules, guidelines, and 
regulations we put in place. In part, that is why we are here today.
  We have three bills before the Senate. My colleagues have talked 
about those three bills: the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, the 
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, and the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Each addresses a different facet of 
the issues raised by advancing research, advancing developmental 
biology, advancing stem cell research. Each one of them demands 
thoughtful consideration and deliberation which will play out over the 
course of today and tomorrow.
  I spent my entire professional career as a transplant surgeon, a 
professional who specializes in moving living tissue from one person to 
another person--say an organ or a heart. Take out a heart, put in a 
heart. Take out a lung, put in a lung. Thus, my interest before coming 
to this Senate focused on many of the same issues that come before the 
Senate today: advancing science, how do we define ``brain death,'' 
something we did in the 1960s, to make transplantation of the human 
heart possible.
  Thus, it was a little over 5 years ago--on July 18, 2001--that I laid 
out a comprehensive proposal, a framework at that time, which I 
believed would both promote stem cell research but also provide an 
ethical framework through which such research could be conducted. That 
was 2001, about 2\1/2\ years after embryonic stem cells had just been 
discovered by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, or the 
human embryonic stem cells.
  At that time, 5 years ago, I laid out 10 specific interdependent 
principles. The principles dealt with all types of stem cell research--
the adult stem cells, the germ stem cells, embryonic stem cells. They 
have helped to guide my assessment of stem cell research over the last 
5 years, and they have provided a framework I have used and 
consistently gone back and adopted as I looked at various pieces of 
legislation on stem cells before this Senate. I will read those 10 
principles because of their inclusiveness and their interdependence:
  No. 1, ban embryo creation for research.
  No. 2, continue funding the ban on the derivation.
  No. 3, ban human cloning.
  No. 4, increase adult stem cell research.
  No. 5, provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from 
blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded.
  No. 6, require a rigorous informed-consent process.
  No. 7, limit the number of stem cell lines.
  No. 8, establish a strong public research oversight system.
  No. 9, require ongoing independent scientific and ethical review.
  No. 10, strengthen and harmonize fetal tissue research restrictions.
  The principles are meant to stand the test of time even when applied 
to a field as rapidly changing as stem cell research.
  Yes, I do believe both embryonic and adult stem cell research should 
be Federally funded but should only be done so within a carefully 
regulated, fully transparent, fully accountable framework, ensuring the 
highest level of respect for that moral significance of the human 
embryo. But we should fund research when it comes to embryonic stem 
cell research only if those embryos, only if those stem cell lines were 
derived from blastocysts that, with 100 percent certainty, are not 
going to be frozen forever, are not going to be adopted but with 100 
percent certainty and with appropriate consent would be discarded, 
would be thrown away.

[[Page S7583]]

  Today, we do debate science, developmental biology, and we debate 
ethics. We are called upon to confront the distinctions around life's 
early goings when we do so. As my colleagues know, I am pro-life. I do 
believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment, at 
conception, that the organism is complete--immature, yes, but complete. 
It is genetically distinct, it is biologically human, living. 
Development is a gradual process, it is a continual process. All of us 
in this Senate were at one time an embryo. It represents human life at 
its earliest stage of development. It is a continuum, coming all the 
way through. That is the science. That is not religion. That is not 
faith. That is the science. Thus, I believe strongly that an embryo 
does have moral significance. It needs to be treated with the utmost 
dignity and respect.
  We have three bills before the Senate. The Fetus Farming Prohibition 
Act of 2006, the implantation and gestation of the human embryo into 
either a human or an animal for the purpose of aborting for research--
that prohibition is what the discussion is about. Clearly, that would 
fall far short of ``utmost dignity and respect.''
  The bill before the Senate ensures this practice is never employed in 
human research in the United States. That purposeful development of a 
human embryo, the manufacturing of human life for experimentation and 
its ultimate destruction is morally reprehensible. It offends the 
conscience, degrades the value of human life, and, of course, is not 
medically necessary. Yet it is a practice that some in the field of 
developmental biology just might be inclined to pursue if those 
guidelines, if those regulations, are not out there. Why? To look at 
the later stages beyond the embryo in terms of development and how 
cells function, or it might be, as we have heard argued before, that 
the cells have a different nature after the embryo stage but before 
delivery of the fetus itself and have more stability or more 
differentiation. This particular legislation preempts, it stops that 
possibility.
  Not only would this be a flagrant lack of respect for nascent human 
life, but it would also create powerful incentives for women to undergo 
an intense regimen of superovulation drugs and surgery with potentially 
devastating side effects. It could exploit women, the most likely 
targets of egg harvesting or fetal farming. Under no circumstances 
could human fetus farming be labeled ``medical advancement.'' It is the 
exact opposite, an unconscionable regression of the mores that define 
our culture, a culture that upholds respect for life and health.
  As a transplant surgeon, I have had that opportunity to see firsthand 
how new medical discoveries and technologies can save lives and make 
life more fulfilling for others. In fact, my entire professional career 
was spent on these newer therapies, these newer technologies, in order 
to give others a better life. But at the same time, whether it is in 
the laboratory, where I spent a lot of time, or at the bedside, I have 
been able to also witness how fear can also delay scientific advances 
that are out there before us.
  So before us today is that challenge to bridge this divide. And we 
should reject an outright fear of all technological advance. We have to 
work together to allow science to advance and to promote those medical 
advances, whether it is in developmental biology or the human genome 
project, in order to give a healthier life or more life to others. But 
we have to do so. That is why we bring these bills to the floor, within 
an ethical and moral framework, in this pursuit.
  Even while we reject a fear of scientific and technological 
advancement, we still have to--we must; it is our responsibility--live 
within limits. Limits do not hamper human advances but, rather, allow 
us to preserve them and to promote them. That is why we can reject this 
practice of fetus farming while still embracing the hope that is 
offered by stem cell research. Senators Brownback and Santorum worked 
hard to bring this important legislation to the floor, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting it.
  The second bill, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies 
Enhancement Act, put forth by Senators Santorum and Specter, is a very 
important bill, the purpose of which is to step back from and to remove 
the ethical considerations that surround the unique potential that 
these pluripotent stem cells have.
  Five years ago, when I came to the floor in 2001, I said the 
following:

       We should not let the potential of this research drive the 
     moral considerations themselves. . . . We do not know what 
     the next great discovery is going to be 6 months from now. . 
     . . So the oversight process has to be responsive, has to be 
     ongoing. It has to recognize that science moves very quickly.

  That is why we are here. We recognize that science cannot be 
practiced in a vacuum. We need to promote and accelerate these medical 
advances. But we also need to ensure that research practices are 
channeled along lines that respect human life and dignity.
  What seemed impossible even 5 years ago now seems possible. Exciting 
techniques are beginning to emerge that just may make it unnecessary to 
have to destroy that embryo, to disaggregate or dismember that embryo, 
in order to obtain cells that have the pluripotent properties that are 
either exactly like or very similar to the embryonic stem cells. And we 
have talked about it a little bit earlier today, and in the past, as to 
the unique property these embryonic stem cells have, which is this 
pluripotentiality, which has two concepts to it: No. 1 is that they can 
become any tissue--theoretically, they can become any tissue--and that 
is in the differentiation; and, secondly, this overall process of self-
renewal, that they can renew and replicate themselves again and again 
and again.
  An adult stem cell might be reprogrammable. You might be able to 
directly reprogram that cell to an earlier stage to make it more 
pliable, to take it back to an earlier or closer to an embryonic phase. 
Adult stem cells can be what we call multipotential, and that means 
they can differentiate, and you can back them down to differentiate 
into certain tissues. The embryonic stem cell is pluripotential, and 
the range of tissues it can differentiate to are much greater.
  But this reprogramming, coming back earlier to the adult stem cell, 
earlier and earlier along its chronological development, gives the 
opportunity to send that adult stem cell into various regions; thus, 
this direct reprogramming concept opens up great potential. To me, and 
I would hope to every Member of this body, this type of research--
research that stops short of having to destroy an embryo--to obtain 
pluripotent cells through alternative ways should be supported, and I 
hope can be supported, by everybody in this body.
  In May of last year, 2005, the President's Council on Bioethics 
issued a report bringing these alternative sources attention. At that 
time, I asked and worked with several of my colleagues to put together 
a piece of legislation for which we could say Federal funding will go 
in that direction to derive these alternative means of developing these 
pluripotential cells. With more Federal support, and with more 
emphasis, these newer methods may pay off hugely in terms of scientific 
advantage and clinical advantage.
  They may be the way to bridge these moral and ethical differences 
among people who hold wildly different and broadly different views, 
which we will actually hear on the floor over the course of today and 
tomorrow on stem cell research. Why? Because they avoid any destruction 
of the human embryo. The alternative methods of potentially deriving 
pluripotent cells, that were spelled out in the Council on Bioethics 
report of May of last year, include: extraction from embryos that are 
no longer living; a second proposal was blastomere extraction, which 
involves a nonlethal and nonharmful extraction of the blastomeres from 
embryos--and, indeed, several researchers over the course of the last 
year, since that proposal was initially made, have reported success in 
that regard--thirdly, extraction from artificially created organisms 
that are not embryos, but embryolike--this was initially proposed by 
Bill Hurlbut at Stanford and subsequently demonstrated by Dr. Rudolf 
Jaenisch and others at MIT--fourthly, the direct reprogramming of adult 
or somatic cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic 
cell lines.

  We are already driving and promoting ethical alternatives such as

[[Page S7584]]

adult stem cell research and therapies and cord cell research, both of 
which have been important to date in the treatment, as well as other 
types of therapy.
  Today, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell 
research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. At 
the Multiorgan Transplant Center that I established and directed at 
Vanderbilt, we did bone marrow transplants, which are commonly done for 
treatment of many types of cancers now; at that point, for many types 
of blood disease. We have had bone marrow transplants done in this 
country for, oh, about 40 years. The first bone marrow transplant was 
done in 1968.
  Stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in treating 
the myeloproliferative disorders, the leukemias, congenital immune 
system disorders.
  Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to become natural 
cells, which could lead to treatments for more heart disease and 
Parkinson's disease. The first cord blood transplant was done about 20 
years ago in 1988.
  So every day we unlock more of the mysteries of human life, more ways 
to promote and enhance our health. This compels the profound questions 
we address, moral questions with which we understandably struggle. 
Transplantation itself posed a question similar to those we face with 
stem cell research, a little bit different in that organs were 
transplanted principally, when I got started, at the end stage of life. 
People without a heart would be dying 4 to 6 months later. We had to 
define, as I mentioned earlier, what is brain death. We had ethical 
considerations about how to allocate a very few number of organs to the 
many people who waited, which literally meant some people would die 
waiting for that scarce organ--all ethical considerations.
  If we can devise a moral and ethical framework, then it is my belief 
we will have the chance to save many lives and make many countless 
other lives more fulfilling. That is why it is imperative we get our 
stem cell policy right scientifically, morally, and ethically.
  A lot of diseases have been mentioned on the floor, and I guess over 
the next 2 days I will have the opportunity to come back and talk about 
some of those particular diseases. Adult stem cells, we know, are so 
powerful. They have effectively treated so many diseases today. I 
mentioned bone marrow transplantation. But the list will be coming to 
the floor, and they have come to the floor, about the number of 
therapies with bone marrow transplantation and other adult stem cells. 
Embryonic stem cells, however, do have this unique capacity of self-
replication, self-renewal over time, and greater potential to 
differentiate into other types of tissues. Unlike other stem cells, 
these embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, where adult stem cells tend 
to be multipotent. That means the embryonic stem cells have the 
capacity to become a greater range of types of tissues. They are 
capable of renewing themselves and replicating themselves over and over 
again indefinitely.
  A number of people have brought up what the current administration 
policy is. As we all know, on August 9, 2001, President Bush laid out 
his principles and put in place a policy, which I supported, that for 
the first time allowed Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research. The President's policy was consistent with my initial 
principles--my seventh principle: to limit the number of stem cell 
lines. In order to accomplish that limiting the number of lines, the 
President used a date: August 9, 2001.
  The President's policy also says: Let's support stem cell lines that 
have been derived from blastocysts that were going to be thrown away or 
discarded. His policy is the same in that regard. The cell lines we 
federally support today all came from blastocysts that were left over 
by in vitro fertilization that were going to be discarded. The 
President basically said it was OK to do that before August 9, but 
after August 9 that will not be allowed anymore, and we will only fund 
those cell lines.
  I thought it was very important that Congress continue oversight. 
Remember, 5 years ago or 6 years ago, I said we are going to be coming 
back to this again and again and again. I think that oversight 
absolutely is critical.
  This third bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which is the 
House-passed bill, the Specter-Hatch, the Castle-DeGette bill, is the 
bill most people will be spending most of their time on over the next 
day and a half.
  Over the last 5 years--while it was widely believed when the 
President put forth his policy that there would be 78 embryonic stem 
cell lines available for Federal funding--we have learned, through 
science, that has not been the case. In fact, of the initial 
anticipated 78 lines, there are, right now, about 22 lines that are 
eligible. There is some concern that these lines are becoming less and 
less stable and less replicative than initially thought.
  While we know that this embryonic stem cell research is at a very 
early stage--remember, these embryonic stem cells were discovered, 
first, just in 1998; unlike adult stem cells, where we have 40 years of 
research history--we do know that the embryonic stem cell research is 
moving fast and moving quickly.
  The question is: Are there a sufficient number of cell lines to keep 
that research going? I believe right now that the current policy unduly 
restricts the number of cell lines. As I have said, I am going to be 
supporting and voting for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act. I do not think it is an ideal piece of legislation. It has a few 
essential shortcomings as written. It restricts funding to blastocysts 
left over after IVF that would otherwise be discarded. And that is 
consistent with my fifth principle. But the shortcomings do have to be 
addressed somewhere.
  First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism. 
Second, the bill does not prohibit financial or other incentives 
between scientists and fertility clinics. Third, the bill does not 
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.
  And were circumstances different and had the House not acted so 
quickly and sent the bill over--I think we should have had the 
opportunity to have a thorough examination and rewrite of that bill. 
However, even with those reservations, I do support the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act. As I said, it is completely consistent with 
my principles from 5 years ago.
  Many of my colleagues, such as I, have spent countless hours 
grappling with this issue--the future of stem cell research. How do we 
balance pro-life positions with the potential for new life and health 
offered by stem cell research? There is, perhaps, an inclination to 
avoid such difficult issues, to ignore them and let others debate. But 
I believe and feel strongly that we must participate in defining 
research surrounding the culture of life.
  If we don't do that, it will define us. Finally, I thank all of my 
colleagues. I know we will have a good debate over the next day. We 
will have those votes at 2:45 tomorrow. I hope those votes will show 
there are areas of consensus among us and that where differences exist 
we can respectfully articulate and vote our conscience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority is in 
control of time for the next 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that one of the cosponsors of the 
bill, one of the great leaders in the Senate on stem cell research, has 
arrived on the floor to speak. I know the Chair will be recognizing her 
shortly.
  I wanted, again, to just take a moment to sort of repeat for emphasis 
sake what has been said before. I think the distinguished majority 
leader referred to that also. It is just that here we have an instance 
where so many leading scientists around, U.S. Nobel Prize winners, and 
all the disease groups--I submitted a compendium of about 205, and I 
think that may soar to 500 or 600 by the end of the day--are supporting 
H.R. 810.
  Lest one thinks that, A, either they have all been hoodwinked into 
thinking this bill is something it is not or, B, that these are 
malevolent people who want to just destroy embryos without any thought 
about the morality or the ethics of it, they are simply mistaken. First 
of all, none of these people have been hoodwinked, and most of these 
scientists are as ethical

[[Page S7585]]

and moral a people as you could find anywhere. They are saying let's 
use these blastocysts, embryos, or however you want to define them to 
enhance life, cure disease and illness, rather than having them be 
discarded, and to do it in a very ethical manner. That is what this 
bill provides.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act. Passage of this legislation will finally 
allow scientists to fully pursue the promise of stem cell research. It 
will offer hope to millions of our people. Mr. President, we have 
waited a long time for this day. Earlier, Senator Harkin spoke to the 
fact that it was in 1998 when he and Senator Specter introduced the 
first bill dealing with stem cell research. I recall that year I 
introduced one of the first bills dealing with ethical standards 
surrounding stem cell research. So it has been 8 years.
  Now, finally, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved 
bipartisan legislation. In the intervening time, we have all heard from 
patients, survivors, and scientists who are desperate to pursue this 
research that one day could lead to treatments and cures for diabetes, 
cancer and, yes, even spinal cord injury. Forty Nobel laureates have 
weighed in with their support, as did former First Lady Nancy Reagan.
  While we were waiting, we lost Christopher and Dana Reeve, tireless 
advocates of stem cell research, and an inspiration for all of us. 
Millions more American families experienced firsthand the devastation 
wrought by catastrophic illnesses.
  My colleagues and I, Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, Hatch, and 
Smith, worked tirelessly to bring this to a vote. We pushed privately, 
we wrote letters, we gave speeches, and we held press conferences to 
highlight the plight of patients who are living with illnesses day in 
and day out.
  Finally, after all of this pleading and delay, the Senate is acting.
  I thank my colleagues for their longstanding leadership on this 
issue, and I am also very grateful to the majority leader, Senator 
Frist, for his support for stem cell research and his work with his 
caucus to reach this agreement that has made this debate possible.
  For all of the controversy that it is generating, the Castle-DeGette 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is remarkably simple. It reverses 
the failed policy announced by President Bush in 2001 when he 
restricted Federal funding to stem cell lines already in existence.

  At the time, the President himself recognized the great promise of 
stem cell research. He sought to find middle ground, announcing a 
policy that provided Federal funding for more than 60 preexisting 
genetically diverse stem cell lines. This was morally acceptable, he 
said, because the life-or-death decision for these stem cell lines had 
already been made.
  Unfortunately, the policy did not work out as promised. These 
available lines are all contaminated with mouse feeder cells and, 
therefore, are useless for human research purposes. They don't have the 
diverse genetic makeup that may be necessary to find cures to benefit 
all Americans. Researchers cannot use them to examine rare and deadly 
genetic diseases.
  Castle-DeGette states that embryos to be discarded from in vitro 
fertilization clinics may be used in federally funded stem cell 
research no matter when they were created.
  While opponents have suggested that this bill will lead us down a 
slippery slope, the parameters created by the bill are actually 
numerous and they are very strict:
  The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment.
  It must be clear that the embryos will be discarded.
  The people donating the embryos must provide written consent.
  These donors may not be compensated for their donation.
  These restrictions mean that over 400,000 embryos could become 
available, all while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of 
ethical standards.
  Let us be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed 
whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact that 
these embryos have no future.
  We should not confuse the research permitted under this bill with the 
activities described under the two other bills currently before us. I 
am going to support these bills. Yet it is important to realize that 
their passage will do nothing to change the status quo.
  The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act bans activities that occur in 
horror movies, not in our research labs. We should not allow these 
farfetched and frightening techniques, which no respected scientist 
anywhere endorses, to distract from the plight of millions of Americans 
seeking cures from devastating diseases.
  This debate is also not about the myriad research approaches 
envisioned in the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies 
Enhancement Act, as introduced by my colleagues, Senators Specter and 
Santorum. This research can already be funded with Federal dollars. 
Respected scientists are examining a variety of ways to create these 
multipurpose cells and, of course, this work should continue.
  We simply don't know which research approaches will prove fruitful 
and which will fail. Alternative techniques may lead eventually to 
cures for serious afflictions, or they may not. Scientists, not 
Senators, should determine what research to pursue.
  Supporting only the Specter-Santorum alternative is not an 
endorsement of stem cell research. It is an affirmation of a policy 
that is leaving American researchers far behind in one of the most 
important fields of scientific discovery, and I want to spend a moment 
on that.
  Because of President Bush's restrictions, some of our best and 
brightest scientists are leaving the United States to work overseas in 
countries that have embraced the promise of comprehensive stem cell 
research. This brain drain has hit my State particularly hard. Let me 
give you a few examples.
  Roger Peterson, a renowned scientist, left the University of 
California Medical Center in San Francisco in 2001, citing the 
unfriendly research climate in the United States. He is now conducting 
human stem cell research at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. 
He and his UK team are exploring the biology behind pluripotent, or 
multipurpose stem cells, and are looking for ways to use them for 
treatment. He would not have had Federal funding to do this work in the 
United States, so he left.
  Dr. Judith Swain, from the University of California San Diego, will 
leave for Singapore in September, where she will work at Singapore's 
state-funded research institute called Biopolis. Her husband, Dr. 
Edward Holmes, also of the University of California at San Diego, is a 
ranking official in California's stem cell agency. He is also leaving 
for Singapore.
  NIH researchers, Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, turned down offers 
to join Stanford University's stem cell department. They, too, are 
moving to Singapore. Copeland has said that he selected Singapore 
because of its ``unfettered support of human embryonic stem cell 
research.''
  These are but a few examples of the costs of this President's policy.
  Researchers are attracted by the federal funding provided in at least 
10 other nations--Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, United Kingdom, 
South Korea, Singapore, Israel, China, and Australia. These investments 
total hundreds of millions of dollars that are already producing 
tangible progress.
  Sweden funds, with federal funds, 400 researchers today. South Korea 
and China are each funding an additional 300. Australia has pledged $90 
million through 2011. This investment has already paid off, as 
Australian researchers have discovered a way to manipulate stem cells 
into lung cells. This technology could one day be used to treat cystic 
fibrosis.
  Scientists from around the world have come to Singapore's Institute 
of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology. There, they are using stem cells 
to produce artificial kidneys. This could one day free people from the 
burden of kidney dialysis.
  Researchers in other countries now author an increasing proportion of 
stem cell papers than those in the United States.
  Foreign researchers have derived almost three-quarters of the world's 
new

[[Page S7586]]

stem cell lines, moving quickly ahead of our country, the United 
States.
  Other nations have the money, the researchers, the facilities, and 
the new stem cell lines they need to move forward. They are learning 
more about stem cells every day and laying the foundation for 
groundbreaking cures.
  American scientists, on the other hand, cannot obtain Federal funding 
to do this work. These Federal funding restrictions have a real world 
impact on ongoing research.
  American scientists are making great strides with work on mouse stem 
cells. They are showing what could be possible if there is Federal 
funding to extend this work into humans.
  Researchers at Stanford University have recently turned cells derived 
from mouse embryos into one of the building blocks of blood vessels. 
This advance means they may eventually be able to grow entirely new 
blood vessels, offering great promise to patients suffering from heart 
disease. But without Federal funds, it is unlikely they can get the 
stem cell lines to be able to do the human research.
  A research team at Johns Hopkins used cells from mouse embryos to 
regenerate nerves in paralyzed rats. After treatment, many of the rats 
regained enough strength to walk and bear weight on their previously 
paralyzed hind legs.
  Mr. President, do you know what this means? This means it might--just 
might--be possible to do something science said could never be done, 
and that is to regenerate a severed spinal column, to regenerate the 
nerves which scientists always thought never again could be 
regenerated.
  We would never have thought discoveries such as this were possible 
even a few years ago. So think of what it means for every paraplegic or 
quadriplegic to know that there is hope out there, that the first rat 
tests have shown it works?
  The next step is the human stem cell lines, to be able to carry out 
that research on humans, and that is exactly what we are talking about 
today.
  Scientists now must work to translate these promising advances into 
cures for humans. Such a feat will almost certainly require access to 
viable lines of human stem cells, and unless we pass Castle-DeGette and 
unless the President signs Castle-DeGette, these lines will not be 
available in the United States to regenerate a severed spinal column, 
to regenerate blood vessels, or to do anything else.
  Mike Armstrong, an old friend and chairman of the Johns Hopkins board 
of trustees, made this very point in a letter he wrote stating news of 
this advance. Here is what he said:

       Treatments not only for paralysis, but for ALS, for 
     multiple sclerosis, and similar diseases of the brain now 
     seem possible. The exact timeframe is impossible to predict, 
     but it will almost certainly depend on the availability of 
     Federal funding.

  It will depend on the availability of Federal funding, and that is 
what is at stake in this debate. He goes on to say:

       The level of funding that will ultimately be required to 
     advance this field of science to human trials, however, 
     suggests that Federal funding will be necessary. Yet, under 
     current Federal policy, the only stem cell lines eligible for 
     Federal funding were created using mouse feeder cells and 
     could never be used in clinical trials with humans.

  Could never be used in clinical trials for humans.
  I am particularly proud of the commitment demonstrated by California 
scientists and activists in the face of these restrictions. In 2004, 
California voters approved a proposition, proposition 71. That 
proposition created and funded the California Institute of Regenerative 
Medicine. It funded it with $3 billion of taxpayers' dollars over 10 
years, and it supported promising research conducted in my State. This 
work will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human 
reproductive cloning, something we all agree is immoral and unethical.
  This investment, hopefully, once it gets past the court tests, will 
make California a leader in this industry and in finding cures that 
will change the lives of suffering patients.
  Other States are making similar investments. Connecticut, Illinois, 
New Jersey, Maryland, and others are considering after 5 years of delay 
because of the restriction on Federal funding--they are taking steps to 
move this important work forward on a State basis. But--and here is the 
but--a patchwork, State-by-State approach is no way to run science 
policy. States have many other responsibilities, such as funding 
education, building infrastructure, and so on, and we shouldn't expect 
them to solely carry the burden of funding one of the most promising 
fields of science.
  There is a reason we invest so much in the National Institutes of 
Health and the biomedical research they conduct. The NIH can then set 
national standards and ensure that research is not being duplicated and 
to see that it is carried out under ethical standards. This is 
something everyone should want. You should want that Federal oversight 
of NIH over all research funding that is funded with Federal dollars.
  It is also important to remember that this debate is about real 
people whose lives are impacted by illness every single day, day in, 
day out. I have heard from so many Californians who have been 
personally impacted by diseases that could one day be cured with stem 
cell research. I want to tell a few of those stories.
  Leslie Bishop Franco from Oakland, CA, wrote to me to say she 
supports stem cell research because her mother was diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's at the age of 57. Her mother quickly became unable to work 
and then unable to care for herself. Leslie and her sisters and 
brothers cared not only for their own young children but also for their 
mother. This is something many families know all too well.

  Leslie writes that even if stem cell research does not ``lead to a 
cure for Alzheimer's as it has the potential in other diseases like 
Parkinson's and diabetes, it will provide crucial insights into the 
disease and the usefulness of new drugs.''
  Mark Siegel from Los Angeles has suffered from Parkinson's for 8 
years. For over half the time he has been ill, the President's policies 
have slowed stem cell research. Mark was diagnosed when he was 36 years 
old. One of my sons-in-law was just diagnosed, and he is 44 years old.
  What happens is Parkinson's slowly erodes one's motor control. Mark 
Siegel's condition had forced him to change jobs, and he is afraid we 
are losing the race against time to find a cure and save his life.
  Jennifer Heumann from Huntington Beach, CA, has been living with 
juvenile diabetes since she was 2 years old, and she is now 16. She 
says diabetes hasn't stopped her from playing varsity tennis or going 
to high school dances, but she knows her disease can cause serious 
complications. Without a cure, she has a 65-percent chance of dying 
from heart disease or stroke and a 60-percent chance of developing 
nervous system damage.
  Jennifer writes:

       These are the cold, hard facts, but I am not content to 
     admit they are my destiny. I believe that a cure is in sight, 
     and that embryonic stem cell research may be the key to 
     finding this cure. If this is the case, how can we justify 
     passing up this opportunity?

  We all should ask that question. This impressive young woman is hard 
to argue with. She makes a very eloquent point, and until we know what 
kinds of research could lead to cures for these catastrophic diseases, 
we should support scientists and we should push ahead every possible 
lead.
  These patients and family members represent only a few of the tens of 
thousands of Californians I have heard from who support stem cell 
research. As a matter of fact, by the latest poll, 72 percent of 
Americans support stem cell research.
  We don't want to spread false hope. There is still much we don't 
understand about stem cells. Some of the cures may never come to 
fruition, but unless we allow our scientists to continue their work, we 
will never, ever know. How can any of us tell a patient suffering from 
juvenile diabetes, a cancer victim, or a young man with heart disease, 
that the Senate decided not to allow researchers to pursue all the 
scientific leads that may one day offer them a cure? How can we say 
that? How can we say we know better? How can we say because of a small 
proportion of people's beliefs we are going to stop all Federal 
research in the United States of America?
  Last week, Karl Rove declared that the President is emphatic about 
vetoing this legislation. I hope not. The President himself 
acknowledged the great promise of stem cells back in 2001, and with the 
health of millions of Americans at stake, it is my hope that if and 
when this bill tomorrow afternoon passes the Senate and if and when

[[Page S7587]]

it goes to the President of the United States, he will reconsider his 
veto threat. Too many lives depend upon the advances which may well be 
possible.
  Either you are for stem cell research or you are not. It is that 
simple. True support for stem cells means lifting the restrictions from 
hampering some of the most promising research, and only Castle-DeGette, 
only H.R. 810 will do that. No matter what the President decides on 
other legislation we are considering today, rejecting H.R. 810 is a 
rejection of science. It is a rejection of the hopes of millions of 
patients. This vote and the President's reaction to it should not be 
about assuaging a small but vocal minority with views far from the 
mainstream of 72 percent of the American people. Patients and their 
families deserve more than the President's first veto. How would you 
like it if you were President of the United States and the first veto 
of your political career were a veto of the one thing that offers hope 
for millions of Americans suffering from catastrophic disease? The one 
thing out there.
  I want to assure these patients that my colleagues and I will not 
stop fighting for this. We will continue to push in every way possible. 
Patients suffering from these catastrophic illnesses have already 
waited too long. American scientists have already fallen behind their 
international counterparts, and the time has come to finally pass 
Castle-DeGette on a sweeping bipartisan basis, just as the House of 
Representatives did 13 months ago.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next 30 minutes 
will be controlled by the majority.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback has graciously allowed 
me to take 10 minutes of his time. I would like to do that at this 
time.
  First of all, I would like to set the record straight: the United 
States remains the world's leader of published stem cell articles and 
human embryonic stem cell articles. Specifically, it was April 6 of 
this year when that statement was made. From 1998 through the end of 
2005, the United States published 46 percent of all papers published 
worldwide--by far the single largest proportion. The remaining 54 
percent was divided among 17 other countries.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the latest peer review articles that have been brought up to date for 
this year. This is about 15 pages long, and it has multiple entries. 
For every disease that has been mentioned on the Senate floor by those 
supporting the embryonic stem cell research, there are treatments 
ongoing today using adult stem cells.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the other thing I think we ought to make 
sure of--and I just want to go back. The Senator from California claims 
72 percent of Americans favor stem cell research. That is true. That is 
true, if you ask it that way. But if you ask it: Should your tax 
dollars be used to destroy embryos to then create a research mechanism, 
it falls to 38 percent. So there is a difference between the ethical 
dilemma. I understand people can honorably disagree on the ethical 
dilemma, but we ought to be truthful about what the polling actually 
says. If you specifically say what we are doing, you get a much 
different answer.
  I want to talk for a minute about something the majority leader 
discussed. He is a transplant surgeon. There are two problems 
transplant surgeons face. One is enough organs, which is a difficult 
problem in our country today, but the second problem is rejection. 
Nobody is talking about the long-term consequences of where we go.
  Let's assume everything that everyone says about embryonic stem cell 
research is right. I am highly skeptical of that, but let's assume that 
it is. You still have this little problem called histocompatibility; in 
other words, rejection. Whatever you do with it, you are going to have 
a problem with rejection. And the thing that is so exciting about germ 
cell--and I want to explain that for a minute. Germ cells--pluripotent 
stem cells--just as powerful as embryonic, they can do everything that 
embryonic can. They don't have that problem. No. 1, they are 
pluripotent; No. 2, they continue to reproduce pluripotent cells just 
like embryonic. That is new research. That is 6 months old. It was 
discovered here first. It was duplicated in Germany last month. So that 
is a brand new study.
  The point is, you don't have rejection because you are taking your 
own cells to create a pluripotent cell, and that is the wonderful thing 
about adult stem cells, about cord blood stem cells, about germ cells, 
is that they create a pluripotent cell. There is no rejection. So when 
you hear all the talk about embryonic stem cell research, the thing to 
remember is when you get the treatment, you are going to have the side 
effects like everybody else who has the transplant--if it works--and 
that is immune-suppressive drugs. You are going to have to have them. 
The only way not to have that is to do fetal farming or human cloning, 
where you clone yourself and then take part of what you have cloned 
back, which we already know is illegal and is banned. So it is 
important for the debate to focus on that.
  Everybody in this country wants cures. Everybody wants to do the 
thing that will get us there the fastest with the least complications, 
and we want to invest our dollars in what will be most successful.
  One of the things my dad taught me is to look around the world, and 
if you want to see what is happening, follow the money. If you look 
around the world today, the world as a whole, and you look at where the 
money is being spent, it is not being spent on embryonic stem cells. It 
is being spent on stem cells from us, just like we had the debate a 
moment ago. We now know ductal cells from somebody's pancreas can 
create new insulin-producing cells. We know now the mucosa, the lining 
of your mouth, can create cells to make you a new cornea. You don't 
have to have a cornea transplant in the future because your own cells 
are going to be able to create a new cornea. We also know that we have 
stem cells in our body that can take away cystoid macular edema, this 
aging process where we as seniors start to lose our vision--the 
cloudiness--the macular area of the retina starts to fall away. All of 
these wonderful things that we are doing versus nothing that has been 
accomplished.
  I also would refer to the reference of the Senator from California to 
the renal success. It wasn't done with an embryonic stem cell, it was 
done with an adult stem cell. That research was all adult stem cells. 
So we end up tending to confuse what has really happened.
  The fact is, all the success in treatment, all the success in terms 
of who is willing to invest private capital, where they are putting it, 
they are not putting it in embryonic. There is a reason for it. It is 
because in the long term it won't be the best treatment. It is fun 
science. As a doctor, I will tell you there could be no more fun or 
rewarding or interesting science than embryonic stem cell because you 
can turn things on and turn things off. There is no question about it. 
But what we are finding out is you can actually do that with our own 
cells, our own stem cells.
  This idea of de-differentiation--and I want to explain that for a 
minute because we are going to hear a lot about it in the next 10 
years--we take one of your stem cells, one of your multipotent--not 
totipotent, not pluri potent, but multi--and reverse its mechanism 
where we make it pluripotent. We are doing that in several stem cells 
now with an enzyme called reversa, where they are reversing the cell 
structure and making it revert back to what it was; in other words, 
grow in reverse to become pluripotent.
  So I hope everybody will remember, this isn't a choice about cures or 
no cures. We are getting cures like crazy right now with adult stem 
cells and cord blood. We are going to be doing tons more when this germ 
cell comes forward. There is no question the scientific community is 
extremely excited about germ cell pluripotent stem cells because it has 
all the potential that an embryonic stem cell has and none of the 
problems.
  With that, I yield back my remaining time, and I thank the Senator 
from Kansas.

[[Page S7588]]

                               Exhibit 1

PEER-REVIEWED REFERENCES SHOWING APPLICATIONS OF ADULT STEM CELLS THAT 
PRODUCE THERAPEUTIC BENEFIT OR HUMAN PATIENTS (NOT A COMPLETE LISTING, 
                           SAMPLE REFERENCES)

              Adult Stem Cells--Hematopoietic Replacement


                                cancers

     Brain tumors--medulloblastoma and glioma
       Dunkel, IJ; ``High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem 
     cell rescue for malignant brain tumors''; Cancer Invest. 18, 
     492-493; 2000
       Abrey, LE et al.; ``High dose chemotherapy with autologous 
     stem cell rescue in adults with malignant primary brain 
     tumors''; J. Neurooncol. 44, 147-153; Sept. 1999
       Finlay, JL; ``The role of high-dose chemotherapy and stem 
     cell rescue in the treatment of malignant brain tumors: a 
     reappraisal''; Pediatr. Transplant 3 Suppl. 1, 87-95; 1999
     Retinoblastoma
       Hertzberg H et al.; ``Recurrent disseminated retinoblastoma 
     in a 7-year-old girl treated successfully by high-dose 
     chemotherapy and CD34-selected autologous peripheral blood 
     stem cell transplantation''; Bone Marrow Transplant 27(6), 
     653-655; March 2001
       Dunkel IJ et al.; ``Successful treatment of metastatic 
     retinoblastoma''; Cancer 89, 2117-2121; Nov. 15, 2000
     Ovarian cancer
       Stiff PJ et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy and autologous 
     stem-cell transplantation for ovarian cancer: An autologous 
     blood and marrow transplant registry report''; Ann. Intern. 
     Med. 133, 504-515; Oct. 3, 2000
       Schilder, RJ and Shea, TC; ``Multiple cycles of high-dose 
     chemotherapy for ovarian cancer''; Semin. Oncol. 25, 349-355; 
     June 1998
     Merkel cell carcinoma
       Waldmann V et al.; ``Transient complete remission of 
     metastasized merkel cell carcinoma by high-dose 
     polychemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation''; Br. J. Dermatol. 143, 837-839; Oct. 2000
     Testicular cancer
       Bhatia S et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy as initial 
     salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed testicular 
     cancer''; J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 3346-3351; Oct. 19, 2000
     Lymphoma
       Tabata M et al.; ``Peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation in patients over 65 years old with malignant 
     lymphoma--possibility of early completion of chemotherapy and 
     improvement of performance status''; Intern Med 40, 471-474; 
     June 2001
       Josting, A; ``Treatment of Primary Progressive Hodgkin's 
     and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Is There a Chance for 
     Cure?''; J Clin Oncol 18, 332-339; 2000
       Koizumi M et al.; ``Successful treatment of intravascular 
     malignant lymphomatosis with high-dose chemotherapy and 
     autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation''; Bone 
     Marrow Transplant 27, 1101-1103; May 2001
     Non-hodgkin's lymphoma
       Buadi FK et al., Autologous hematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantation for older patients with relapsed non-
     Hodgkin's lymphoma, Bone Marrow Transplant 37, 1017-1022, 
     June 2006
       Tabata M et al.; ``Peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation in patients over 65 years old with malignant 
     lymphoma--possibility of early completion of chemotherapy and 
     improvement of performance status''; Intern Med 40, 471-474; 
     June 2001
       Josting, A; ``Treatment of Primary Progressive Hodgkin's 
     and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Is There a Chance for 
     Cure?''; J Clin Oncol 18, 332-339; 2000
       Kirita T et al.; ``Primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of the 
     mandible treated with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and 
     autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation''; Oral 
     Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 90, 450-455; 
     Oct. 2000
     Hodgkin's lymphoma
       Peggs KS et al., ``Clinical evidence of a graft-versus-
     Hodgkin's-lymphoma effect after reduced-intensity allogeneic 
     transplantion'', Lancet 365, 193-1941 ,4 June 2005
       Josting, A; ``Treatment of Primary Progressive Hodgkin's 
     and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Is There a Chance for 
     Cure?''; J Clin Oncol 18, 332-339; 2000
     Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
       Laughlin MJ et al.; ``Hematopoietic engraftment and 
     survival in adult recipients of umbilical-cord blood from 
     unrelated donors'', New England Journal of Medicine 344, 
     1815-1822; June 14, 2001
       Ohnuma K et al.; ``Cord blood transplantation from HLA-
     mismatched unrelated donors as a treatment for children with 
     haematological malignancies''; Br J Haematol 112(4), 981-987; 
     March 2001
       Marco F et al.; ``High Survival Rate in Infant Acute 
     Leukemia Treated With Early High-Dose Chemotherapy and Stem-
     Cell Support''; J Clin Oncol 18, 3256-3261; Sept. 15 2000
     Acute myelogenous leukemia
       Laughlin MJ et al.; ``Hematopoietic engraftment and 
     survival in adult recipients of umbilical-cord blood from 
     unrelated donors'', New England Journal of Medicine 344, 
     1815-1822; June 14, 2001
       Ohnuma K et al.; ``Cord blood transplantation from HLA-
     mismatched unrelated donors as a treatment for children with 
     haematological malignancies''; Br J Haematol 112(4), 981-987; 
     March 2001
       Gorin NC et al.; ``Feasibility and recent improvement of 
     autologous stem cell transplantation for acute myelocytic 
     leukaemia in patients over 60 years of age: importance of the 
     source of stem cells''; Br. J. Haematol. 110, 887-893; Sept 
     2000
       Bruserud O et al.; ``New strategies in the treatment of 
     acute myelogenous leukemia: mobilization and transplantation 
     of autologous peripheral blood stem cells in adult 
     patients''; Stem Cells 18, 343-351; 2000
     Chronic myelogenous leukemia
       Laughlin MJ et al.; ``Hematopoietic engraftment survival in 
     adult recipients of umbilical-cord blood from unrelated 
     donors'', New England Journal of Medicine 344, 1815-1822; 
     June 14, 2001
       Ohnuma K et al.; ``Cord blood transplantation from HLA-
     mismatched unrelated donors as a treatment for children with 
     haematological malignancies''; Br J Haematol 112(4), 981-987; 
     March 2001
     Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia
       Ohnuma K et al.; ``Cord blood transplantation from HLA-
     mismatched unrelated donors as a treatment for children with 
     haematological malignancies''; Br J Haematol 112(4), 981-987; 
     March 2001
     Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia
       Elliott MA et al., Allogeneic stem cell transplantation and 
     donor lymphocyte infusions for chronic myelomonocytic 
     leukemia, Bone Marrow Transplantation 37, 1003-1008, 2006
     Angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopaihy with dysproteinemia
       Lindahl J et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy and APSCT as a 
     potential cure for relapsing hemolysing AILD''; Leuk Res 
     25(3), 267-270; March 2001
     Multiple myeloma
       Aviles A et at., Biological modifiers as cytoreductive 
     therapy before stem cell transplant in previously untreated 
     patients with multiple myeloma, Annals of Oncology 16, 219-
     221, 2005
       Vesole, DH et al.; ``High-Dose Melphalan With 
     Autotransplantation for Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results 
     of a Southwest Oncology Group Phase II Trial''; J Clin Oncol 
     17, 2173-2179; July 1999.
     Myelodysplasia
       Ohnuma K et al.; ``Cord blood transplantation from HLA-
     mismatched unrelated donors as a treatment for children with 
     haematological malignancies''; Br J Haematol 112(4), 981-987; 
     March 2001
       Bensinger WI et at.; ``Transplantation of bone marrow as 
     compared with peripheral-blood cells from HLA-identical 
     relatives in patients with hematologic cancers''; New England 
     Journal of Medicine 344, 175-181; Jan 18 2001
     Breast cancer
       Damon LE et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic 
     stem cell rescue for breast cancer: experience in 
     California''; Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant 6, 496-505; 2000
       Paquette, RL et al., ``Ex vivo expanded unselected 
     peripheral blood: progenitor cells reduce post-
     transplantation neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia in 
     patients with breast cancer'', Blood 96, 2385-2390; October, 
     2000.
       Stiff P et al.; ``Autologous transplantation of ex vivo 
     expanded bone marrow cells grown from small aliquots after 
     high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer''; Blood 95, 2169-
     2174; March 15, 2000
       Koc, ON et al.; ``Rapid Hematopoietic Recovery After 
     Coinfusion of Autologous-Blood Stem Cells and Culture-
     Expanded Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Advanced Breast 
     Cancer Patients Receiving High-Dose Chemotherapy''; J Clin 
     Oncol 18, 307-316; January 2000
     Neuroblastoma
       Kawa, K et al.; ``Long-Term Survivors of Advance 
     Neuroblastoma With MYCN Amplification: A Report of 19 
     Patients Surviving Disease-Free for More Than 66 Months''; J 
     Clin Oncol 17:3216-3220; October 1999
     Renal cell carcinoma
       Barkholt L et at., Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantation for metastatic renal carcinoma in Europe, 
     Annals of Oncology published online 28 April 2006
       Arya M et al., Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell 
     transplantation: the next generation of therapy for 
     metastatic renal cell cancer, Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 1, 32-38, 
     Nov 2004
       Childs R et al., ``Regression of Metastatic Renal-Cell 
     Carcinoma after Nonmyeloablative Allogeneic Peripheral-Blood 
     Stem-Cell Transplantation``, New England Journal of Medicine 
     343, 750-758; Sept. 14, 2000
       Childs, RW; ``Successful Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell 
     Carcinoma With a Nonmyeloablative Allogeneic Peripheral-Blood 
     Progenitor-Cell Transplant: Evidence for a Graft-Versus-Tumor 
     Effect:; J Clin Oncol 17, 2044-2049; July 1999
     Soft tissue sarcoma
       Blay JY et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy with autoogous 
     hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for advanced soft 
     tissue sarcoma in adults''; J. Chin. Oncol. 18, 3643-3650; 
     Nov 1 2000

[[Page S7589]]

     Ewing's sarcoma
       Drabko K et al., Megachemotherapy followed by autologous 
     stem cell transplantation in children with Ewing's sarcoma, 
     Pediatric Transplantation 9, 618-621, 2005
     Various solid tumors
       Pedrazolli P et al., High dose chemotherapy with autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell support for solid tumors other than 
     breast cancer in adults, Annals of Oncology published online 
     17 March 2006
       Nieboer P et al.; ``Long-term haemato1ogical recovery 
     following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow 
     transplantation or peripheral stem cell transplantation in 
     patients with solid tumours''; Bone Marrow Transplant 27, 
     959-966; May 2001
       Lafay-Cousin L et al.; ``High-dose thiotepa and 
     hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric 
     malignant mesenchymal tumors: a phase II study''; Bone Marrow 
     Transplant 26, 627-632; Sept. 2000
       Michon, J and Schleiermacher, G. ``Autologous 
     haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for paediatric solid 
     tumors'', Baillieres Best Practice Research in Clinical 
     Haematology 12, 247-259, March-June, 1999.
       Schilder, RJ et al.; ``Phase I trial of multiple cycles of 
     high-dose chemotherapy supported by autologous peripheral-
     blood stem cells''; J. Clin. Oncol 17, 2198-2207; July 1999
     Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia
       Anagnostopoulos A et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy followed 
     by stem cell transplantation in patients with resistant 
     Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemi''; Bone Marrow Transplant 27, 
     1027-1029; May 2001
     Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
       Matthes-Martin S et al.; ``Successful stem cell 
     transplantation following orthotopic liver transplantation 
     from the same haploidentical family donor a girl with 
     hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis''; Blood 96, 3997-3999; 
     Dec 1, 2000
     Poems syndrome (osteosclerotic myeloma)
       Dispenzieri A et al., Peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation in 16 patients with POEMS syndrome, and a 
     review of the literature, Blood 104, 3400-3407, 15 November 
     2004
     Myelofibrosis
       Cometta K et al., Umbilical cord blood transp1antation in 
     adults: results of the prospective Cord Blood Transplantation 
     (COBLT), Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 11, 149-160, February 
     2005
       Cervantes F, Modem management of myelofibrosis, Br J 
     Haematol 128, 583-592, March 2005
       Kroger N et al., Pilot study of reduced-intensity 
     conditioning followed by allogeneic stem cell transplantation 
     from related and unrelated donors in patients with 
     myelofibrosis, Br J Haematol 128, 690-697, March 2005
       Thiele J et al., Dynamics of bone marrow changes in 
     patients with chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis following 
     allogeneic stem cell transplantation, Histol Histopathol 20, 
     87-89, July 2005
       Rondelli D et al., Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell 
     transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning in 
     intermediate- or high-risk patients with myelofibrosis with 
     myeloid metaplasia, Blood 105, 4115-4119, 15 May 2005
       Benesova P et al., [Complete regression of bone marrow 
     fibrosis following allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation in a patient with idopathic myelofibrosis] 
     [Article in Czech], Cesk Patol 40, 167-171, October 2004

              Adult Stem Cells--Immune System Replacement


                          autoimmune diseases

     Systemic lupus
       Burt RK et al., Nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantation for systemic lupus erythematosus, Journal of 
     the American Medical Association 295, 527-535, February 1, 
     2006
       Burt RK et al., ``Induction of tolerance in autoimmune 
     diseases by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: getting 
     closer to a cure?'', Blood 99, 768-784, 1 February 2002
       Wulfffraat, NM et al.; ``Prolonged remission without 
     treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation for 
     refractory childhood systemic lupus erythematosus''; 
     Arthritis Rheum 44(3), 728-731; March 2001
       Rosen, O et al.; ``Autologous stem-cell transplantation in 
     refractory autoimmune diseases after in vivo immunoablation 
     and ex vivo depletion of mononuclear cells''; Arthritis res. 
     2, 327-336; 2000
       Traynor, AE et al.; ``Treatment of severe systemic lupus 
     erythematosus with high-dose chemotherapy and haemopoietic 
     stem-cell transplantation: a phase I study''; Lancet 356, 
     701-707; August 26, 2000
       Burt, RK and Traynor, AE; ``Hematopoietic Stem Cell 
     Transplantation: A New Therapy for Autoimmune Disease''; Stem 
     Cells 17, 366-372; 1999
       Burt, RK et al.; ``Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation 
     of multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic 
     lupus erythematosus''; Cancer Treat. Res. 101, 157-184; 1999
       Traynor, A and Burt, RK; ``Haematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantation for active systemic lupus erythematosus''; 
     Rheumatology 38, 767-772 ; August 1999
       Martini, A et al.; ``Marked and sustained improvement 2 
     years after autologous stem cell transplant in a girl with 
     system sclerosis''; Rheumatology 38, 773; August 1999
     Sjogren's syndrome
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
     Myasthenia
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
     Autoimmune cytopenia
       Passweg, JR et al., Haematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantation for refractory autoimmune cytopenia, British 
     Journal of Haematology 125, 749-755, June 2004
       Rabusin M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
     Scleromyxedema
       A.M. Feasel et al., ``Complete remission of scleromyxedema 
     following autologous stem cell transplantation,'' Archives of 
     Dermatology 137, 1071-1072; Aug. 2001
     Scleroderma
       Burt, RK et al., ``Induction of tolerance in autoimmune 
     diseases by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: getting 
     closer to a cure?'', Blood 99, 768-784, 1 February 2002
       Burt, RK and Traynor, AE; ``Hematopoietic Stem Cell 
     Transplantation: A New Therapy for Autoimmune Disease''; Stem 
     Cells 17, 366-372; 1999
     Crohn's disease
       Kreisel, W et al., Complete remission of Crohn's disease 
     after high-dose cyclophosphamide and autologous stem cell 
     transplantation, Bone Marrow Transplantation 32, 337-340, 
     2003
       Burt, RK et al., ``High-dose immune suppression and 
     autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in 
     refractory Crohn disease'', Blood 101, 2064-2066, March 2003
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
       Hawkey, CJ et al.; ``Stem cell transplantation for 
     inflammatory bowel disease: practical and ethical issues''; 
     Gut 46, 869-872; June 2000
     Behcet's disease
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
     Rheumatoid arthritis
       Burt, RK et al., ``Induction of tolerance in autoimmune 
     diseases by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: getting 
     closer to a cure?'', Blood 99, 768-784, 1 February 2002
       Burt, RK et al., ``Induction of remission of severe and 
     refractory rheumatoid arthritis by allogeneic mixed 
     chimerism'', Arthritis & Rheumatism 50, 2466-2470, August 
     2004
       Verburg, RJ et al.; ``High-dose chemotherapy and autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with 
     rheumatoid arthritis: results of an open study to assess 
     feasibility, safety, and efficacy''; Arthritis Rheum 44(4), 
     754-760; April 2001
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
       Burt, RK and Traynor, AE; ``Hematopoietic Stem Cell 
     Transplantation: A New Therapy for Autoimmune Disease''; Stem 
     Cells 17, 366-372; 1999
       Burt, RK et al.; ``Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation 
     of multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic 
     lupus erythematosus''; Cancer Treat. Res. 101, 157-184; 1999
       Burt, RK et al., ``Autologous hematopoietic stem ce11 
     transplantation in refractory rheumatoid arthritis: sustained 
     response in two of four patients'', Arthritis & Rheumatology 
     42, 2281-2285, November 1999
     Juvenile arthritis
       I M de Kleer et al., Autologous stem cell transplantation 
     for refractory juvenile idiopathic arthritis: analysis of 
     clinical effects, mortality, and transplant related 
     morbidity, Ann Rheum Dis 63, 1318-1326, 2004
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
       Burt, RK and Traynor, AE; ``Hematopoietic Stem Cell 
     Transplantation: A New Therapy for Autoimmune Disease''; Stem 
     Cells 17, 366-372; 1999
     Multiple sclerosis
       Saccardi, R et al., Autologous HSCT for severe progressive 
     multiple sclerosis in a multicenter trial: impact on disease 
     activity and quality of life, Blood 105, 2601-2607, 15 March 
     2005
       Burt, RK et al., ``Induction of tolerance in autoimmune 
     diseases by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: getting 
     closer to a cure?'', Blood 99, 768-784, 1 February 2002
       Mancardi, GL et al.; ``Autologous hematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantation suppresses Gd-enhanced MRI activity in MS''; 
     Neurology 57, 62-68; July 10, 2001
       Rabusin, M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell

[[Page S7590]]

     infusion for the treatment of severe autoimmune disease''; 
     Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 2000
       Burt, RK and Traynor, AE; ``Hematopoietic Stem Cell 
     Transplantation: A New Therapy for Autoimmune Disease''; Stem 
     Cells 17, 366-372; 1999
       Burt RK et al.; ``Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation 
     of multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic 
     lupus erythematosus''; Cancer Trat. Res. 101, 157-184; 1999
     Polychondritis
       Rosen O et al.; ``Autologous stem-cell transplantation in 
     refractory autoimmune diseases after in vivo immunoablation 
     and ex vivo depletion of mononuclear cells''; Arthritis res. 
     2, 327-336; 2000
     Systemic vasculitis
       Rabusin M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85 (11 Suppl), 81-85; 
     Nov. 2000
     Alopecia universal
       Seifert B et al., Complete rfemission of alopecia 
     universalis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell 
     transplantion, Blood 105, 426-427, 1 January 2005
     Buerger's disease
       Kim D-I et al., Angiogenesis facilitated by autologbus 
     whole bone marrow stem cell transplantation for Buerger's 
     disease, Stem Cells 24, 1194-1200, 2006


                           immunodeficiencies

     Severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome
       Grunebaum E et al., Bone marrow transplantation or severe 
     combined immune deficiency, Journal of the American Medical 
     Association 295, 508-518, 1 February 2006
       Cavazzana-Calvo M et al.; ``Gene therapy of human severe 
     combined immunodeficiency (SCID)-Xl disease''; Science 288, 
     669-672; April 28, 2000 (NOTE: gene therapy using bone marrow 
     adult stem cells as gene vehicle)
     X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome and X-linked 
         hyperimmunoglobulin M syndrome
       Banked unrelated umbilical cord blood was used to 
     reconstitute the immune system in 2 brothers with X-linked 
     lymphoproliferative syndrome and 1 boy with X-linked 
     hyperimmunoglobulin-M syndrome. Two years after 
     transplantation, all 3 patients have normal immune systems. 
     These reports support the wider use of banked partially 
     matched cord blood for transplantation in primary 
     immunodeficiencies.
       Reference: Ziegner UH et al.; ``Unrelated umbilical cord 
     stem cell transplantation for X-linked immunodeficiencies''; 
     J Pediatr 138(4), 570-573; April 2001
       Eight children with severe immunodeficiencies treated by 
     adult bone marrow stem cell transplants. Six of 8 showed 
     relatively normal immune system after 1 year.
       Reference: Amrolia, P. et al., ``Nonmyeloablative stem cell 
     transplantation for congenital immunodeficiencies'', Blood 
     96, 1239-1246, Aug. 15, 2000.


                   anemias and other blood conditions

     Sickle cell anemia
       Klein A et al., Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for 
     severe sickle cell disease, Rev Med Brux. 2005;26 Spec 
     no:Sp23-5
       Adamkiewicz TV et al., Transplantation of unrelated 
     placental blood cells in children with high-risk sickle cell 
     disease, Bone Marrow Transplant. 34, 405-411, Sept 2004
       Wu CJ et al., Molecular assessment of erythroid lineage 
     chimerism following nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell 
     transplantation, Exp Hematol. 31, 924-933, Oct 2003
       Gore L. et al.; ``Successful cord blood transplantation for 
     sickle cell anemia from a sibling who is human leukocyte 
     antigen-identical: implications for comprehensive care'', J 
     Pediatr Hematol Oncol 22(5):437-440; Sep-Oct 2000
       Steen RG et al.; ``Improved cerebrovascular patency 
     following therapy in patients with sickle cell disease: 
     initial results in 4 patients who received HLA-identical 
     hematopoietic stem cell allografts''; Ann Neurol 49(2), 222-
     229; Feb. 2001
       Wethers DL; ``Sickle cell disease in childhood: Part II. 
     Diagnosis and treatment of major complications and recent 
     advances in treatment''; Am. Fam. Pysician 62, 1309-1314; 
     Sept. 15, 2000
     Sideroblastic anemia
       Ayas M et al.; ``Congenital sideroblastic anaemia 
     successfully treated using allogeneic stem cell 
     transplantation''; Br J Haematol l13, 938-939; June 2001
       Gonzalez MI et al.; ``Allogeneic peripheral stem cell 
     transplantation in a case of hereditary sideroblastic 
     anaemia''; British Journal of Haematology 109, 658-660; 2000
     Aplastic anemia
       Gurman G et al.; ``Allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation for severe aplastic anemia''; Ther Apher 
     5(1), 54-57; Feb. 2001
       Kook H et al.; ``Rubella-associated aplastic anemia treated 
     by syngeneic stem cell transplantations''; Am. J. Hematol. 
     64, 303-305; August 2000
     Red cell aplasia
       Rabusin M et al.; ``Immunoablation followed by autologous 
     hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe 
     autoimmune disease''; Haematologica 85(11 Suppl), 81-85; Nov. 
     2000
     Amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia
       Yesilipek et al.; ``Peripheral stem cell transplantation in 
     a child with amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia''; Bone Marrow 
     Transplant 26, 571-572; Sept. 2000
     Thalassemia
       Tan PH et al., ``Unrelated peripheral blood and cord blood 
     hematopoietic stem cell transplants for thalassemia major'', 
     Am J Hematol 75, 209-12, April 2004
     Primary amyloidosis
       Sezer O et al.; ``Novel approaches to the treatment of 
     primary amyloidosis''; Exper Opin. Investig. Drugs 9, 2343-
     2350; Oct 2000
     Diamond Blackfan anemia
       Ostronoff M et al., ``Successful nonmyeloablative bone 
     marrow transplantation in a corticosteroid-resistant infant 
     with Diamond-Blackfan anemia'', Bone Marrow Transplant. 34, 
     371-372, August 2004
     Fanconi's anemia
       Bitan M et al., Fludarabine-based reduced intensity 
     conditioning for stem cell transplantation of fanconi anemia 
     patients from fully matched related and unrelated donors, 
     Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 12, 712-718, July 2006
       Tan PL et al., Successful engraftment without radiation 
     after fludarabine-based regimen in Fanconi anemia patients 
     undergoing genotypically identical donor hematopoietic cell 
     transplantation, Pediatr Blood Cancer, 46, 630-636, May 
     1,2006
       Kohli-Kumar Met al., ``Haemopoietic stem/progenitor cell 
     transplant in Fanconi anaemia using HLA-matched sibling 
     umbilical cord blood cells'', British Journal of Haematology 
     85, 419-422, October 1993
     Chronic Epstein-Barr infection
       Fujii N et al.; ``Allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell 
     transplantation for the treatment of chronic active Epstein-
     Barr virus infection''; Bone Marrow Transplant 26, 805-808; 
     Oct. 2000
       Okamura T et al.; ``Blood stem-cell transplantation for 
     chronic active Epstein-Barr virus with lymphoproliferation''; 
     Lancet 356, 223-224; July 2000

          Adult Stem Cells--Repair/Replacment of Solid Tissues


                          metabolic disorders

     Hurler's syndrome
       Cox-Brinkman J et al., ``Haematopoietic cell 
     transplantation (HCT) in combination with enzyme replacement 
     therapy (ERT) in patients with Hurler syndrome'', Bone Marrow 
     Transplantation 38, 17-21, 2006
       Staba SL et al., ``Cord-blood transplants from unrelated 
     donors in patients with Hurler's syndrome'', New England 
     Journal of Medicine 350, 1960-1969, 6 May 2004
       Koc ON et al., ``Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cell infusion 
     for treatment of metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) and 
     Hurler syndrome (MPS-IH),'' Bone Marrow Transplant 215-222; 
     Aug 2002
     Osteogenesis imperfecta
       Horwitz EM et al., ``Isolated allogeneic bone marrow-
     derived mesenchymal cells engraft and stimulate growth in 
     children with osteogenesis imperfecta: Implications for cell 
     therapy of bone'', Proceedings of the National Academy of 
     Sciences USA 99, 8932-8937; 25 June 2002
       Horwitz EM et al., ``Clinical responses to bone marrow 
     transplantation in children with severe osteogenesis 
     imperfecta'', Blood 97, 1227-1231; 1 March 2001
       Horwitz, EM et al.; ``Transplantability and therapeutic 
     effects of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal cells in children 
     with osteogenesis imperfecta''; Nat. Med. 5, 309-313; March 
     1999
     Krabbe leukodystrophy
       Escolar ML et al., ``Transplantation of umbilical cord-
     blood in babies with infantile Krabbe's disease'', New 
     England Journal of Medicine 352, 2069-2081, 19 May 2005
       Krivit W et al., ``Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation 
     in Globoid-Cell Leukodystrophy'', New England Journal of 
     Medicine 338, 1119-1127, Apr 16, 1998
     Osteopetrosis
       Tsuji Y et al., ``Successful nonmyeloablative cord blood 
     transplantation for an infant with malignant infantile 
     osteopetrosis'', J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 27, 495-498, Sept 
     2005
       Driessen GJ et al., ``Long-term outcome of haematopoietic 
     stem cell transplantation in autosomal recessive 
     osteopetrosis: an EBMT report'', Bone Marrow Transplantation 
     32, 657-663, October 2003
       Schulz et al., ``HLA-haploidentical blood progenitor cell 
     transplantation in osteopetrosis'', Blood 99, 3458-3460, 1 
     May 2002
     Cerebral X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy
       Peters C et al., ``Cerebral X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy: 
     The international hematopoietic cell transplantation 
     experience from 1982 to 1999, Blood 104, 881-888, 1 Aug 2004


                                 OCULAR

     Corneal regeneration
       Inatomi T et al., ``Midterm results on ocular suface 
     reconnstruction using cultivated autologous oral mucosal 
     epithelial transplantation'', American Journal of 
     Ophthalmology 141, 267-275, February 2006
       Nishida K et al., ``Corneal reconstruction with tissue-
     engineered cell sheets composed of autologous oral mucosal 
     epithelium'', New England Journal of Medicine 351, 1187-1196, 
     16 Sept 2004
       Anderson DF et al.; ``Amniotic Membrane Transplantation 
     After the Primary Surgical Management of Band Keratopathy''; 
     Cornea 20(4), 354-361; May 2001

[[Page S7591]]

       Anderson DF et al.; ``Amniotic membrane transplantation for 
     partiallimbal stem cell deficiency''; Br J Ophthalmol 85(5), 
     567-575; May 2001
       Henderson TR et al.; ``The long term outcome of limbal 
     allografts: the search for surviving cells''; Br J Ophthalmol 
     85(5), 604-609; May 2001
       Daya SM, Ilari FA; ``Living related conjuctival limbal 
     allograft for the treatment of stem cell deficiency''; 
     Opthalmology 180, 126-133; January 2001
       Schwab IR et al.; ``Successful transplantation of 
     bioengineered tissue replacements in patients with ocular 
     surface disease''; Cornea 19, 421-426; July 2000.
       Tsai et al.; ``Reconstruction of damaged corneas by 
     transplantation of autologous limbal epithelial cells''; New 
     England Journal of Medicine 343, 86-93, 2000
       Tsubota K et al.; ``Treatment of severe ocular-surface 
     disorders with corneal epithelial stem-cell 
     transplantation''; New England Journal of Medicine 340, 1697-
     1703; June 3, 1999


                           wounds & injuries

     Limb gangrene
       Tateishi-Yuyama E et al.; ``Therapeutic angiogeneis for 
     patients with limb ischaemia by autologous transplantation of 
     bone-marrow cells: a pilt study and a randomised controlled 
     trial''; Lancet 360, 427-435; 10 August 2002
     Surface wound healing
       Badiavas EV and Falanga V, ``Treatment of chronic wounds 
     with bone marrow-derived cells'', Archives of Dermatology 
     139, 510-516, 2003
     Jawbone replacement
       Warnke PH et al., ``Growth and transplantation of a custom 
     vascularised bone graft in a man'', Lancet 364, 766-770, 28 
     August 2004
     Skull bone repair
       Lendeckel S et al., Autologous stem cells (adipose) and 
     fibrin glue used to treat widespread traumatic calvarial 
     defects: case report, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 
     32, 370-373, 2004

                              heart damage

     Acute heart damage
       Joseph J et al., Safety and effectiveness of granulocyte-
     colony stimulating factor in mobilizing stem cells and 
     improving cytokine profile in advanced chronic heart failure, 
     American Journal of Cardiology 97, 681-684, 1 March 2006
       Blocklet D et al., Myocardial homing of nonmobilized 
     peripheral-blood CD34+ cells after intracoronary injection, 
     Stem Cells 24, 333-336, February 2006
       Janssens S et al., Autologous bone marrow-derived stem-cell 
     transfer in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial 
     infarction: double-blind, randomised controlled trial, Lancet 
     367, 113-121, 14 January 2006
       Patel AN et al., Surgical treatment for congestive heart 
     failure with autologous adult stem cell transplantation: A 
     prospective randomized study, Journal of Thoracic 
     Cardiovascular Surgery 130, 1631-1638, December 2005
       Ince H et al., Preservation from left ventricular 
     remodeling by front-integrated revascularization and stem 
     cell liberation in evolving acute myocardial infarction by 
     use of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (FIRSTLINE-AMI), 
     Circulation 112, 097-3106, 15 November 2005
       Ince H et al., Prevention of left ventricular remodeling 
     with granulocyte colony-stimulating after acute myocardial 
     infarction, Circulation 112, I-73-I-80, 30 August 2005
       Bartunek J et al., Intracoronary injection of CD133-
     positive enriched bone marrow progenitor cells promotes 
     cardiac recovery after recent myocardial infarction, 
     Circulation 112, I-178-I-183, 30 August 2005
       Dohmann HFR et al., Transendocardial autologous bone marrow 
     mononuclear cell injection in ischemic heart failure, 
     Circulation 112, 121-126, 26 July 2005
       Wollert KC et al., ``Intracoronary autologous bone-marrow 
     cell transfer after myocardial infarction: the BOOST 
     randomised controlled clinical trial'', Lancet 364, 141-148, 
     10 July 2004
       Britten MB et al., ``Infarct remodeling after intracoronary 
     progenitor cell treatment in patients with acute myocardial 
     infarction''; Circulation 108, 2212-2218; Nov 2003
       Perin EC et al.; ``Transendocardial, autologous bone marrow 
     cell transplantation for severe, chronic ischemic heart 
     failure''; Circulation 107, r75-r83; published online May 
     2003
       Stamm C et al.; ``Autologous bone-marrow stem-cell 
     transplantation for myocardial regeneration''; The Lancet 
     361, 45-46; 4 January 2003
       Tse H-F et al.; ``Angiogenesis in ischaemic myocardium by 
     intramyocardial autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell 
     implantation''; The Lance 361, 47-49; 4 January 2003
       Strauer BE et al.; ``Repair of infarcted myocardium by 
     autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell 
     transplantation in humans''; Circulation 106, 1913-1918; 8 
     October 2002
       Strauer BE et al.; ``Myocardial regeneration after 
     intracoronary transplantation of human autologous stem cells 
     following acute myocardial infarction''; Dtsch Med Wochenschr 
     126, 932-938; Aug 24, 2001
       Menasche P et al. ``Myoblast transplantation for heart 
     failure.'' Lancet 357, 279-280; Jan 27, 2001
       Menasche P et al. [``Autologous skeletal myoblast 
     transplantation for cardiac insufficiency. First clinical 
     case.''] [article in French] Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 94(3), 180-
     182; March 2001
     Chronic coronary artery disease
       Strauer BE et al., Regeneration of human infarcted heart 
     muscle by intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell 
     transplantation in chronic coronary artery disease, Journal 
     of the American College of Cardiology 46, 1651-1658, 1 
     November 2005


                neural degenerative diseases & injuries

     Stroke
       Shyu W-C et al., Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for 
     acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial, 
     Canadian Medical Association Journal 174, 927-933, 28 March 
     2006
       Stilley CS et al., Changes in cognitive function after 
     neuronal cell transplantation for basal ganglia stroke, 
     Neurology 63, 1320-1322, October 2004
       Meltzer CC et al.; ``Serial [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucos Positron 
     Emission Tomography after Human Neuronal Implantation for 
     Stroke''; Neurosurgery 49, 586-592; 2001.
       Kondziolka D et al.; ``Transplantation of cultured human 
     neuronal cells for patients with stroke''; Neurology 55, 565-
     569; August 2000
     Parkinson's disease--using direct stimulation of patients' 
         endogenous adult neural stem cells:
       Love S et al., Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor 
     induces neuronal sprouting in human brain, Nature Medicine 
     11, 703-704, July 2005
       Slevin JT et al., Improvement of bilateral motor functions 
     in patients with Parkinson disease through the unilateral 
     intraputaminal infusion of glial cell line-derived 
     neurotrophic factor, Journal of Neurosurgery 102, 216-222, 
     February 2005
       Gill SS et al.; ``Direct brain infusion of glial cell line-
     derived neurotrophic factor in Parkinson disease''; Nature 
     Medicine 9, 589-595; May 2003 (pubished online 31 March 2003)
     Spinal cord injury
       Lima C et al., Olfactory mucosa auto-grafts in human spinal 
     cord injury: A pilot clinical study, Journal of Spinal Cord 
     Medicine 29, 191-203, July 2006


                             liver disease

     Chronic liver disease
       Gordon MY et al., Characterisation and clinical application 
     of human CD34+stem/progenitor cell populations mobilised into 
     the blood by G-CSF, Stem Cells 24, 1822-1830, July 2006; 
     published online March 30, 2006
     Liver cirrhosis
       Terai S et al., Improved liver function in liver cirrhosis 
     patients after autologous bone marrow cell fusion therapy, 
     Stem Cells published online 15 June 2006; DOI: 10.1634/
     stemcells.2005-0542


                            bladder disease

     End-stage bladder disease
       Atala A et al., Tissue-engineered autologous bladders for 
     patients needing cytoplasty, The Lancet 367, 1241-1246, 15 
     April 2006

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Oklahoma. He is learned. He has spent the time to study these issues as 
a doctor. He has worked on these issues and he cares a great deal about 
them, and I appreciate his time and his focus on this issue.
  I want to discuss a few additional things in response to the comments 
that have been made thus far. I want to get back to what we are talking 
about. We are talking about destroying young human life for research 
purposes. I will show a picture of that so people will get the idea--
and I know people do--but it is important to remember we all started 
out looking like this. Even the Presiding Officer, as handsome as he 
is, looked like this at one point in time. Just a clump of cells--that 
was him.
  This is a particular young person by the name of Hannah with whom I 
just met a few hours ago. This is when she was adopted as a frozen 
embryo, and this shows her development taking place. If you destroy her 
here, we don't get her here. That is the key. She was called a 
snowflake: an adopted frozen embryo.
  I hope some people who are maybe watching or hear about this, if they 
have frozen human embryos, they consider putting them up for adoption 
because a number of people want to adopt them.
  A couple of people adopted Hannah. They had fertility problems 
themselves, could not conceive. They used IVF, and so adopted her as a 
snowflake, as a frozen embryo. She was implanted, and now we have 
Hannah. Hannah is quite--I guess you would say out of the mouths of 
babes, children, comes great wisdom.
  This is a chart she did last year when she was in Washington. When 
the House was considering legislation--this same legislation--she did 
this chart, this letter that kids write, my kids write--I love them. 
She said--this is

[[Page S7592]]

Hannah--snowflake: We're kids, I love you. Then she draws three 
pictures here below. This is her smiling because she got adopted, and 
she is here. Here is another frozen embryo--these are embryos--that is 
sad because he is still sitting in a frozen state, and then here is one 
that, as she explains, is saying: What, are you going to kill me? This 
was her explanation to her mother who just gave this chart to me.
  I hope people really would think about that. This is not just a clump 
of tissue. This is not just a group of a few cells. This is not a hair 
follicle. This is not a fingernail. This is Hannah. And, if nurtured, 
she grows to be just this beautiful child. We have a lot of them, 
frozen embryos, and I hope people will consider putting them up for 
adoption because there are a lot of people who want to adopt them.
  My colleagues talked about cures. I want cures. I have talked a lot 
about cures here on the floor. I have talked about it for a lot of 
years. There are 72 clinical human trials using adult cord research. If 
we want the people Senator Feinstein and others talked about to get 
cures now, the certain way to do this is to not fund embryonic stem 
cell research. The people she is talking about are not going to be 
cured any time soon.
  I want to read some quotes from scientists talking about cures from 
embryonic stem cell research. I want to lay my hands on this real quick 
so that people can hear what the scientists are saying about this 
particular area. Let me get to that in a second, as soon as we can pull 
that out from the notebook.
  I want to hit a second point on this and then print this for the 
Record. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that this be 
printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
  Mr. President, this is a series of one-page--a cover article on stem 
cells, embryonic stem cells forming tumors. We have talked about this 
being a problem. This has been a problem on fetal tissue research, 
about 15 years ago. This stack is of the front pages of peer-reviewed 
articles citing embryonic stem cells creating tumors when implanted in 
other animals. Let me just read a few of these summations. This is just 
the front cover, and people can look up the whole article if they want.
  More than 70 percent of the mice that received embryonic stem cells 
derived neuro processors--or precursor cells developed teratomas, 70 
percent teratomas, tumors. That was a 2006 article.
  Rats grafted with embryonic stem cells de-differentiated in vitro for 
16 days developed severe teratomas--tumors. This is an article for 
publication, March of 2006. I am just reading the front page of these.
  Here is another article, a 2005 article. We conclude that pluripotent 
cell types used in this study are unsuitable for achieving safe 
engraftment in a Guinea pig brain. Why? Creation of teratomas--tumors.
  Unlimited self-renewal and high differentiated potential poses the 
risk of tumor induction after engraftment. This is just the front page 
of another article, December of 2004.
  Here is another article. Conclusions: the cells will, however, form a 
tumor if they leak into an improper space such as the thoracic cavity. 
This is an article from 2003.
  Then I have three more articles. These are just summations of peer-
reviewed articles. They form tumors. That is the problem with embryonic 
stem cells.
  So the Senators from California, Michigan, Iowa, and Pennsylvania and 
other places saying we want cures--I want cures. The research is saying 
embryonic stem cells form tumors. You put them into individuals, they 
form tumors. And while we hope at some point in time something positive 
happens, the problem is, they form tumors. This isn't working. So if we 
want treatments and cures, the answer isn't embryonic stem cells, it is 
adult stem cells, cord blood, where we don't have a tumor formation 
problem and where we are getting all of these initial successes that 
are taking place
  We are also going to consider legislation--and I will come back to 
another point here--we are going to consider legislation on fetus 
farming. There are three bills that are up and one of the bills is to 
ban fetal farming--fetus farming. I want to speak on that bill. I am a 
cosponsor of the bill. It would prohibit a gruesome procedure known as 
fetus farming. I am hopeful this passes with broad bipartisan support.
  What this prevents is growing young humans to a certain stage, then 
harvesting their parts like an organ donor--parts. You grow a cloned 
human to a certain stage, let the cells differentiate and then harvest 
the parts. The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act is intended to prevent the 
exploitation of women for the purpose of harvesting spare organs, 
bodies parts, and tissue. In an ideal world we wouldn't need this type 
of legislation, yet we have already seen four scientific papers 
published on proof of concept of where they clone an animal to harvest 
the tissue to put into another animal to see if there was a rejection 
issue. Such proof of concept or proof of principle is simply the first 
case you take before actually moving to doing it in humans. That is why 
we seek to ban this particular procedure.
  Some of my colleagues are saying of course nobody would think about 
doing this. I remember at the outset of this debate 8 years ago, 
everybody said of course we are not going to clone human beings. That 
is not necessary; that is abhorrent, and we wouldn't do that. The same 
people who were saying that are now saying it is essential we clone 
human beings, so the distance from ``of course we would never'' to ``of 
course we must'' seems to only take a matter of years and that is why 
we are seeking to ban this particular area of using human beings. Human 
beings, as I said at the outset, are ends in themselves. They should 
not be used for somebody else's purposes. It is beneath human dignity 
to turn humans into commodities--that is organ factories--and that 
would be the case with fetus farming. That is what this act does; it 
prohibits it. I am hopeful my colleagues can strongly support this ban 
on fetal farming that is going to come before this body and I hope will 
pass the House and be sent to the President for signature.
  I want to talk about an area that perhaps we all pretty easily fall 
into. That is, we get contacted by individuals who have a particular 
malady or disease or genetic problem and we tell them we want to give 
them a cure.
  We do want to give them a cure. Everyone in this body wants to give 
them a cure. But then false hope can be held out or people can start 
down a road that doesn't produce. That is where we have been going. 
That is where we are going with the embryonic stem cells. This is a 
route into which we put half a billion Federal taxpayer dollars and it 
hasn't produced. It is time to move somewhere else. We have tried this 
route before.
  I want to quote one of my colleagues on fetal tissue research. Some 
of my colleagues remember 10 or 15 years ago we were debating fetal 
tissue research. The promises sound strangely familiar, what people 
said.

       There is substantial evidence that fetal tissue research 
     will offer a new hope of prolonged life, greater quality of 
     life, and perhaps one day even a cure for many of these 
     diseases at a tremendous economic and social cost-saving to 
     the country.

  Then people frequently would list different areas that would be 
covered, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and the like.
  We funded fetal tissue research. The reason I mentioned this is it is 
quite a bit like fetal farming. In fetal tissue research the fetus is 
aborted and then body parts harvested for use in somebody else, and 
that was going to cure everybody. We were going to get rid of 
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's and cancer and all these 
areas with great promise. Yet we saw what happened on the fetal tissue 
research.

       Parkinson's research is set back by failure of fetal cell 
     grants--disastrous side effect--absolutely devastating--it 
     was tragic, catastrophic, it's a real nightmare. And we can't 
     selectively turn it off.

  That was what the researchers said when they took fetal tissue and 
put it in somebody to deal with Parkinson's disease. What we are trying 
to prohibit with the Fetal Farming Act is this from backing up even 
further, or doing it in a clone state, and inserting cancerous tumors 
into individuals. You can't selectively turn it off. That is why we 
want to ban this. That is why it is the wrong thing to do. It was the 
wrong thing to do then, using fetal tissue in that particular case.
  It is also the wrong thing to promise people these cures when we look 
at the

[[Page S7593]]

science of this and you know pretty likely this is not going to work--
from all the scientific evidence. Let me read from some of the eminent 
scientists. By the way, the material I had printed for the Record on 
tumor formation, I believe every one of these scientists, at least most 
of the scientists published in these articles, are pro embryonic stem 
cell research. They support embryonic stem cell research. They want it 
to work. The problem is, tumor formation, just as we saw with fetal 
tissue research. The cell grows fast, undifferentiated, but it can get 
in the brain and in some cases formed fingernails or hair follicles 
instead of brain tissue.
  What are some of the scientists who are strong embryonic stem cell 
supporters saying about the likelihood of human treatments using 
embryonic stem cells? Here I am quoting from people who support this 
research. Lord Winston, a British stem cell expert, has warned his 
colleagues over the political hype in support of human embryonic stem 
cells:

       One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public 
     that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in 
     promising what we might achieve. This is a real issue for the 
     scientists. am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem 
     cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's 
     lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise 
     that we desperately hope they will.

  This was in a lecture he gave in 2005. If we want to cure people, as 
different colleagues are talking about and giving different human 
examples, people examples--this is a clear route here, adult and cord 
blood. Put the money there if we want to cure people. If we want to do 
the scientific research, that is another thing, but if we want to cure 
people, we have an answer and it has no ethical problem to it. But we 
should not overhype the embryonic stem cells when the lead scientist 
say he thinks it is unlikely any time soon, if ever, to work, as I just 
quoted to you there.
  Let me give another quote from the journal ``Science.'' It carried a 
piece last summer in which supporters of embryonic--destructive human 
embryonic stem cell research admitted:

       It is necessary that prospective donors of human eggs 
     recognize the large gap between research and therapy. This is 
     particularly important in frontier areas of research where 
     therapeutic impact in humans is unproven.
       Also, it is nearly certain that the clinical benefits of 
     the research are years or maybe decades away. This is a 
     message that desperate families and patients will not want to 
     hear.

  If we are talking cures, we have an answer here. But it is not 
embryonic stem cell research. Otherwise we should not be talking about 
cures. We should be talking maybe about research on embryos, research 
on embryonic stem cells. We are interested in how they work, but we 
should not be talking cures because the cures are coming in the adult 
and cord blood route.
  I will have the ``Science'' article printed. I ask unanimous consent 
all these be printed in the Record at the end of my presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. This is an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. David 
Shaywitz put it in, in 2005.

       While stem cell advocates have helped voters connect stem 
     cell research with compelling images of patients who might 
     one day benefit from treatments, such therapies are unlikely 
     to emerge soon enough to benefit most current proponents. . . 
     .
        . . . scientists must do a better job of articulating the 
     limitations of our existing knowledge, taking care to 
     emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of 
     these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such 
     therapies.

  That is from scientists who support embryonic stem cell research. 
Let's be clear what we are talking about in this particular field.
  Now I want to talk about the pluripotent nature of adult stem cells. 
Here, Dr. Coburn, Dr. Frist, and others would be better qualified, 
obviously, than I could ever dream of being about this topic, but this 
has been raised for some period of time. The theory has gone, embryonic 
stem cells are pluripotent, they can form any type of cells. Adult stem 
cells cannot. Their plasticity is insufficient for them to be able to 
form other types of cells.
  I simply point to this chart, listing 16 peer-reviewed studies 
showing alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells other than 
embryonic stem cells, and almost all of these are out of adult stem 
cells--pluripotency.
  I urge my colleagues, the science has moved quite rapidly on this. I 
hope we can get up to speed with where the science is on this. There is 
pluripotency in other stem cells. There is pluripotency in cells other 
than the embryonic stem cells. We have the alternative bill, the 
Santorum-Specter bill, looking at other alternative sources of 
embryonic-type like stem cells that you do not have to destroy an 
embryo to get to. Look at those fields and those areas, these adult 
stem cells and this research, rather than saying the only source is 
embryonic, because it is not. That is not the only source because the 
science continues to move on through this and find other areas of 
pluripotency in adult stem cells as they are created.
  Because I have a little bit of time--I ask the Chair, how much time 
is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Fantastic. I have a picture I want to show, then, 
because this is a real hope. It is also a bit of a tragedy. Here is a 
gentleman I hosted at a hearing about Parkinson's disease. He suffers 
from Parkinson's disease. He had an adult stem cell treatment. We got 
him in to testify. It is adult stem cells put back in his own part of 
the brain, it is his own cells, so there is not a rejection problem. He 
was Parkinson's free for 5 years. We had trouble getting him in to 
testify. He was out doing African safaris and things. We couldn't get 
him to come in.
  I say that because that is the beauty of it. The tragedy of it is 
some of the Parkinson's traits are coming back. He would love to have 
another treatment for Parkinson's with his own adult stem cells. Yet we 
have so few clinical trials going on, we are so short in the funding of 
this, that he is not able to get additional treatments or other 
Parkinson's patients aren't able to get this.
  I ask my colleagues, if we want to treat, let's take the half a 
billion dollars and let's put it into research for a guy such as this, 
where we have a real promising start. He was Parkinson's free of things 
here for 5 years, and then it started coming back.
  My final comment I have in the time I have left is: What a beautiful 
time. What an opportunity we have for people to live longer and better 
lives. This is a glorious time for us to make a step forward.
  Senator Feinstein from California and I cochair the cancer caucus. We 
are setting an objective of ending deaths by cancer in 10 years. It is 
going to have to be aggressive to be able to do this. We are going to 
have to do some work on these adult and cord blood stem cell areas. 
What a beautiful time. Let's invest wisely. Let's not check our morals 
at the door--our values. Let's treat every single human as a sacred, 
beautiful child of the living God and we are going to be here 10 years 
from now with amazing stories of things that have happened, and a happy 
heart, and a clear conscience at the same time--that we did it, we did 
it the right way, that more people are alive today, not dead, we didn't 
sacrifice other human beings in the process, and people are cured. 
People with spinal cord injuries are walking. People with Parkinson's 
no longer have it.
  We have people in whom this is taking place today. We didn't give 
them cancer in the process of trying to cure them--where we are having 
the troubles with the embryonic stem cells.
  This can happen if we will go the right way, ban the fetal farming, 
not expand and use taxpayer dollars to fund destructive human embryonic 
research where you destroy a human, and look at these alternatives. It 
can and it will happen. And that--that is going to be a beautiful day.
  I believe my time has expired and I yield the floor

                               Exhibit 1

           Stem-Cell Reality: ``ESC Treatments Decades Away''

       ``Similarly, it is important not to use the term `therapy' 
     when what is meant is `research' and not to refer to human 
     embryonic stem cell research as `therapeutic cloning.' There 
     is currently no such thing as `therapeutic cloning' and this 
     is not `therapeutic cloning research,' nor can we say with 
     any certainty that ``cell therapy'' is in the near future.''
       (Source: Magnus & Cho, ``Issues in Oocyte Donation for Stem 
     Cell Research,'' Science Vol. 308, 1747-1748, June 17, 2005.)

[[Page S7594]]

       Last summer, the prestigious journal Science carried a 
     piece, in which supporters of destructive human embryonic 
     stem cell research admit:
       ``It is necessary that prospective donors [of human eggs] 
     recognize the large gap between research and therapy. This is 
     particularly important in frontier areas of research where 
     therapeutic impact in humans is unproven.
       ``Also, it is nearly certain that the clinical benefits of 
     the research are years or maybe decades away. This is a 
     message that desperate families and patients will not want to 
     hear.

                  Stem-Cell Reality: Over-Hyped ESC's

                 British Stem Cell Expert Lord Winston

       Lord Winston, a British stem cell expert, has warned his 
     colleague over the political hype in support of human 
     embryonic stem cells:
       ``One of the problems is that in order to persuade the 
     public that we must do this work, we often go rather too far 
     in promising what we might achieve.
       This is a real issue for the scientists. I am not entirely 
     convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and 
     possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter, be holding quite 
     the promise that we desperately hope they will.''
       (Source: ``Should We Trust the Scientists?'' Gresham 
     College Lecture, June 20, 2005)

           Stem-Cell Reality: ``ESC Therapies Unlikely Soon''

       Harvard stem cell researcher--and proponent of destructive 
     human embryonic stem cell research--David Shaywitz writes in 
     an op-ed carried by the Washington Post:
       ``While stem cell advocates have helped voters connect 
     embryonic stem cell research with compelling images of 
     patients who might one day benefit from treatment, such 
     therapies are unlikely to emerge soon enough to benefit most 
     current proponents . . .

       ``. . . scientists must do a better job of articulating the 
     limitations of our existing knowledge, taking care to 
     emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of 
     these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such 
     therapies.''
       (Source: David Shaywitz, ``Stem Cell Reality,'' The 
     Washington Post, April 29, 2005.)
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 8, 2001]

   Parkinson's Research Is Set Back by Failure of Fetal Cell Implants

                            (By Gina Kolata)

       A carefully controlled study that tried to treat 
     Parkinson's disease by implanting cells from aborted fetuses 
     into patients' brains not only failed to show an overall 
     benefit but also revealed a disastrous side effect, 
     scientists report.
       In about 15 percent of patients, the cells apparently grew 
     too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls 
     movement that the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably.
       The researchers say that while some patients have similar 
     effects from taking too high a dose of their Parkinson's 
     drug, in this case the drugs did not cause the symptoms and 
     there is no way to remove or deactivate the transplanted 
     cells.
       On the researchers' advice, six patients who enrolled in 
     the study but who had not yet had the implantation operation 
     have decided to forgo it.
       The results, reported today in The New England Journal of 
     Medicine, are a severe blow to what has been considered a 
     highly promising avenue of research for treating Parkinson's 
     disease, Alzheimer's disease and other neurological ailments. 
     The study indicates that the simple solution of injecting 
     fetal cells into a patient's brain may not be enough to treat 
     complex diseases involving nerve cells and connections that 
     are poorly understood. Some say it is time to go back to the 
     laboratory and to animals before doing any more operations on 
     humans.
       The findings may also fuel the debate over whether it is 
     appropriate to use tissue from aborted fetuses to treat 
     diseases. Despite their disappointment, some researchers said 
     they hoped that the results would not bring fetal cell 
     research to an abrupt halt. The research has been 
     controversial because the fetal cells were obtained from 
     abortion clinics.
       ``This is still our one great hope for a cure,'' said Dr. 
     J. William Langston, who is scientific director and chief 
     executive officer at The Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, 
     Calif.
       Parkinson's disease occurs when cells of the substantia 
     nigra region in the base of the brain die, for unknown 
     reasons. The hope was that fetal substantia nigra cells might 
     take over for them. But, the study showed, in older patients 
     the operation had no benefit and in some younger patients, 
     the transplants brought on nightmarish side effects.
       Although the paper depicts the patients with the side 
     effects in impassive clinical terms, doctors who have seen 
     them paint a very different picture.
       Dr. Paul E. Greene, a neurologist at the Columbia 
     University College of Physicians and Surgeons and a 
     researcher in the study, said the uncontrollable movements 
     some patients suffered were ``absolutely devastating.''
       ``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their 
     wrists flex and distend,'' Dr. Greene said. And the patients 
     writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about.
       ``It was tragic, catastrophic,'' he said. ``It's a real 
     nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off.''
       One man was so badly affected that he could no longer eat 
     and had to use a feeding tube, Dr. Greene said. In another, 
     the condition came and went unpredictably throughout the day, 
     and when it occurred, the man's speech was unintelligible.
       For now, Dr. Greene said, his position is clear: ``No more 
     fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced 
     that this should be considered for research only. And whether 
     it should be research in people is an open question.''
       Dr. Gerald D. Fischbach, who was director of the National 
     Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which 
     sponsored the study, said that while the operation had been 
     promoted by some neurosurgeons as miraculous, this was the 
     first time it was rigorously evaluated. It used sham surgery 
     as a comparison, a controversial and rarely used strategy but 
     one that researchers felt was necessary to understand the 
     true effects of the operation.
       Dr. Fischbach, who is now dean of the faculty of medicine 
     at the Columbia University College of Physicians and 
     Surgeons, was the director of the institute only at the end 
     of the study.
       ``Ad hoc reports of spectacular results can always occur,'' 
     Dr. Fischbach said. ``But if you do these studies 
     systematically, this is the result you get.''
       The surgery, he added, ``is not the final solution that 
     people would have hoped going into it.''
       In the study, researchers, led by Dr. Curt R. Reed of the 
     University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver and 
     Dr. Stanley Fahn of the Columbia University College of 
     Physicians and Surgeons, recruited 40 patients, ages 34 to 
     75, who had had Parkinson's disease for an average of 14 
     years. The patients were randomly assigned to have substantia 
     nigra cells from four fetuses implanted in their brains or to 
     have sham surgery, for comparison.
       The surgery took place in Colorado and the patients were 
     evaluated in New York. The fetal cell surgery involved 
     drilling four small holes in the patient's forehead and then 
     inserting long needles through the holes into the brain and 
     injecting fetal cells. The sham surgery involved drilling the 
     holes but not injecting needles into the brain. After a year, 
     the patients were told whether they had the fetal cell 
     surgery and, if not, they were offered it if they wanted it.
       The study's primary measure of success was whether the 
     patients themselves noticed that they were better, as 
     determined by a survey that they mailed in a year later but 
     before they knew whether they had had fetal cell implants or 
     a sham operation. The study found no difference between the 
     two groups--neither those who had had the fetal cell 
     operation nor those who had had the sham surgery notice an 
     improvement in their symptoms.
       Other tests, like neurologists' assessments of the patients 
     while they were taking their medication and the patients' 
     assessments of their condition in diaries they kept also 
     showed no effect of the surgery. And there was no difference 
     between the two groups in the doses of drugs needed to 
     control the disease.
       The one glimmer of hope came from assessments by 
     neurologists before the patients had had their first dose of 
     medication in the morning. By that measure, the 10 patients 
     under age 60 who had had the fetal cell implants seemed 
     better than those who had had sham surgery, with less 
     rigidity, although their tremor was just as bad.
       Dr. Freed hailed that result, saying, ``It was clear-cut 
     improvement.''
       And, he added, the fetal cells survived in most patients' 
     brains.
       ``I would be disappointed if people used a strict clinical 
     trial approach,'' Dr. Freed said. ``This study is about 
     multiple phenomena.''
       Others were less enthusiastic, pointing out that finding 
     subgroups after the fact who may have benefited suggests a 
     hypothesis for future studies, not evidence of an effect.
       ``We try to teach everybody that you have to identify 
     beforehand what's the primary outcome,'' said Dr. William 
     Weiner, the director of the Maryland Parkinson's Disease and 
     Movement Disorder Center and a professor of neurology at the 
     University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, 
     referring to the measure of success determined before the 
     study began. ``In this case, they picked a subjective 
     assessment by the patients themselves, which I think is a 
     very good one.''
       And so, Dr. Weiner said, when the patients noticed no 
     improvement, ``the study was negative.''
       In addition, Dr. Langston said, even if a Subsequent study 
     confirmed that the surgery had an effect on the condition in 
     younger patients before they took their medicine in the 
     morning, and even if there was a way of preventing the 
     terrible side effect, the operation would still hardly be a 
     breakthrough. Parkinson's disease is almost always a disease 
     of the elderly, he noted, adding that well under 10 percent 
     of patients who would be candidates for the surgery are 
     younger than 60.
       The wiggling and writhing movements first emerged a year 
     after the operation, showing up in five of the younger 
     patients who had at first appeared to benefit from fetal cell 
     surgery--three who had the operation in the initial phase of 
     the study and two who had it a

[[Page S7595]]

     year later, when they learned that they had originalIy had a 
     sham surgery. While doctors sometimes see such effects in 
     Parkinson's patients, it is caused by giving too much of 
     drugs that act like dopamine in the brain. And it can be 
     controlled by reducing the drugs.
       In this case, however, drugs were not the culprit. Even 
     when doctors took away the drugs, the symptoms persisted.
       The fetal implant study had been controversial from the 
     start, both because it included sham surgery and because it 
     used fetal tissue from abortions. But many Parkinson's 
     disease experts said it had to be done because doctors were 
     already offering the surgery to patients, and charging them 
     for it, at costs of $40,000 or more, with no evidence that 
     they were helping them. Yet patients, facing a disease in 
     which brain cells slowly and inexorably die and in which even 
     the drugs that once controlled their symptoms of tremor and 
     rigidity would inevitably fail, took their chances with the 
     operation, thinking they had little to lose.
       Dr. Freed said he was the first in the United States to 
     offer the treatment, starting in 1988 with a 52-year-old man, 
     who is still alive although, of course, he also still has 
     Parkinson's disease.
       Dr. Freed continued to offer it to paying patients while he 
     was treating those who were part of the federal study and 
     whose procedures were paid for by the study. He said he 
     considered these other operations research because he 
     experimented with different amounts and placements of fetal 
     cells. He has given fetal cell implants to 27 patients, he 
     said, with the most recent operation last October.
       Dr. Freed said his group was now implanting less fetal 
     tissue and putting the tissue in a different area of the 
     brain, hoping to avoid the devastating side effects. But, he 
     said it would be a mistake to stop doing the surgery 
     altogether.
       ``To say that you can't do or shouldn't do human research 
     because the research has uncertain outcome, I think would be 
     a bad decision,'' Dr. Freed said.
       Meanwhile, a second federally financed study of the 
     operation is winding to a close, and some researchers say it 
     is time to go back to animal studies and learn more about the 
     complex roles of the brain cells involved in Parkinson's 
     disease.
       Dr. Weiner said that if a patient came to him today seeking 
     advice, he would say: ``The bottom line for patients is that 
     human fetal cell transplants are not currently the best way 
     to go. If you are willing to pay for them, you can still have 
     them done. But my advice is you ought not to do this.''
                                  ____

         [From Stem Cells Express, 
           Feb. 2, 2006]

 Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Neuronally Committed Precursor Cells with 
  Reduced Teratoma Formation After Transplantation into the Lesioned 
                           Adult Mouse Brain

                           (By Marcel Dihne)


                                ABSTRACT

       The therapeutic potential of embryonic stem (ES) cells in 
     neurodegenerative disorders has been widely recognized, and 
     methods are being developed to optimize culture conditions 
     for enriching the cells of interest and to improve graft 
     stability and safety after transplantation. Whereas teratoma 
     formation rarely occurs in xenogeneic transplantation 
     paradigms of ES cell-derived neural progeny, more than 70% of 
     mice that received murine ES cell-derived neural precursor 
     cells develop teratomas, thus posing a major safety problem 
     for allogeneic and syngeneic transplantation paradigms. Here 
     we introduce a new differentiation protocol based on the 
     generation of substrate-adherent ES cell-derived neural 
     aggregates (SENAs) that consist predominantly of neuronally 
     committed precursor cells. Purified SENAs that were 
     differentiated into immature but postmitotic neurons did not 
     form tumors up to four months after syngeneic transplantation 
     into the acutely degenerated striatum and showed robust 
     survival.
                                  ____


                [From Stem Cells Express, Mar. 23, 2006]

  Transplantation of Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Cells to a Rat 
  Model of Parkinson's Disease: Effect of In Vitro Differentiation on 
                 Graft Survival and Teratoma Formation

                          (By Anke Brederlau)


                                Abstract

       Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) have been proposed as a 
     source of dopamine (DA) neurons for transplantation in 
     Parkinson's disease (PD). We have investigated the effect of 
     in vitro predifferentiation on in vivo survival and 
     differentiation of hESCs implanted into the 6-OHDA (6-
     hydroxydopamine)-lesion rat model of PD. The hESCs were 
     cocultured with PA6 cells for 16, 20, or 23 days, leading to 
     the in vitro differentiation into DA neurons. Grafted hESC-
     derived cells survived well and expressed neuronal markers. 
     However, very few exhibited a DA neuron phenotype. Reversal 
     of lesion-induced motor deficits was not observed. Rats 
     grafted with hESCs preadifferentiated in vitro for 16 days 
     developed severe teratomas, whereas most rats grafted with 
     hESCs predifferentiated for 20 and 23 days remained healthy 
     until the end of the experiment. This indicates that 
     prolonged in vitro differentiation of hESCDs is essential for 
     preventing formation of teratomas.
                                  ____


                   [From Neuroscience Research, 2005]

Survival and engraftment of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Implants 
                        in the Guinea Pig Brain

                           (By A.J. Robinson)


                                Abstract

       a-Mannosidosis is a lysosomal storage disease resulting 
     from a deficiency of the enzyme a-d-mannosidase. A major 
     feature of a-mannosidosis is progressive neurological 
     decline, for which there is no safe and effective treatment 
     available. We have a guinea pig model of a-mannosidosis that 
     models the human condition. This study investigates the 
     feasibility of implanting differentiated mouse embryonic stem 
     cells in the neonatal guinea pig brain in order to provide a 
     source of a-mannosidase to the affected central nervous 
     system.
       Cells implanted at a low dose (1.5 10 \3\ cells per 
     hemisphere) at 1 week of age were found to survive in very 
     low numbers in some immunosuppressed animals out to 8 weeks. 
     Four weeks post-implantation, cells implanted in high numbers 
     (10 \5\ cells per hemisphere) formed teratomas in the 
     majority of the animals implanted. Although implanted cells 
     were found to migrate extensively within the brain and 
     differentiate into mature cells of neural (and other) 
     lineages, the safety issue related to uncontrolled cell 
     proliferation precluded the use of this cell type for longer-
     term implantation studies. We conclude that the pluripotent 
     cell type used in this study is unsuitable for achieving safe 
     engraftment in the guinea pig brain.
                                  ____


     [From Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Dec. 2004]

  Neurally Selected Embryonic Stem Cells Induce Tumor Formation After 
   Long-Term Survival Following Engraftment Into the Subretinal Space

  (By Stefan Arnbold, Helmut Klein, Irina Semkova, Klaus Addicks, and 
                          Ulrich Schraermeyer)

       Purpose. To determine whether transplantation of embryonic 
     stem (ES) cells into the subretinal space of rhodopsin-
     knockout mice has a tumorigenic effect.
       Methods. Mouse ES-cell-derived neural precursor cells 
     carrying the sequence for the green fluorescent protein (GFP) 
     gene were grafted subretinally into the eyes of 
     rhodopsin-/- mice, whereas control animals 
     underwent sham surgery. Eyes were retrieved after 2, 4, and 8 
     weeks after cell injection or sham surgery for histologic 
     analysis.
       Results. Gross morphologic, histologic, and 
     immunohistochemical analysis of eyes at 2 and 4 weeks after 
     engraftment exhibited no morphologic alterations, whereas 
     neoplasia formation was detected in 50% of the eyes evaluated 
     at 8 weeks after engraftment. Because the neoplasias 
     expressed differentiation characteristics of the different 
     germ layers, they were considered to be teratomas. The 
     resultant tumor formation affected almost all layers of the 
     eye, including the retina, the vitreous, and the choroid.
       Conclusions. Although ES cells may provide treatment for 
     degenerative disease in the future, their unlimited self-
     renewal and high differentiation potential poses the risk of 
     tumor induction after engraftment. Thus, more care must be 
     taken before using ES cell transportation as a therapeutic 
     option for patients with degenerative disease.
                                  ____


                 [From Transplantations, Oct. 15, 2003]

       Engraftment and Tumor Formation After Allogeneic In Utero 
            Transplantation of Primate Embryonic Stem Cells

                          (By Takayuki Asano)

       Background. To achieve human embryonic stem (ES) cell-based 
     transplantation therapies, allogeneic transplantation models 
     of nonhuman primates would be useful. We have prepared 
     cynomolgus ES cells genetically marked with the green 
     fluorescent protein (GFP), The cells were transplanted into 
     the allogeneic fetus, taking advantage of the fact that the 
     fetus is so immunologically immature as not to induce immune 
     responses to transplanted cells and that fetal tissue 
     compartments are rapidly expanding and thus providing space 
     for the engraftment.
       Methods. Cynomolgus ES cells were genetically modified to 
     express the GFP gene using a simian immunodeficiency viral 
     vector or electroporation, These cells were transplanted in 
     utero with ultrasound guidance into the cynomolgus fetus in 
     the abdominal cavity (n=2) or liver (n=2) at the end of the 
     first trimester. Three fetuses were delivered 1 month after 
     transplantation, and the other, 3 months after 
     transplantation Fetal tissues were examined for transplanted 
     cell progeny by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and in 
     situ polymerase chain reaction of the GFP sequence.
       Results. A fluorescent tumor, obviously derived from 
     transplanted ES cells, was found in the thoracic cavity at 3 
     months after transplantation in one fetus. However, 
     transplanted cell progeny were also detected (1%) without 
     teratomas in multiple fetal tissues. The cells were solitary 
     and indistinguishable from surrounding host cells
       Conclusions. Transplanted cynomolgus ES cells can be 
     engrafted in allogeneic fetuses. The cells will, however, 
     form a tumor if they ``leak'' into an improper space such as 
     the thoracic cavity.

[[Page S7596]]

     
                                  ____
          [From the American Journal of Pathology, June 2005]

  Stem Cells, Tissue Engineering and Hematopoietic Elements: Teratoma 
   Formation Leads to Failure of Treatment for Type I Diabetes Using 
          Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Insulin-Producing Cells

                         (By Takahisa Fujikawa)

       Embryonic stem (ES) cells have been proposed to be a 
     powerful tool in the study of pancreatic disease, as well as 
     a potential source for cell replacement therapy in the 
     treatment of diabetes. However, data dem onstrating the 
     feasibility of using pancreatic islet-like cells 
     differentiated from ES cells remain controversial. In this 
     study we characterized ES cell-derived insulin-expressing 
     cells and assessed their suitability for the treatment of 
     type I diabetes. ES cell-derived insulin-stained cell 
     clusters expressed insulin mRNA and transcription factors 
     associated with pancreatic development. The majority of 
     insulin-positive cells the clusters also showed 
     immunoreactivity for C-peptide. Insulin was stored in the 
     cytoplasm and released into the culture medium in a glucose-
     dependent manner. When the cultured cells were transplanted 
     into diabetic mice, they reversed the hyperglycemic state for 
     3 weeks, but the rescue failed due to immature teratoma 
     formation. Our studies demonstrate that reversal of 
     hyperglycemia by transplantation of ES cell-derived insulin-
     producing cells is possible. However, the risk of teratoma 
     formation would need to be eliminated before ES cell-based 
     therapies for the treatment of Diabetes are considered.
                                  ____


        [From Somatosensory and Motor Research, Mar./June 2005]

  Transportation of Apoptosis-Resistant Embryonic Stem Cells Into the 
                        Injured Rat Spinal Cord

                         (By Michael J. Howard)


                                Abstract

       Murine embryonic stem cells were induced to differentiate 
     into neural lineage cells by exposure to retinoic acid. 
     Approximately one million cells were transplanted into the 
     lesion site in the spinal cords of adult rats which had 
     received moderate contusion injuries 9 days previously. One 
     group received transplants of cells genetically modified to 
     over-express bel-2, which codes for an anti-apoptotic 
     protein. A second group received transplants of the wild-type 
     ES cells from which the bcl-2 line was developed. In the 
     untransplanted control group, only medium was injected. 
     Locomotor abilities were assessed using the Basso, Beattie 
     and Bresnahan (BBB) rating scale for 6 weeks. There was no 
     incremental locomotor improvement in either transplant group 
     when compared to control over the survival period. Morbidity 
     and mortality were significantly more prevalent in the 
     transplant groups than in controls. At the conclusion of the 
     6-week survival period, the spinal cords were examined. Two 
     of six cords from the bc-2 group and one of 12 cords from the 
     wild-type group showed gross evidence of abnormal growths at 
     the site of transplantation. No similar growth was seen in 
     the control. Pathological examination of the abnormal cords 
     showed very large numbers of undifferentiated cells 
     proliferating the injection site and extending up to 1.5 cm 
     rostrally and caudally. These results suggest that 
     transplanting KD3 ES cells, or apoptosisresistant cells 
     derived from KD3 line, into the injured spinal cord does not 
     improve locomotor recovery and can lead to tumor-like growth 
     of cells, accompanied by increased debilitation, morbidity 
     and morality.
                                  ____


                   [From Diabetologia, Feb. 14, 2004]

 Insulin Expressing Cells From Differentiated Embryonic Stem Cells Are 
                             Not Beta Cells

                            (By S. Sipione)


                                Abstract

       Aim/hypothesis. Embryonic stem (ES) cells have beer 
     proposed as a potential source of tissue for transplantation 
     for the treatment of Type 1 diabetes. However studies showing 
     differentiation of beta cells from ES cells are 
     controversial. The aim of this study was to characterise the 
     insulin-expressing cells differentiated in vitro from ES 
     cells and to assess their suitability for the treatment of 
     diabetes.
       Methods. ES cell-derived insulin-expressing cells were 
     characterised by means of immunocytochemistry, RT-PCR and 
     functional analyses. Activation of the Insulin I promoter 
     during ES-cell differentiation was assessed in ES cell lines 
     transfected with a reporter gene. ES cell-derived cultures 
     were transplanted into STZ-treated SCID-beige mice and blood 
     glucos concentrations of diabetic mice were monitored for 3 
     weeks.
       Results. Insulin-stained cells differentiated from E cells 
     were devoid of typical beta-cell granules, rarely showed 
     immunoreactivity for C-peptide and were mostly apoptotic. The 
     main producers of proinsulin/insulin in these cultures were 
     neurons and neuronal precursors and a reporter gene under the 
     control of the insulin I promoter was activated in cells with 
     a neuronal phenotype. Insulin was released into the 
     incubation medium but the secretion was not glucose-
     dependent. When the cultures were transplanted in diabetic 
     mice they formed teratomas and did not reverse the 
     hyperglyceamic state.
       Conclusions/Interpretation. Our studies show that insulin-
     positive cells in vitro-differentiated from ES cells are not 
     beta cells and suggest that alternative protocols, based on 
     enrichment of ES cell-derived cultures with cells of the 
     endodermal lineage, should be developed to generate true beta 
     cells for the treatment of diabetes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority is in 
control of the next 30 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator from 
Kansas--I will even do it on my time. I guess our next speaker is not 
here right now. If the Senator from Kansas would perhaps engage me in a 
colloquy, I would ask about the gentleman whose picture he has up 
there. How is he doing now? I understand that, frankly, while his 
Parkinson's was relieved for a while, it has reverted and he is back in 
his previous state. Does the Senator know about that?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. If you caught my comments on the floor, I stated 
that is part of the tragedy here. He had 5 years Parkinson's free, 
wants an additional treatment using the same adult stem cell procedure 
he had before that worked, and can't get it. We don't have sufficient 
funding to move that on forward.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, I don't understand that. I have a 
chart here that shows stem cell funding, embryonic stem cell funding, 
is $38.3 million last year and adult stem cell funding is $200 million. 
You are telling me out of $200 million they can't help one individual?
  Plus, I ask my friend from Kansas, if this is so promising, why is 
the entire Parkinson's network that represents all the people with 
Parkinson's disease 100 percent behind H.R. 810? Why are they so 
supportive of H.R. 810 and not this approach?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could answer on both of those, I would have 
printed in the Record the funding over the past 4 years for both 
embryonic and adult and cord blood stem cells. We put about half a 
billion in embryonic, both animal and human, over the past 5 years. I 
ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record, to point to 
the level of funding we have put in both of those
  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 2002-2006
                                                                                                        [Dollars in millions] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   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    \2\ 113.5        305.6        235.7     \2\ 89.3        325.0        273.2         97.0        370.2        835.1        371.3       1206.3
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIH, Total...........................        305.0         81.6        386.6        382.9    \2\ 133.8        516.6        439.0    \2\ 113.6        552.5        472.5        136.7        609.2       1599.4        465.7       2064.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add due to rounding.
\2\ Decrease from FY03 to FY04 is the result of a change in methodology used to collect nonhuman embryonic funding figures. This methodology change also contributed to an increase in nonhuman non-embryonic.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Second, I would point out on Parkinson's, I don't know 
why the Parkinson's advocacy community would support that. I find it 
hard to believe they would oppose us doing more work in this field. I 
would simply ask you, or others, if we have a place that is working and 
we have another place that is producing tumors, why wouldn't you put 
more in a place that is working?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Kansas--and I see Senator Nelson 
is here to speak. He had previously been

[[Page S7597]]

scheduled to do so--first, I didn't see all the figures the Senator 
sent to the desk. I would like to see those. I heard him talk about a 
half billion dollars. Frankly, what the Senator from Kansas is talking 
about is animal embryonic. We are talking about human--human 
experiments here, not animal.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am more interested in the human than I am about human 
and animal.
  Second, on cancer and tumors, it is my understanding--I am not a 
scientist, but in talking with the scientists--the fact that an 
undifferentiated stem cell causes cancer is exactly what they are 
looking for. It is the gold standard. I thought it was the gold 
standard for determining whether you have an embryonic stem cell.
  Let me see if I can repeat it as told to me. If you derive a stem 
cell line from an embryo, you don't really know if you have stem cells. 
So the scientists take the undifferentiated cells and put them in a 
mouse to see if it causes cancer. That is the gold standard--to see 
whether there is a stem cell line.
  No one is talking about putting undifferentiated cells into your body 
or mine or anyone else's. We are talking about undifferentiated cells 
and then finding how they make nerve cells, how they make heart cells, 
how they make tissue cells, how they make brain cells. Only after they 
are differentiated would they then be put into a person, not 
undifferentiated.
  I hear all about the terms. I heard that earlier this morning. I 
thought I would check up on it. That is what I found out.
  I would be glad to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, let me clarify for the record. I think it 
is very important. There is a difference between cancer and teratoma. 
They use the formation of teratomas to make a differentiation of 
whether this is a part of the cell. That is not a cancer. Teratomas are 
not necessarily cancer. They are tumors but not necessarily cancer.
  Mr. HARKIN. They are tumors. That is what I heard the Senator say.
  Mr. COBURN. If you do not have a tumor, I would just as soon have a 
teratoma as cancer.
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't know. I am a little confused. Is the Senator 
saying, if a stem cell has been introduced and is undifferentiated, it 
causes cancer or teratoma?
  Mr. COBURN. No. The Senator alluded to the fact that there is a gold 
standard of whether an embryonic stem cell is pluripotent or whether it 
produces a teratoma. That means it has components of the three layers 
of an embryo--exoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm--which create all the 
other tissues.
  Mr. HARKIN. But the fact is the inference from some of the 
statements, I think, is that thus far stem cells, when introduced, 
cause cancer. That is not so. That has not been proven. That has not 
been proven at all.
  Mr. COBURN. It has. Most of the time teratoma.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I submitted for the Record seven peer-
reviewed articles on the creation of tumors.
  Mr. HARKIN. Tumors but not cancer.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. We have been down this road before. We tried this on 
the fetal tissue research. Remember that debate of 10 to 15 years ago. 
They had fast-growing cells, Parkinson's, and heart disease. When we 
inserted them into actual human patients, here is what it did. It 
created disastrous results because they formed all sorts of tissues 
along with cancer. We have been here before, as the Senator knows, on 
trying to get these sort of different cells from other bodies into one.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have gone down a lot of blind alleys in medical 
research in the past. I have often said that one of the reasons for 
basic research is that you have 11 doors that are closed. The answer to 
the problem and the answer to your endeavor may be behind one of those 
doors. When you have enough funding to open one door, you know what the 
odds are against you finding it. Or if you have funding for half, then 
you know what the odds are against you opening the right door. A lot of 
doors don't lead to anything. A lot of basic research goes down the 
path, and they find out that is not the answer. So they have to shift 
to something else. That happens all the time. That is what basic 
research is all about.
  I do not know the specific thing. I am not surprised that many things 
in the past that scientists have gone down the road on have not led to 
something curative or therapeutic or something like that which helps 
us.
  That doesn't mean that we have tried something before with 
devastating effects which doesn't say that we can't then do embryonic 
stem cell research.
  I get back to the point that when you have almost every disease group 
in this country supporting the bill that is before us, H.R. 810, you 
have Nobel laureates, scientists, doctors, and you have 19 Directors of 
NIH saying that thi has great potential, then I say, again, to my 
friends that you have to make either one of two assumptions. Either all 
of these people have been hoodwinked and they do not know what they are 
talking about or they have no care or concern about ethics or morals or 
anything else. I think both assumptions are wrong. I think these people 
know. They are informed. They may not know every little thing medical 
doctors might know, but they know the potential.

  Second, I think they are vastly ethical and moral people.
  I hope we will have some further colloquies on this later.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would love to respond with a quick response. I think 
a third option is people are kind of interested in what these cells 
will do. I quoted from Lord Winston, a British stem cell researcher, 
saying it is an interesting area, but it is not going to produce any 
likely cures in my lifetime. But they are curious. They are looking at 
it and saying it is an interesting area of research. If we are going to 
cure people, let us cure people and let us talk about that kind of 
research.
  The Senator has been very kind to let me speak.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has been very kind. I think we can engage at 
some other point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we just heard a great deal of 
discussion and disagreement. My bottom line on this whole issue of stem 
cell research is that a vast majority of the medical and scientific 
community feels that this is a process which would lead to medical 
breakthroughs in the fight against disease. To this Senator, that is 
worth exploring.
  There is hardly a Senator here whose life has not been touched by 
disease, in one way or another, through their family. In this 
particular Senator's life, my family has been touched by disease, and 
we don't know the cause of it. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, 
otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease. It took down the great 
baseball player, Lou Gehrig. For years, the researchers have looked and 
looked and researched and researched and have not found a cure. The ALS 
community, along with many other communities, is concerned about the 
treatment and cure of diseases on which stem cell research might offer 
a clue.
  Researchers believe that stem cells may have the potential to treat 
over 100 million Americans who suffer from a variety of conditions, 
many of which you heard already discussed on the floor of the Senate 
today.
  There is a T-shirt that I jogged in this morning. It was given to me 
by the Miami Project. One of the most graphic symbols on this T-shirt 
is the international symbol of a wheelchair-bound person, and that 
international symbol suddenly starts to become upright and walks. The 
Miami Project was put together after the tragedy of a spinal cord 
injury to the son of Nick Buoniconti, the all-pro linebacker of the 
great Miami Dolphins team, the undefeated team of 1972. When his son 
was at a Citadel football game, he suffered that injury. Now the son 
and the father are both behind Miami Project, trying to find a cure for 
spinal cord injuries. And all the medical researchers feel that stem 
cell research is very promising for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
cardiovascular disease, cancer, and I already mentioned ALS and 
diabetes.
  If that occurred, think what that would mean as we grapple with the 
Federal budget that is going out of control because of the accelerating 
cost of Medicare. If we were able to

[[Page S7598]]

treat and cure some of these diseases, think about how much cost 
savings that would create. And clearly, in this Senator's mind, a 
secondary consideration is the fact of eliminating, almost 
miraculously, the plague of these diseases by the stem cells that have 
the ability to reproduce themselves and potentially develop into 
different kinds of cells in the human body.
  Of course, you have already heard in the debate today about the 
extensive research and being able to treat certain diseases. When 
confronted with this a few weeks before September 11, 2001, the 
President announced that the administration would only allow Federal 
funding for this research to be used on existing colonies of embryonic 
stem cells. Of course, you have heard the chorus in the scientific 
community, since then, expressing concern about the quality, the 
longevity, and the availability of these lines--and they believe that 
the research advancement requires new embryonic stem cell lines. The 
key is to increase the availability of the quality embryonic stem cell 
lines.

  The current rules have limited the supply and have resulted in fewer 
investigators focusing their efforts on stem cell research. Therefore, 
progress has been limited because of Federal funding in this research 
being limited. We have the ability to fix that. We can do that in this 
bill before the Senate.
  This Senator intends to support this bill. This bill lifts the 
President's current restriction that allows researchers to receive the 
Federal funding for the study of embryonic stem cells. These stem cells 
can only be derived from embryos originally created for fertility 
treatments and that are willingly donated by patients and, I might say, 
that are slated to be discarded.
  We will get a substantial majority of votes in the Senate. Although 
we hear the threats of a veto, it would be my hope the President will 
reexamine this issue. We are only talking about one kind of stem cell 
research. This is the stem cells that come through a rather complicated 
progress, from a fertilized egg that was going to be discarded.
  There is another promising way of doing this called somatic cell 
nuclear transfer where it is not even a fertilized egg. You take an 
egg, scoop out the nucleus, take a stem cell from the donor--it can be 
from a skin cell--put that nucleus in, and activate the process of 
growing cells. That process of stem cell research has enormous promise.
  This Senator has heard from thousands of Floridians who suffer on a 
daily basis from some of these terrible diseases. The Senate has the 
ability to bring hope to these people. It is time to act. The Senate 
should pass this bill and pass it with a fairly sizable majority, 
giving scientists the tools they need to search for cures.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I was visited by two of my 
constituents--Mary Schneider and her son Ryan.
  When Ryan was just 2 years old, his parents and doctors noted severe 
delays in his motor and speech development, and he was diagnosed with 
cerebral palsy. His parents were devastated, as the prognosis for any 
children with cerebral palsy is quite grim, and given the severity of 
Ryan's condition, his doctors didn't have much hope for his 
improvement.
  Yet, his parents had hope. Because when Ryan was born, his parents 
had saved his cord blood, a viable but limited source of stem cells. 
They found a doctor at Duke University who was willing to perform an 
experimental infusion with these cells to see if they might improve his 
condition.
  They did. In fact, they seem to have cured him.
  Within months of the infusion, Ryan was able to speak, use his arms, 
and eat normally, just like any other child--a miracle his family had 
once only dreamed of.
  Ryan's story exemplifies the power and the promise of stem cells to 
treat and cure the millions of Americans who are suffering from 
catastrophic, debilitating and life-threatening diseases and health 
conditions.
  Each year, 100,000 Americans will develop Alzheimer's disease. Over 1 
million adults will be diagnosed with diabetes this year, which can 
lead to complications such as blindness, damaged nerves and loss of 
kidney function. And there are far too many individuals with spinal 
cord injuries who are struggling to maintain mobility and independence.
  For most of our history, medicine has offered little hope of recovery 
to individuals affected by these and other devastating illnesses and 
injuries. Until now.
  Recent developments in stem cell research may hold the key to 
improved treatments, if not cures, for those affected by Alzheimer's 
disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and countless other conditions.
  Many men, women and children who are cancer survivors are already 
familiar with the life-saving applications of adult stem cell research. 
Patients with leukemia or lymphoma often undergo bone marrow 
transplants.
  One of my old law partners back in Chicago underwent a bone marrow 
transplant at the age of 30. It is a type of stem cell transplant which 
can significantly prolong life or permanently get rid of cancer. This 
is what happened, fortunately, to my partner. He is now cancer free. 
This therapy has been used successfully for decades and is saving lives 
every day.
  Now, here is the problem. This particular breakthrough of adult stem 
cells has its limitations. Adult stem cells, as has already been 
mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, such as those which 
are used in bone marrow transplants can only be collected in small 
quantities. They may not be a match for the patient. They have limited 
ability to transform into specialized cells.
  Cord blood, like the kind Ryan used, has limitations as well. If, for 
example, Ryan's condition should deteriorate or he should have another 
illness, there is simply not enough cord blood cells left for a second 
use. His mother has told us that the few remaining cells would have to 
be cloned to get enough cells for future use or they would have to 
obtain stem cells from another source.
  These and other difficulties are the reason scientists have started 
to explore other types and other sources of stem cells, including 
embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from 
a number of sources, including in vitro fertilization. At this very 
moment, there are over 400,000 embryos being stored in over 400 
facilities throughout the United States. The majority of these are 
reserved for infertile couples. However, many of these embryos will go 
unused, destined for permanent storage in a freezer or disposal. It 
makes sense for us to expand and accelerate research using these 
embryos, just as we should continue to explore the viability of adult 
stem cell use and cord blood use.
  All over the country, exciting progress is being made in the area of 
embryonic stem cell research. At the University of Illinois, they are 
discovering that stem cells have the potential to treat blood 
disorders, lung diseases, and heart damage. At Johns Hopkins, 
researchers use mouse embryonic stem cells to restore damaged nerves 
and restore mobility in paralyzed rats. One cannot help but think it is 
a matter of when, not if, the research will be able to help those who 
have lost the ability to walk.
  For these reasons, I am proud to be a longtime supporter of greater 
stem cell research. While I was a member of the Illinois Senate, I was 
the chief cosponsor of the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act, which 
would specifically permit embryonic stem cell research in Illinois and 
establish a review of this research by the Illinois Department of 
Public Health.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the stem cell bill before the Senate 
today. This bill embodies the innovative thinking we as a society 
demand and medical achievement requires. By expanding scientific access 
to embryonic stem cells which would be otherwise discarded, this bill 
will help our Nation's scientists and researchers develop treatments 
and cures to help people who suffer from illnesses and injuries for 
which there currently are none.
  The bill is not without limits. It requires that scientific research 
also be subject to rigorous oversight. I recognize there are serious 
moral and ethical issues surrounding this debate. I am respectful of 
those on the other side. I also realize that we are not talking about 
harvesting cells that would

[[Page S7599]]

have been used to create life. We are not talking about cloning humans. 
We are talking about using stem cells that would otherwise have been 
discarded and lost forever. We are talking about using those stem cells 
to possibly save the lives of millions of Americans.
  Democrats want this bill passed. Conservative pro-life Republicans 
want this bill passed. By large margins, the American people want this 
bill passed. It is only the White House right now that is standing in 
the way of progress, standing in the way of so many potential cures.
  I ask, after this bill passes--because I am confident it will pass in 
the Senate--that the President think about this before he picks up his 
pen to deliver his first veto in 6 years. I ask that he think about 
Ryan Schneider and his parents and all the other families sitting and 
waiting and praying for a cure, hoping that somewhere a researcher or 
scientist will find an answer.
  There was a time in the middle of the last century when America 
watched helplessly as a mysterious disease left thousands, especially 
children, disabled for life. The medical community worked tirelessly to 
fight to try to find a cure, but they needed help. They needed funding 
to make their research possible.
  With a world war raging and the country still emerging from the 
Depression, the Federal Government could hav ignored their plight or 
told them to find their own cure, let it be funded privately, but that 
is not what happened. Instead, FDR helped to galvanize a community of 
compassion and organized the March of Dimes to find the cure for polio. 
While Roosevelt knew that his own polio would never be cured by the 
discovery of a vaccine, he also knew that at its best, the Government 
can be used as a force to accomplish together what we cannot achieve on 
our own. So the people began to care. The dimes piled up, and the 
funding started to flow. And 50 years ago, Jonas Salk discovered the 
polio vaccine.

  Americans are looking for that kind of leadership today. All over the 
country, patients and families are waiting today for Congress and the 
President to open the door to the cures of tomorrow. At the dawn of 
this new century, we should approach this research with the same 
passion, the same commitment that has led to so many cures and saved so 
many lives throughout our history. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 3 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield that time to the Senator from 
Kentucky. We had a colloquy earlier that maybe we can find some time 
before 5 for Senator Dorgan to speak. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority is in 
control of the next 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I come to the Senate today to speak on 
the three bills related to stem cell research. One of these bills is 
wrong, but I believe that the other two are worthy pieces of 
legislation.
  Stem cell research is a controversial issue in the medical, 
scientific, and religious communities, as well as in Congress. I am not 
opposed to stem cell research; however, I am 100 percent opposed to 
embryonic stem cell research. This is why I oppose H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would remove all 
current protections against the destructive use of embryos for 
harvesting stem cells. I firmly believe it is wrong to take these 
sources of life and destroy them, even if it is for a benign purpose 
such as medical research.
  Current Federal policy on stem cell research developed out of a 
compromise between proponents of research and those who endeavor to 
protect life at its earliest stages, brokered by President Bush. This 
is the first administration to allow Federal funding of embryonic stem 
cell research. Today's policy allows Federal funds to be used for 
embryonic stem cell lines that were in existence prior to August 9, 
2001.
  As an opponent of the destruction of human embryos, I believed the 
Bush administration's decision to allow the embryonic stem cell 
research was misguided. H.R. 810 goes even further than the current 
policy. It cancels the protections of the 2001 cutoff for research by 
allowing research of all embryonic stem cells created from in vitro 
fertilization treatments. This legislation would move us in the wrong 
direction on this issue.
  Some have said that these excess embryos which would be used for 
research would be destroyed anyway. However, I do not think this makes 
ethical sense. Just because these budding lives will not survive does 
not mean that we should ghoulishly conduct experiments on them.

  I believe there is a disconnect between what many Americans believe 
about this issue and what the facts are. For one, we are debating the 
use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. We are not 
debating the legality of embryonic stem cell research. Any company or 
organization that wants to conduct or fund embryonic stem cell research 
may do so. I just do not think taxpayers should be forced to pay for 
it.
  Also, there are different kinds of stem cells. Adult stem cells, such 
as those derived from cord blood tissue, do not require the destruction 
of a human embryo. Why walk down such a dangerous ethical path when 
there is no need to do so? These adult stem cells have proven very 
effective in combating several serious conditions, such as diabetes and 
spinal cord injuries, among others.
  This leads me to another point. We have seen the benefits that come 
from adult stem cell research. However, we have yet to see any tangible 
benefits from any embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists agree 
that these kinds of stem cells might--I say ``might''--be able to help 
fight disease someday, but it has not happened yet. We are talking 
about ending human life when no lives have been saved yet. Who knows 
how many human embryos we will have to destroy before any tangible 
progress is made.
  That being said, I am pleased to see that the Senate is considering 
S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement 
Act. This bill could very well remove the most contentious issues of 
this debate. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning that they 
could potentially have a wide variety of uses. It is this quality that 
drives the supporters of embryonic stem cell research to their 
position. However, great strides have been made in deriving pluripotent 
stem cells from sources that do not destroy embryos.
  S. 2754 would authorize Federal funding to conduct research on the 
creation of nonembryonic pluripotent stem cells. If successful, we 
would be able to end this debate by funding a morally acceptable 
replacement for research involving human embryo destruction. I urge the 
Senate to adopt this measure.
  The final bill the Senate is debating on the subject is S. 3504, the 
Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. I fully support passage of this 
legislation. This bill would ban research from fetal farms where human 
embryos are implanted in nonhuman uteruses. It would also ban embryos 
from human pregnancies created specifically for research.
  Most people would find these requirements to be self-evident. 
However, some groups have said this is unnecessary because research 
already follows ethical guidelines that forbid this. That may be the 
case, but I believe we should take these ethical guidelines and give 
them the force of law to prevent the possibility of such gruesome 
methods ever being used by researchers. I urge my colleagues to pass 
this bill.
  I do not like to see people with medical conditions suffer. However, 
I believe many advocates of embryonic stem cell research are playing on 
the hopes and griefs of many people whose lives are touched by illness. 
We are at an ethical crossroads with this issue. We must stay true to 
our values of respecting life. It seems foolish to stubbornly barrel 
ahead with Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research when, with 
a small bit of patience, we can put aside the moral and ethical 
concerns and proceed down a path we can all agree upon.
  In closing, I firmly believe we cannot create life and then destroy 
it in order

[[Page S7600]]

to save another life. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act and to support S. 2754 and S. 3504.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes to kind of 
outline some of the statements that have been made. To just show how 
off base from reality some of them are, we heard there was a ban on 
embryonic stem cell research. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell 
research. As a matter of fact, the American people paid $40 million 
this last year on embryonic stem cell research--human, $40 million. So 
there is no ban. And considering that, there is a significant industry 
in the private sector that is researching it.
  We heard there are only 21 cell lines around, available. There are 
400 cell lines available to scientists. There are 21 that Federal 
dollars can be spent on. So let's be real clear about what the real 
facts are.
  We also heard from the Senator from Florida that all medical 
researchers believe that embryonic stem cell research is the best hope. 
That could not be further from the truth. All of them do not. As a 
matter of fact, there is a large number who do not believe that way at 
all, based on not ethical concerns, on scientific concerns. They think 
it is not an acceptable way.
  We heard the Senator from Illinois saying that adult stem cells can 
only be collected in small quantities. That is not true at all. Many 
adult stem cell lines are reproductive of themselves. They are 
progenitor cells. They reproduce themselves. They come from amnionic 
membrane. They come from bone marrow. They come from endometrial 
lining. They come from placental tissue. They come from cord blood. 
They come from the spleen and the liver. They come from all sorts of 
areas in our body.
  We heard the Senator from California say we should let the scientists 
decide, not the Senators. Let's talk about Tuskegee. We let the 
scientists decide that one. I can think of two or three more instances 
in the 20th century when we let the scientists decide, and we went down 
a path that all of us were grieved over.
  When Senator Specter opened the debate today, there was, again, the 
assumption, in his first statement, that there is no embryonic fetal 
stem cell research. Not true. He also said none of the others have the 
potential of embryonic stem cell research. Well, I think there is a 
large body of science and a larger body of scientists who would 
disagree with that, especially as they study the new breakthroughs on 
germ cell pluripotent stem cells.
  I am going to ask to have printed in the Record a Rand study on the 
available numbers of human embryos, where in fact there are 400,000. 
But they outline, in great detail, that the fact is, a very small 
percentage of those are available for fetal research. They also outline 
in great detail so the American public can know that for every two 
embryos you are going to thaw, one of those two will die during the 
thawing process.
  So for this limited number, the most number of new cell lines, if you 
took all that are available today, would be less than what is available 
in the world today. It is 273 cell lines. So we have this great big 
demand, that we are going to get all this, but what we are going to get 
is less than what is out in the world today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rand study I referred 
to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Rand Law & Health Research Brief]

       How Many Frozen Human Embryos are Available for Research?

       Frozen human embryos have recently become the focus of 
     considerable media attention. Frozen embryos are a potential 
     source of embryonic stem cells, which can replicate 
     themselves and develop into specialized cells (e.g., blood 
     cells or nerve cells). Researchers believe that such cells 
     might be capable of growing replacement tissues that could be 
     used to treat people suffering from a number of diseases, 
     including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Among 
     the most contentious issues in the stem cell debate are 
     whether frozen embryos should be used to produce stem cells 
     for research purposes and whether it is appropriate to use 
     federal funds for research involving human embryos.
       Many of the proposed resolutions to the embryonic stem cell 
     debate are based on assumptions about the total number of 
     frozen human embryos in the United States and the percentage 
     of that total that is available for research. Accurate data 
     on these issues, however, have not been available. Guesses on 
     the total number of embryos have ranged wildly from tens of 
     thousands to several hundred thousand.
       RAND researchers Gail L. Zellman and C. Christine Fair, 
     together with the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology 
     (SART) Working Group led by David Hoffman, MD, have completed 
     a project designed to inform the policy debate by providing 
     accurate data on the number of frozen embryos in the United 
     States and how many of those embryos are available for 
     research purposes. Their findings include the following:
       Nearly 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed 
     for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the 
     late 1970s.
       Patients have designated only 2.8 percent (about 11,000 
     embryos) for research. The vast majority of frozen embryos 
     are designated for future attempts at pregnancy.
       From those embryos designated for research, perhaps as many 
     as 275 stem cell lines (cell cultures suitable for further 
     development) could be created. The actual number is likely to 
     be much lower.


      vast majority of frozen embryos are held for family building

       The practice of freezing embryos dates back to the first 
     infertility treatments in the mid-1980s. The process of in 
     vitro fertilization often produces more embryos than can be 
     used at one time. In the United States, the decision about 
     what to do with the extra embryos rests with the patients who 
     produced them.
       The RAND-SART team designed and implemented a survey to 
     determine the number and current disposition of embryos 
     frozen and stored since the mid-1980s at fertility clinics in 
     the United States and the number of those embryos designated 
     for research. The survey was sent to all 430 assisted 
     reproductive technology facilities in the United States, 340 
     of which responded. Estimates for nonresponding clinics were 
     developed using a statistical formula based on a clinic's 
     size and other characteristics. The results show that as of 
     April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed 
     in storage in the United States. This number is higher than 
     expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 
     200,000.
       Although the total number of frozen embryos is large, the 
     RAND-SART survey found that only a small percentage of these 
     embryos have been designated for research use. As the figure 
     illustrates, the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 
     percent) are being held for family building, with just 2.8 
     percent of the total (11,000) designated for research. Of the 
     remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to 
     another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, 
     and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, 
     including lost contact with a patient, patient death, 
     abandonment, and divorce.


 embryos available for research do not have high development potential

       Although the 11,000 embryos designated for research might 
     seem like a large number, the actual number of embryos that 
     might be converted into stem cell lines is likely to be 
     substantially lower. Because assisted reproductive technology 
     clinics generally transfer the best-quality embryos to the 
     patient during treatment cycles, the remaining embryos 
     available to be frozen are not always of the highest quality. 
     (High-quality embryos are those that grow at normal rates.) 
     In addition, some of the frozen embryos have been in storage 
     for many years, and at the time that some of those embryos 
     were created, laboratory cultures were not as conducive to 
     preserving embryos as they are today. Some embryos would also 
     be lost in the freeze-and-thaw process itself.
       To illustrate how such laboratory conditions might limit 
     the number of embryos available for research, the RAND-SART 
     team performed a series of calculations. Drawing upon the few 
     published studies in this area, they estimated that only 
     about 65 percent of the approximately 11,000 embryos would 
     survive the freeze-and-thaw process, resulting in 7,334 
     embryos. Of those, about 25 percent (1,834 embryos) would 
     likely be able to survive the initial stages of development 
     to the blastocyst stage (a blastocyst is an embryo that has 
     developed for at least five days). Even fewer could be 
     successfully converted into embryonic stem cell lines. For 
     example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin needed 18 
     blastocysts to create five embryonic stem cell lines, while 
     researchers at The Jones Institute used 40 blastocysts to 
     create three lines.
       Using a conservative estimate between the two conversion 
     rates from blastocyst to stem cells noted above (27 percent 
     and 7.5 percent), the research team calculated that about 275 
     embryonic stem cell lines could be created from the total 
     number of embryos available for research. Even this number is 
     probably an overestimate because it assumes that all the 
     embryos designated for research in the United States would be 
     used to create stem cell lines, which is highly unlikely.
       The RAND-SART survey found that almost twice as many frozen 
     embryos exist in the United States as the highest previous 
     estimate. Only a small percentage of these embryos are 
     available for research because the

[[Page S7601]]

     vast majority are reserved for family building. Among those 
     that are in principle available for research, some have been 
     in storage for more than a decade and were frozen using 
     techniques that are less effective than those that are 
     currently available.

  Mr. COBURN. Now, why do we want multiple cell lines? It goes back to 
the issue I have been talking about all day. It is called tissue 
rejection. That is the wonder of adult stem cells and germ cell 
pluripotent stem cells versus embryonic. With embryonic, there is 
rejection because there is an allergy to the foreign tissue. It is 
called the HLA, histocompatibility complex. The only way around that, 
with fetal embryonic stem cells, is to clone yourself--the only way you 
will get around it. And it will only work well in women. Only if you 
clone yourself with your own egg do you avoid all the allergy 
implications of foreign tissue.
  So I think it is very important that we--it is OK to have this 
debate, but some of the claims we hear--we actually heard, and I know 
he did not mean this, Senator Specter talking about embryos injected 
into the pulp of the tooth to create a new set of teeth. He did not 
mean embryos. He meant pluripotent stem cells. But you do not want 
pluripotent. What you want is the epidermal stem cells that produce 
teeth in the first place. That is what is great about adult stem cells. 
We are going to be able to do that with adult stem cells.
  He also stated that embryonic stem cell research is outstripping all 
of the research. That is not true. It is not true at all. The vast 
majority of success in stem cells today lies not with embryonic stem 
cells, it lies with everything but embryonic stem cells.
  Now, I do not deny as a scientist that would be a wonderful area in 
which to work. There is lots unknown, and if you are a scientist today, 
and they say you can go to this area where there are all these areas 
where you can work and go and move and everything, it is a fun area of 
research. But it is loaded with hazards, just like the Senator from 
Kansas talked about, in terms of fetal tissue. The fact is, as we may 
someday learn how to turn on and turn off some of these cell lines, we 
do not know that yet. It is fine to perfect that in animals. It is not 
fine to perfect that in human clinical trials until we have that 
absolutely controlled. I do not have any trouble with what we are doing 
now, doing that in the private sector.
  But the question is, do we ask American taxpayers to use their money 
to destroy embryos--embryos for which there are 2 million people in the 
country who would love to adopt--do we ask them to destroy that with 
their tax money so we can do that research, even though it is occurring 
in the private sector at a far greater rate than it is in the public 
finance sector?
  So I think this really boils down to two questions: false choices and 
false promises. Let me outline them. The false promise is that only 
embryonic stem cells are going to solve the problem. It is not true.
  The second promise is we are going to get treatments, but we are not 
going to have to clone. You are going to have to clone if you are going 
to get treatments from embryonic stem cells.
  No. 3 is that adult stem cells and the pluripotent lines, as well as 
germ cell lines, will not be able to do what embryonic stem cells do. 
That is not proven anywhere in the scientific literature. That is a 
false promise.
  And No. 4 is the false promise issue that you cannot take adult stem 
cells and dedifferentiate, move backwards, to make them pluripotent, 
which we are seeing great science with an enzyme today called reversa. 
So those are the false promises that are out there.
  Now, there are four false choices, I believe. One is that there is no 
cure without embryonic stem cells. That, for sure, the evidence does 
not show. Another is that there will not be any research unless the 
Government pays for it. That is not true at all. The research is 
ongoing across the world in lots of areas without government research, 
and much more so in our country outside of government research.
  The third choice is that there is no life in an embryo. The fact is 
there is. Now, we had one Senator talk about the fact that they are 
going to be incinerated. If you talk about the 108 snowflake babies, 
the other 2 or 3 organizations that are adopting those, those children 
belie that fact that there is wonderful potential with the amount of 
demand.
  I am not saying that people who disagree with me on the ethical 
issues are bad or immoral people. I am saying I am not fighting this on 
ethical issues. I am fighting this on common sense, to see what things 
are happening and where we are seeing success and keeping up with the 
science. This debate in the Senate today is almost all about a year and 
a half old, as far as the science is concerned. I am talking about the 
new science. That is why I worked so hard to stay up on it.
  Finally, the promise is what every scientist knows, what every 
embryologist knows and every cell biologist knows, which is the mighty 
mitochondria. You cannot clone without having potential rejections 
unless you clone yourself with your own egg. There is different DNA in 
the mitochondria and the cell cytoplasm. I appreciate the spirit of the 
debate, and I hope the American people understand that it is not a 
false choice of no research versus some. The question is, Do we destroy 
unborn children? Two, do we give Federal dollars to do that? Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized. 
The Senator is to be aware that the majority controls the time until 5 
p.m.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am aware of that. I ask unanimous consent 
that, notwithstanding and without any prejudice to any Senator, to 
speak for 5 minutes on another matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Not showing an interruption at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my 
understanding was that I would be recognized for 10 minutes following 
the presentation by Senator Coburn. I don't object to anything someone 
else wishes to do, provided that following that presentation, I am 
recognized for 10 minutes. Would that be part of the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. BYRD. I make that part of my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might, as a manager, we are on strict time limits. 
At 5 o'clock, Senator Kennedy gets 25 minutes and then 5 minutes goes 
to Senator Reed. At 5:30, it goes back to the other side. If we take 
time here and there, it spills over, and someone is going to lose time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes of my time to the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. BYRD are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business''.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, all of us have great pride in being able 
to serve in this great body and the purpose of it is, of course, to be 
engaged in public policy debate, how to advance this country's 
interests. We come to this debate today on something that is very 
important, very controversial. This country's search in many areas--
social justice, science, and so many areas of our lives--is a search 
that never ends. We have split the atom. We have spliced genes. We did 
the human genome project, developed the owner's manual for the human 
body. We invented plastics and radar and silicon chips, cured polio, 
cured smallpox, built airplanes and learned to fly them, and built 
rockets and walked on the moon; we invented the telephone, the 
computer, and the television.
  It is pretty unbelievable, but this country is hardly out of breath. 
We continue to inquire, continue to search, and continue to ask 
questions. Those questions, especially in science, are, in some cases, 
difficult questions. We will have three pieces of legislation we will 
vote on tomorrow dealing with stem cell research. One piece of 
legislation prevents something that is not being done. I will not have 
any problem supporting that; preventing something

[[Page S7602]]

that is not being done is not posing any difficulty for me. The second 
piece of legislation authorizes that which is already authorized. I 
have no difficulty with that vote either. I will be happy to support 
that.
  The third piece of legislation is called embryonic stem cell 
research. That is the basis of the controversy being discussed today. 
Those in this Chamber and those throughout this country who have lost 
loved ones to dreaded diseases understand the urgency to unlock the 
mysteries of these diseases. I lost a beautiful young daughter some 
years ago to heart disease. I wondered then, and I wonder now, and I 
will wonder for some long while, if there is anything that we could do 
to unlock the mystery of that devastating killer. But it is not just 
heart disease. It is diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer--the 
list goes on and on.

  Every day, people die. Every day, there are scientists who inquire: 
What can be done? What can we do to unlock the mysteries to find cures 
for these terrible diseases?
  Stem cell research. Mr. President, there are 1 million people walking 
on this Earth who were conceived outside of the womb in a test tube. 
There are 1 million living people who were conceived through in vitro 
fertilization. We had somebody testify before the Senate Commerce 
Committee a few years ago, and he said none of those people should have 
been born, it was wrong and in vitro fertilization should not exist. It 
is wrong, he said. I disagree with him. It is the blessing to provide 
the opportunity to have a family to so many couples who were childless 
through in vitro fertilization, using the egg and sperm and uniting 
them outside of the womb, implanting them, and providing a child for 
those families.
  At in vitro fertilization clinics, many more eggs are fertilized than 
are used. Some are stored and frozen. Those frozen embryos at in vitro 
fertilization clinics, when they are not going to be used in the 
future, are discarded, simply thrown into a wastebasket. They become 
waste and they are discarded. Some of my colleagues would say each and 
every one of those represents murder. I don't believe that, but some of 
my colleagues would insist on that position. That is murdering an 
embryo. We have 400,000 of those embryos stored, cryogenically frozen, 
at in vitro fertilization clinics. Around 8,000 to 11,000 of them a 
year will be simply discarded.
  The question is: Should we relax the ban on Federal funding of stem 
cell research and allow the use of frozen embryos that otherwise are 
going into a wastebasket, that otherwise are going to be discarded? 
Should we allow the use of them with ethical boundaries and be 
concerned about the ethics of its use for scientific research, to try 
to find the cures to these terrible diseases? Should we allow that? The 
answer clearly is yes.
  Are we comparing someone who is suffering from Parkinson's, someone 
who has Alzheimer's, someone with heart disease or cancer or diabetes 
to an embryo that is going to be discarded into a wastebasket--8,000 to 
11,000 of them a year? Do we find an equivalency there
  Do you believe that all of those unused fertilized eggs that are 
frozen at an IV clinic, an in vitro fertilization clinic, that are 
discarded, that each and every one represents a murder? Some believe 
that. I don't.
  What is pro-life, I believe, what is life-giving is to be able to 
continue in this area of science with ethical guidelines but continue 
this search to unlock the mysteries of these diseases.
  My colleague a moment ago said quite correctly that we don't prevent 
stem cell research. He is quite right about that. This issue is the 
restriction of Federal funding, and, of course, a substantial amount of 
the funding for scientific research, research in health care in this 
country, comes from the Federal Government.
  If we take a look at what has happened with respect to the United 
States and the rest of the world, we will see, because President Bush 
has imposed restrictions on stem cell research, we have lost a 
substantial amount of ground to the rest of the world. We are falling 
far behind.
  This is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is not about 
conservatives or liberals. Let me quote 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.
  Nancy Reagan watched the ravages of Alzheimer's disease destroy her 
husband, our former President, the late Ronald Reagan. I believe she 
understands the urgency with which we pursue this purpose. I can read 
the pain in this message, and that pain exists--my guess--with so many 
in this Chamber and across the country who have watched loved ones die 
because of dread diseases that have wasted away their lives. The 
question is: Are we willing to do something about that? Can we do 
something about that? Will we retard or will we advance science? Will 
we hold back or will we encourage the scientists to search for these 
cures?
  I hope the Senate will do just as the House has done and indicate 
that we believe that with proper ethical guidelines, stem cell research 
should continue with Federal funding. I believe, as I said, this is 
about saving lives, this is not about taking lives.
  I understand that this is a sensitive subject. In fact, in my last 
campaign for office 2 years ago, my opponent ran television commercials 
saying that my position was to be supportive of planting embryos into 
mommies' wombs and growing them for a while and then harvesting them 
for body parts. That is the Byzantine nonsense which, unfortunately, 
attends part of this debate. No one here--certainly not me--would ever 
countenance anything resembling that, and yet much of the political 
discussion about this issue becomes so bizarre and so Byzantine that it 
is detached from reality.
  The bill that is before the Senate that I just described--I am not 
talking about the first two bills, the one that prevents something that 
is not being done. I don't have a problem with that. Or the one that 
authorizes something that is already authorized, and I have no problem 
with that.
  I am talking about the legislation dealing with stem cell research. 
The bipartisan coalition that brought it to the Senate includes 
Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals. My hope is the 
Senate will act on this legislation with a veto-proof majority and 
decide whatever the President does that we have made this decision and 
the decision should stick.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator's time has 
expired. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I am to be recognized for 20 
minutes. I would like the Chair to let me know when I have 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from North 
Dakota in giving special recognition to Mrs. Reagan on this issue. As 
someone who has been interested in this issue for some time, as many of 
my colleagues have, I think all of us pay tribute to her, to a very 
gracious, lovely, wonderful, warm First Lady and someone I admire so 
much because after she has been to the top of the mountain, so to 
speak, and entitled to a very secure and well-deserved retirement, she 
is still restless about this issue and tireless about talking with 
people and speaking about this issue with great knowledge, great 
awareness, great understanding, and great compassion. I mention that at 
this time. I think we all know this debate has moved farther down the 
road toward a hopeful conclusion because of her work.
  Today, the Senate begins the debate on legislation unlike any other 
we have considered this year. Today's debate is not about economic gain 
or loss or helping one State or one region of the country. Today's 
debate is about something far more basic, something that touches the 
spirit of every American. Today's debate is about hope.
  Hope is one of those qualities of spirit that makes us human. Hope 
allows us to dream of a better life for our children, our community, 
our world, and especially for loved ones now suffering or in pain. Hope 
is what stem cell research holds for the parents of children

[[Page S7603]]

with diabetes who dream of a day when their constant fears for their 
children's well-being are things of the past. Hope is what stem cell 
research brings to those with Parkinson's disease who long for a time 
when the tremors of that disease are banished forever. Hope is what 
stem cell research brings to millions of Americans who seek better 
treatments and better drugs for cancer or diabetes, spinal injury, and 
many other serious conditions. And hope cannot be extinguished or 
destroyed, but it can be delayed.

  In the Bible, the Book of Proverbs tells us:

       Hope deferred makes the heart sick.

  And today hearts are sick almost to the breaking point because, for 
the last 5 years, the Bush administration has shut down the stem cell 
research program begun at the National Institutes of Health and imposed 
the arbitrary restrictions on this lifesaving research.
  Hope soared anew a year ago when the House of Representatives set 
aside partisan differences and courageously approved legislation to end 
those restrictions and to give our scientists the tools they need to 
make the progress in the fight against disease. The vote in the House 
affirmed that embryonic stem cells can promote a true culture of life 
by enabling fuller, longer lives for millions of our citizens. The 
House voted for hope, for progress, and for life.
  The supporters of this legislation in the Senate come from 
backgrounds as diverse as its proponents in the House. All of the 
supporters of H.R. 810, with our different backgrounds and different 
faiths, representing different parts of this country, have concluded 
that support of this legislation is the moral choice to make.
  The legislation before us takes only two actions, but they hold the 
key to medical progress.
  First, our legislation overturns the restrictions on the embryonic 
stem cell research imposed by Presidential order 5 years ago. That 
unilateral action by the administration bypassed Congress and froze 
progress in its tracks by barring the NIH from funding research on stem 
cells derived after 9 p.m. eastern daylight time, August 9, 2001--an 
arbitrary date and time chosen solely to coincide with a Presidential 
speech.
  At the time the President's order was issued, it was claimed that 
over 60 independent stem cell colonies, or lines, would be available to 
NIH researchers. Initially, the NIH listed 78 such lines in its 
registry, but time and the unalterable facts of science have shown that 
two-thirds of these lines are useless or that claims about them proved 
to be an illusion.
  Today, only 21 stem cell lines are available to NIH researchers, and 
all of these were obtained using out-of-date methods and outmoded 
techniques. Each of these 21 lines is contaminated with animal tissue 
because each was cultured on a so-called feeder layer of mouse cells. 
Techniques developed since 2001 have allowed scientists to grow stem 
cells without mouse cells, but these are all off limits to NIH-funded 
scientists because of the administration's restrictive policy.
  Even if the 21 lines were not contaminated with mouse cells, they 
would still be unusable for treatments. The reason is that the use of 
every one of these cells is constrained by a legal contract called a 
material transfer agreement, and each of these documents contains a 
clause forbidding the use of the cells in patients.
  Let me be clear. If the cells in the NIH registry weren't already 
useless for treatment because they are contaminated, they would be 
useless because the contract under which they are provided forbids 
their use in patients.
  Five years ago, we warned that imposing an arbitrary date restriction 
on new stem cell lines would freeze progress by denying NIH researchers 
access to new lines that might hold the key to medical breakthroughs, 
and these fears have proven well-founded.
  Since the restrictions were imposed, scientists working overseas or 
with limited private funds have developed new lines with exceptional 
promise for research. For example, Dr. Douglas Melton at Harvard has 
derived 17 new stem cell lines with improved techniques. Scientists at 
the University of California have shown that stem cells can be derived 
without contamination from animal cells. And doctors in Israel have 
developed stem cell lines that have genetic traits with the potential 
of treating hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy. These 
astonishing breakthroughs could lead to new cures and new understanding 
of these disorders, but the administration's restrictions bar NIH from 
supporting research to explore their promise. To unlock the healing 
power of stem cell research, the first action our legislation takes is 
to end the ban that keeps NIH from supporting research on new stem cell 
lines.
  But science without ethics is like a ship without a compass. Strong 
ethical guidelines are needed to ensure that scientific progress 
follows the moral course that we as a society set. For this reason, the 
second major action our legislation takes is to establish ethical 
safeguards for stem cell research. And once again allowing NIH to lead 
stem cell research, we bring more research under the strong ethical 
standards that are part of every NIH grant for any kind of medical 
research. The bedrock principles of these standards are informed 
consent of the patient and approval of an ethics committee.
  In addition, when it comes to stem cell research, our legislation 
requires NIH to go beyond these general requirements and requires NIH 
to issue specific standards for stem cell research. Before the NIH stem 
cell research program was terminated in the early days of the Bush 
administration, it had developed an extensive and robust ethical 
framework for the research. These requirements include an extra level 
of review to assure that all research was conducted according to 
special protections applicable to stem cell research. They limit 
research only to cells derived from embryos from fertility clinics that 
were never to be used to initiate a pregnancy and were likely to be 
discarded. They prohibit payment for donation of cells. They forbid 
improper inducements to donate embryos to further ensure that all cells 
used for research must come from embryos that would not be used to 
initiate a pregnancy.

  I want to take a moment to discuss this last point in detail. Even 
with the intense debate on stem cells over the last 5 years, there 
remains some confusion about the source of stem cells. The cells are 
not derived from fetuses, they are not from embryos that might 
otherwise have been used to start a pregnancy.
  Our legislation explicitly requires the stem cells to be derived:

       From human embryos that have been donated from in vitro 
     fertilization clinics, were created for the purpose of 
     fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need 
     of the individuals seeking such treatment.

  Those are the words, Mr. President.
  In fertility clinics around the country, there are thousands of 
embryos that are simply thrown away. Hundreds of thousands more are 
frozen and never used. They are not the result of a pregnancy; they are 
not the product of an abortion or a miscarriage. The only way they can 
produce life is to be implanted in a woman, and these embryos we 
propose to save for research have not been and will not be. We believe 
it is better to save embryos that would otherwise be destroyed so they 
can give the gift of life to patients who are suffering. Life is too 
precious to allow an opportunity to cure illness to be simply thrown 
away.
  Some say this debate is only about science, and that it is not a 
moral choice. I disagree. A vote on this bill involves a deeply moral 
choice. It is a choice between making progress toward better treatment 
for patients or spurning a chance for new cures. There are deeply moral 
people on both sides of this debate, but I am convinced that medical 
progress is the right one.
  We have faced similar choices many times in the past. In the 1970s, 
Congress was considering whether to ban research on recombinant DNA--
the very foundation of biotechnology. Then, as now, some raised ethical 
concerns or dismissed the promise of this research as a pipedream, and 
urged Congress to forbid it. In the 1980s, Congress made the right 
choice by rejecting attempts to outlaw IVF, a technique that has 
fulfilled the hopes and dreams of thousands of parents who never would 
have been able to have a child otherwise.
  Other forms of medical progress brought similar controversy: 
transplantation, blood transfusion, even

[[Page S7604]]

vaccines. All of these breakthroughs were once new and controversial, 
with strong voices raised against them. All were discussed and debated 
and eventually adopted in ways that are consistent with American 
values. Each time we looked to the future and saw the potential of 
controversial research, we chose progress, and the benefits have been 
immense.
  We should make the same choice on stem cell research. We should not 
allow the misplaced fears of today to deny patients the cures of 
tomorrow.
  Some argue that we should support research on adult stem cells, or 
stem cells from umbilical cords, or stem cells derived from using new 
genetic techniques. I agree. We should leave no stone unturned in the 
search for new cures. Perhaps some cures will come from one technique 
and other breakthroughs from another. Let's encourage our scientists to 
explore every avenue that is ethical and could lead to progress. But 
there is no sense in closing the door on one of the most promising 
areas of medical research discovered in decades, while we wait for 
other, less hopeful methods to show success or failure. That is not my 
assessment; it is the judgment of every major scientific leader in 
America.
  According to a letter by 80 Nobel laureates:

       For disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult 
     stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research 
     risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die 
     or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult 
     stem cells is evaluated.

  The Institute of Medicine was just as clear on the need for embryonic 
stem cell research:

       Embryonic stem cells studied in animals clearly are capable 
     of developing into multiple tissues and capable of long-term 
     self-renewal in culture, features that have not yet been 
     demonstrated with many adult stem cells.

  In a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Dr. Elias 
Zerhouni, the Director of the NIH, said:

       It is clear that more cell lines would be helpful in 
     ensuring expeditious progress in this important field of 
     science.

  His conclusions were echoed by other NIH Institute Directors such as 
Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, head of the NIH Institute on Heart, Lung and Blood 
Disorders, who said:

       The limitations of existing cell lines are hindering 
     scientific progress among a community that is very eager to 
     move forward in this promising area.

  The judgment of the Nation's scientific leaders could not be clearer 
or more emphatic: Yes, we should study adult stem cells, but we should 
let science decide which approach works best for patients.
  But in the end, this debate is not about abstract principles or 
complex terms of science. It is about people who look with hope to stem 
cell research to help them with the challenges they face.
  Two years ago, I held a forum in Boston on the promise of stem cell 
research. One of the participants was Moira McCarthy Stanford from 
Plymouth, MA, whose 14-year-old daughter Lauren has juvenile diabetes. 
I wish to end my remarks today with a letter that Lauren wrote to me. 
It explains far more eloquently than any Senator could the urgent need 
to pass this legislation. These are Lauren's words:

       For as long as I can remember, I have had to take a lot of 
     leaps of faith. I have had to believe my parents when they 
     told me taking four or five shots a day and pricking my 
     finger eight or more times a day was just a new kind of 
     normal. I had to--

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Presiding Officer.

       I had to just smile and say I'm fine when a high blood 
     sugar or a low blood sugar forced me to the sidelines in a 
     big soccer game, or into the base lodge on a perfect ski day, 
     or out at the pool during a swim meet.
       But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's 
     decision on stem cell research in the summer of 2001, I just 
     could not accept it. You see, the one thing that has helped 
     me accept all I have had to accept these years is 
     the presence of hope. Hope keeps me going.
       That night, President Bush talked about protecting the 
     innocent. I wondered then: What about me? I am truly innocent 
     in this situation. I did nothing to bring my diabetes on. 
     There is nothing I can do to make it any better. All I can do 
     is hope for a research breakthrough and keep living the 
     difficult, demanding life of a child with diabetes until the 
     breakthrough comes. How, I ask my parents, is it more 
     important to throw discarded embryos into the trash than it 
     is to let them be used to hopefully save my life.
       I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of 
     passing H.R. 810. I can dream again--dream of that great day 
     when I write a thank you letter to the Senate, to the House, 
     and everyone who helped me become just another girl; a girl 
     who dreamed and hoped and one day, got just what she wanted: 
     her health and her future. That's all I'm really asking for.

  Those are Lauren's words, and they command us to act. Tomorrow, we 
must cast a vote of conscience and of courage. We must reaffirm that 
our common value of bringing hope to those who need it outweighs any 
single ideology. We must approve the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act, and we must call upon the President of the United States not to 
veto hope.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes under the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the time until 5:30.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I wish to take a few moments talking about H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act. Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed 
this bill, and I am pleased that the Senate will now finally consider 
this legislation. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Jim 
Langevin, has been a staunch advocate for stem cell research and has 
played a central role in advancing this legislation through the House 
of Representatives, and I commend him for that.
  I hope to be able to stand on the Senate floor a few years from now 
to highlight the advancements that have been made in the treatment of 
spinal cord victims, children with diabetes, and Parkinson's treatment 
because of embryonic stem cell research. However, I fear that even if 
the Senate approves legislation, patients will only see further delays 
in promising stem cell research.
  The President endorsed the use of Federal funds research on existing 
cell lines in his August 2001 Executive Order. At the time of the 
announcement, he said:

       Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers 
     great promise that could help improve the lives of those who 
     suffer from many terrible diseases--from juvenile diabetes to 
     Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And 
     while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe 
     stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

  This is from the President's Executive Order.
  We know now that the stem cell lines identified in the Executive 
Order were not the panacea for breakthrough medical research. There are 
only 22 stem cell lines available for federally funded research, and 
since they were derived in the absence of scientific and ethical 
guidelines, they have proven unsuitable for most research. At the same 
time, there are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos in IVF clinics 
that will likely be destroyed. While I recognize the many benefits of 
using embryonic stem cells in biomedical research, I also realize that 
many serious ethical and moral issues have to be considered. I believe 
Federal guidelines designed to create and uphold strict oversight of 
these practices can achieve the appropriate balance needed in order to 
ensure that this research is being carried out in an acceptable manner.
  H.R. 810 sets forth responsible rules and limitations for obtaining 
excess embryos as well as adequate standards for conducting research 
involving embryonic stem cells. It would establish the necessary 
framework for oversight so that principled research can finally be 
allowed to proceed.
  Some of my colleagues believe embryonic stem cell research is not 
necessary, given some of the tremendous advances adult stem cells have 
yielded. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support continued progress in the 
area of adult stem cell research and was proud to be one of the lead 
sponsors of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, which Congress 
enacted late last year. This bill was essential in maintaining patient 
access to lifesaving treatments through the National Marrow Donor 
program and also opening the door to the developments of a companion 
registry system for cord blood.
  We know the use of umbilical cord blood in treating diseases such as 
leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and rare but deadly genetic disorders 
such as Krabbe disease is showing tremendous promise. The Stem Cell 
Therapeutic

[[Page S7605]]

and Research Act solidified the Nation's commitment to increasing the 
number of cord blood transplants by providing additional Federal funds 
to help public cord blood banks increase their inventory, as well as 
support outreach, patient advocacy, and coordinating information and 
education activities.
  The President also recognized the importance of this avenue of 
research. During the 2001 Executive Order, he said:

       You should also know that stem cells can be derived from 
     sources other than embryos. And many scientists feel research 
     on these types of stem cells are also promising. Many 
     patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being 
     helped with treatment developed from adult stem cells.

  He went on to add:

       However, most scientists, at least today, believe that 
     research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise 
     because these cells have the potential to develop from all of 
     the tissues of the body.

  Those are the President's words. I urge all of us to heed those words 
today.
  I urge the Senate to support H.R. 810 and also the President to sign 
it into law. I also intend to support S. 3504 and S. 2754, but neither 
of these measures is a substitute for H.R. 810.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to take advantage of the time 
assigned or allotted for all of us to discuss what is obviously a 
passionate, controversial, and important issue. But I rise to talk 
about it from, probably, a different perspective than some of the other 
speeches--at least those I have heard. I want to talk prospectively, 
about what happens after this debate is over.
  If all the predictions come true, at the end of the day we will not 
debate stem cells for the rest of this year because the agreement to 
bring it to the floor was that we come to the floor, we debate these 
three bills, and the debate would be over for the year.
  The debate will not be over. In fact, if anything, this is probably 
the beginning of a long debate as we deal with the ethics and the 
morality and the hope and the promise of science as it relates to stem 
cells--in particular, embryonic stem cells.
  When the President issued his order in August of 2001, I supported it 
because it invested in embryonic stem cell research and it clearly drew 
the line in terms of how far we would go. I have been supportive of the 
President's policies on embryonic stem cell research since.
  When H.R. 810 passed, I began to do what I think all of us should do. 
I began to get educated as best I could on this controversial and 
important issue. Dr. Michael Johns at Emory University helped me. Dr. 
Steven Stice, at the University of Georgia, helped me. I sat through 
more than a few demonstrations--not sales presentations but 
demonstrations of programs and efforts in embryonic stem cell research 
underway, under NIH guidelines, and were moving forward.
  I learned a lot. I learned this promise of embryonic stem cells was 
uncovered or identified in 1998. Research has been done for 8 years. 
They hold great promise. Adult stem cells have been around longer and 
have demonstrated promise beyond what embryonic has today, but that is 
because of the time and the amount of money that has been invested.
  But I learned one thing. I am not smart enough to know what the end 
result of all this research will be, but I am smart enough to know that 
our country must continue to be a player in the research. Everywhere 
NIH is involved, you have standards, you have ethics, you have 
procedures, and you have protocols. It is very important that all those 
exist in such a delicate and important type of research. We must be 
respectful of human life.
  The proposal in H.R. 810 that is of concern is that it involves the 
destruction of an embryo that, if implanted, could become a human 
being. That is a legitimate concern for us as a country to have.
  When Senator Frist began fielding inquiries with regard to this 
issue, months ago, after H.R. 810 passed the House, I engaged myself as 
I was in this learning process in hopes of finding a prospect where we 
could match the standards of ethics we all want and also invest in the 
hope for the future. I believed that there was a way--in fact, there is 
a way--that we could invest in embryonic stem cell research without 
involving the destruction of an embryo that could be transferable to 
the womb and become a fetus.
  For a second, I wish to discuss that on the floor simply, if nothing 
else, to point out that there are many opportunities of hope out there 
that meet both the ethical and the moral as well as the scientific 
desire that I think a consensus of this body has.
  Dr. Steven Stice is a noted researcher at the University of Georgia. 
I had the privilege of meeting him last year. I have three times been 
to his clinic at the university. Dr. Steven Stice is a man who 
understands the concern over the ethics of the destruction of a viable 
embryo. So in the development of embryonic lines BG01, 2, and 3, which 
were developed prior to August of 2001 and are in operation at the 
University of Georgia today, those stem cell lines were derived from 
the byproducts of in vitro fertilization that could not be implanted 
and could not be frozen.
  My point to you, the Presiding Officer, and the ladies and gentlemen 
of the Senate, is this: There are three lines that exist today that 
were derived from the byproducts of in vitro fertilization that could 
not be implanted in the womb and become a fetus or be frozen for 
subsequent implantation. Under the Guarder et al. principles in the 
grading of material in in vitro fertilization, there is a clear line of 
that which is viable, that which can be frozen, and that which cannot. 
It doesn't involve the discarding of anything that can be viable, but 
it does lend hope that from sources other than the viable embryos, stem 
cells can be derived.
  I respect human life and I want us, as a nation, to always be 
respectful and never disrespectful of it and its potential. I also 
respect the wonder of science in innovation and the great discoveries 
that it has brought. I stand here today believing that you can do both 
and that as we move forward, beyond this debate, beyond a veto if it 
takes place--whatever the fire and substance is--we should start 
tomorrow looking at these other alternatives. Just in the 18 months 
since this issue began to bubble up in the Senate, there have been 
breakthroughs, such as single cell extraction from embryos without the 
destruction of the embryo--something that holds great promise for those 
cells to actually replicate themselves into stem cells.

  We can do it. It is important that we stay on course to do it. But it 
is important that we not break the ethical principles to which we are 
committed and always be respectful of life.
  In the course of the negotiations with the leader--and I want to 
inject something here with regard to Majority Leader Frist. I don't 
know anybody who has ever been dealt a tougher hand in terms of coming 
to a resolution of these issues. I thank him for the amount of input he 
let me have. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in being a part of the 
final debate, in terms of what I just described, in terms of the stem 
cell lines they are operating on at the University of Georgia, but I 
think under the circumstances he did the best he could.
  Sincerely I stand here as a Member of the Senate with 4 years 
remaining in my term, knowing that we will revisit this issue time and 
again. As science changes and moves forward, there will be ways we can 
embrace, ethically and rightfully, research that holds hope and promise 
for those who suffer and those who are afflicted.
  My last comment is this. I was a real estate broker in my private 
life, before I came to Congress. I am not a doctor and I am not a 
scientist. I have heard some declaratory statements on the floor about 
what research will and will not prove in the future. I didn't just fall 
off a turnip truck. You do research to determine what you are going to 
find out, not just to predict what it will or will not do.
  As we go through this difficult, tenuous debate over a subject of 
immense

[[Page S7606]]

importance to the American people, let's look for ways that we can be 
respectful of human life and open the doors for the furtherance of 
development in science in embryonic stem cells. I submit there are ways 
to do both, and I will be here to work with the leader, with my 
colleagues, and with our President to unlock those doors so that 
promise and hope exists and we never breach the ethical divide that 
caused the debate today.
  I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I see the next speaker is here, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an issue of 
tremendous significance to countless Americans and to generations to 
come--the matter of stem cell research. I thank the majority leader for 
his tireless efforts to ensure consideration of stem cell legislation. 
The bottom line is, there is research we could be conducting today that 
could help us treat--and in some cases cure--some of our most serious 
diseases. That is why two-thirds of Americans favor embryonic stem cell 
research and why I have cosponsored H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.
  The promise of stem cell legislation lies in the simple fact that 
embryonic stem cells have the unique potential to develop into any of 
the cells which could be needed to treat the multitude of diseases from 
which Americans suffer. The vast potential of stem cell therapy is key 
to many future therapy because in so many diseases, cells are lost and 
their function is often irreplaceable. Stem cells offer an opportunity 
to actually replace cells which are lost.
  Consider today that 20 million Americans live with diabetes. Despite 
treatment with drugs and insulin, many experience vision loss, injury 
to extremities, heart disease and other complications. For years, 
scientists have sought to find a cure. And today stem cells offer that 
potential to end dependence on insulin, freeing millions from diabetes.
  In many diseases, there simply is not even a therapy to replace the 
function of lost cells. Brain disorders such as Parkinson's disease, 
ALS or ``Lou Gehrig's disease,'' and Alzheimer's disease have only 
limited treatment options available. We simply cannot replace the 
function which is lost. But with new therapies derived from stem cells, 
we could see major breakthroughs in avoiding the terrible toll that 
millions now experience.
  Today the Senate is considering three bills. The first of these, the 
Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, certainly addresses an issue about which 
I expect there is no disagreement in the Senate. No embryo should ever 
be conceived for the purpose of producing stem cells. That is not at 
issue. Nor does any reputable scientist desire to work with human 
tissue produced in an animal. These prohibitions are not controversial 
and I believe my colleagues will join me in supporting them.
  In fact, 1 year ago this week, I joined with Senators Feinstein, 
Specter, Hatch, and others to introduce the Human Cloning Ban Act to 
make indisputably clear another prohibition--that no human would be 
cloned. Nor is stem cell research about conducting research on embryos.
  I do share with the majority leader the concern that we address the 
highest levels of ethical standards, and I have great confidence that 
with the Federal Government playing a role in this research, we can 
bring such standards to bear.
  This is essential--that the Federal Government be constructively 
engaged.
  The second piece of legislation concerns stem cell research already 
supported by the Federal Government. My colleague, Senator Santorum, 
has introduced legislation--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell 
Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754--to promote the use of ``alternative 
stem cells.'' These are typically ``adult stem cells.'' These cells are 
already partly specialized, and have the potential to develop into 
several kinds of cells. Yet they are not the same as embryonic stem 
cells, which can develop into potentially any kind of tissue. So their 
use is limited. Cord blood stem cells are an example of this type of 
cell, and they have certainly proven useful in treating some diseases.
  I must note that no obstacles currently exist to the kind of research 
the Santorum bill addresses. Clearly, adult stem cells have potential, 
and certainly research on them should continue to be pursued. Yet by 
passing this bill we do not open any new avenues to our scientists. In 
fact, we can make them take a detour. This is why.
  We know that in order to use embryonic stem cells to make cells which 
can be used to treat a disease--like diabetes--scientists must learn 
how to make the cell become the right type.
  But an adult stem cell is actually already somewhat specialized, so 
one could not use them to produce many of the types of cells we need to 
produce new therapies. Essentially, one would have to take such a stem 
cell and reverse its development back to an embryonic stage and then 
begin the task to develop it into the specialized cell required. It is 
as if you were driving down an interstate on a trip, took an exit, made 
a few turns, and then decided to back up in reverse all the way to the 
interstate in an attempt to try another destination. This is not the 
way to get where you are going.
  So while adult stem cells have promise--they certainly are not 
comparable to an embryonic cell--with its potential to become any type 
of cell in the body. And even if you could turn an adult stem cell into 
an embryonic stem cell--you have simply doubled the obstacles and work 
required to reach your destination--which is a cure. That means 
millions of lives lost as you pursue a convoluted course. . . .when 
embryonic stem cells provide a far more direct path to creating cures.
  That is why I am a sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act--H.R. 810--the third bill on which we will vote. Remember that we 
shared hope for progress back in August of 2001 when the President 
declared research could utilize the stem cell lines then in existence. 
Yet scientists have found that many of the cells were contaminated or 
otherwise unusable. In part we know that even when a stem cell line is 
created, it cannot reproduce indefinitely. So we must address how we 
may obtain additional cell lines for medical research.

  I thank Senators Specter and Harkin, and Representatives Castle and 
DeGette for joining together to work to address the fundamental 
question of federal participation in embryonic stem cell research. The 
legislation which they produced sets a very constrained set of 
circumstances under which embryonic stems cells may be obtained in 
order to assure we can move this vital research forward within an 
ethical framework. Never will an embryo be created for research 
purposes, nor does this legislation facilitate such studies. The act 
assures that an embryo may be used only when it would not ever be used 
for infertility treatment. Donation must be voluntary, under full 
informed consent and no financial or other inducement may be given.
  The fact is that fertility treatment has allowed many to have 
families whom otherwise could not. A consequence of this remarkable 
therapy is that some embryos are created which will not be used. I must 
note that under the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, it will be the 
couple who will--under no bias--decide whether they will be used. This 
legislation facilitates that donation.
  Today Americans who have faced fertility problems are facing the 
question of what to do with unused embryos. Indefinite storage is not 
truly an option--we know that we cannot maintain the viability of these 
embryos indefinitely. So given the choices available, some couples see 
the potential to help those suffering from serious disease. It assures 
that this gift can be given and used to help medical progress.
  I believe many Americans who have undergone fertility treatment and 
realized a gift of life in their families will opt to save lives 
through a donation which promises to save many lives. But

[[Page S7607]]

it must always be individual conscience that is the determinative 
factor--and I respect the views and conscience of each and every 
individual on this matter.
  There can be no doubt that stem cell research will move forward. The 
real question is whether our Nation will be engaged . . . whether our 
scientists will realize the breakthroughs . . . whether we will produce 
the treatments. Or whether those developments will draw our best minds 
and new medical investment abroad, where American vision and oversight 
will not influence the future of medicine.
  I believe in stem cell research. More than 70 percent of the American 
people believe in stem cell research. I believe in it because I cannot 
look at a person suffering from a debilitating, and even fatal disease 
and support prohibitions which impede ethical research aimed at 
alleviating of that suffering. That is why I joined with my colleagues 
in the Senate in urging President Bush to ease the current restrictions 
on the use of stem cells so that research can move forward and lives 
could be saved. That is why I am a sponsor of the Senate version of 
this legislation introduced by Senators Specter and Harkin. It is why I 
urge my colleagues to give that bill their support. This is the bill 
which will make a difference. I urge the President to reconsider this 
issue, and urge his support. Hopefully he will not veto this 
legislation because ultimately the alternative is to accept the status 
quo. The status quo is not right for those suffering from these 
diseases and for future generations who will.
  I think back to President Reagan's passing 2 years ago, and remember 
the outpouring of concern we all had for our former President, and the 
First Lady and their entire family. We spoke much of the tragedy of 
Alzheimer's Disease and how we must do more to alleviate the suffering. 
Nancy Reagan inspired us all with her courage--and inspires us no less 
in her call for research which could alleviate the suffering from so 
many diseases. Her recent words call out to us, ``A lot of time is 
being wasted . . . A lot of people who could be helped are not being 
helped.''
  I cannot think of a more significant living memorial to our former 
President than to allow more research to be done in order to find new 
cures for diseases affecting millions of people.
  Today I ask my colleagues to consider allowing individuals--who have 
through modern medical science, enjoyed a gift of life, to contribute 
to saving other lives. That is exactly what H.R. 810 does, and that is 
why we must send this bill to the President and he must sign it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much.
  I want to point out in a little different format to my colleagues 
that when we talk about direct areas of being able to get treatments--
we covered this some today--this is a little bit of a different 
presentation and a little more directly related to where we are getting 
treatments in this field, which is in the adult stem cell field. Here 
are some of the various areas where we get direct treatments.
  The area of embryonic research, while interesting and intriguing, is 
not producing any results. It is not producing any cures. We are 
getting direct results from the adult, and we are not getting the 
formation of tumors in the adults. This area is working.
  I also point out this is at no cost. People say these are embryos and 
we are throwing them away. You look at that. And I had this morning in 
my office and at a press conference three snowflake babies. These are 
all babies who were in in vitro fertilization clinics, were not going 
to be implanted by the natural parents, were given up for adoption. 
They are here now, and they are beautiful and they are wonderful. They 
are absolutely precious.
  This isn't some sort of throwaway commodity. I point out to people 
that if you are one of those individuals who have frozen embryos--the 
number I hear is that 1 in 10 people in the United States suffer from 
infertility problems. There are a lot of people who would want to and 
do want to implant these frozen embryos and give them the nurturing 
they need to become humans we would all recognize. I hope people will 
look at that.
  My other point is on President Reagan, who certainly was an 
inspiration for me to get into public office, and had a beautiful 
winsomeness about his presentation of truth. He was a fabulous 
individual. President Reagan was pro life. President Reagan did not and 
would not agree with the destruction of young human life. In fact, he 
said at one point in time, if there is a doubt about whether it is a 
life, if somebody was dying and there was a doubt about whether they 
are dead, you wouldn't put them in a casket and bury them. You would 
give them the benefit of the doubt. You would say, Well, let us work to 
bring them back.
  The same on the young end--if there is a question, you err on the 
side of life. You treat this as life. There is a kind of common sense 
about it.
  President Reagan was pro life. He fought for pro-life issues. He 
would not want to see us destroy one human life for the benefit of 
another.
  A final point in this area: President Reagan suffered Alzheimer's 
disease. Alzheimer's is, as I understand it being explained to me, a 
plaque disease on the brain material. It is highly unlikely it is going 
to be treated with stem cells. Parkinson's is an area where we have 
adult stem cell treatment--a different type of disease. But the disease 
President Reagan fell to was Alzheimer's. It is highly unlikely that 
any stem cell, even adult or cord blood, and even more unlikely 
embryonic or cloning, would deal with the area of Alzheimer's.
  The only reason I mention that is I think we need to try to be very 
accurate in our debate in saying what is a good possibility and hope 
and what is not. That one would be unlikely. Parkinson's we have a good 
shot at in the adult stem cell, and we have some early treatments 
already showing some promise in that particular field. But I don't 
think it is wise that we bring that up in that particular instance in 
the case of Alzheimer's. I think it is important that we be very clear 
about what this is and what will work and what will not.
  The other thing I want to make mention of when we are talking about 
cures for things in this field is let us talk about areas where we have 
real scientific prospects of getting this done in the adult field. In 
the embryonic, as we have said for some period of time, it is unlikely 
to produce any sort of direct benefit to patients any time in the near 
future. That is according to scientists who are pro embryonic stem cell 
research. We can do more research in this field. There is some 
understanding from the presentation of the Senator from Georgia talking 
about other areas to derive embryonic type of stem cells. That is 
something we can do. The scientific community is producing more and 
more results in that particular area which I think are quite helpful 
and quite promising for us. It removes the ethical dilemma on this. It 
would be deriving embryonic type stem cells but without destroying 
embryos.
  We are coming up with this along with the stem cell line. People are 
coming up with this in other fields. There is no reason to go into the 
ethical area--the question of destroying human life with taxpayer 
dollars to be able to get that done. I think it is important that we 
point out those particular areas in this bioethical debate.
  One of the bills we will be voting on is an alternative bill. I 
talked about the fetal farming bill. I hope that passes 100 to zero so 
we can ban fetal farming. A lot has been talked about on H.R. 810, 
which is expansion of the stem cell lines using embryos and Federal 
taxpayer dollars to do that.
  What has been talked about less is this area of the Santorum-Specter 
bill which would create embryonic type stem cells without destroying 
embryos. Here is a way for people, if they are troubled about the 
ethics of destroying a young human--I really do not want to do that, 
but you think there is a promising area of inquiry on these embryonic 
type stem cells and you are looking at this saying, Yes, it is not 
producing cures or results right now, but it might in a decade or two, 
so I would like to see this pursued--here is an ethical alternative for 
you to pursue. You don't have to say, Let's destroy this young human 
life. You can

[[Page S7608]]

say, Let us go with the alternative here where we are finding 
scientifically that we can derive these types of stem cells without the 
destruction of human life, embryos. If you like this field of inquiry, 
I raise a question about embryonic stem cells because we have invested 
$.5 billion in animal and human. We don't have any applications for it 
today, but if you are still saying we still ought to invest in this 
field because it might produce something, it might produce something 
big, you have an alternative which you can vote for in this Santorum-
Specter alternative bill, and say, We want to pursue the science in 
this particular field. That is an area and a possibility that could 
work and we can and should, I think, pursue. I think it would be a good 
alternative for somebody who is in that type of quandary about which 
way to pursue this.
  I will have further comments later on this evening. I don't want to 
take up the other side's time. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of a Senator 
on our side to speak on the stem cell issues. Until that happens, I 
will take a couple of minutes to talk about something my friend from 
Kansas brought up earlier today about adult stem cell treatments.
  I am reading a letter from Scienceexpress, a publication of Science 
magazine. It is entitled, ``Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?''

       Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often 
     claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human 
     illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list 
     created by David A. prentice, an employee of the Family 
     Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-
     KS) and other opponents of ES cell research.
       Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped 
     patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real 
     help for real patients''. On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, 
     ``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
     listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by 
     adult and cord blood stem cells''.
       In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all 
     required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. 
     Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine 
     of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65.

  Again, it exposed most of these as kind of being bogus. One of those 
listed was testicular cancer. Testicular cancer is not being treated 
with adult stem cells, at least not successfully. In fact, according to 
the Sciencexpress article, the study that is supposed to be the basis 
for that claim is actually a study on how to isolate adult stem cells.
  The Senator from Kansas also has a list that included several 
leukemias and lymphomas. Let's hear what George Dahlman of the Leukemia 
and Lymphoma Society has to say about that.

       On behalf of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, I am writing 
     in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated 
     or cured several blood cancers, including several leukemias, 
     lymphomas and multiple myeloma.
       As a representative of more than 700,000 patients and their 
     caregivers in this country that battle blood cancers on a 
     daily basis, our organization would like to emphasize as the 
     Senate debates H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research and 
     Enhancement Act, that we exist today because we have not 
     found cures for these devastating diseases. Furthermore, the 
     claim that treatment of blood cancers with cord blood, blood 
     or marrow stem cells--known as hematopoietic stem cells--
     demonstrates the potential of `adult stem cell' research or 
     is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research is 
     misleading and disingenuous.

  Mr. Dahlman concludes:

       The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society asks that you and your 
     colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes.

  All in all, according to the science journal, only nine diseases of 
the 65 examined have proved to even respond to treatment with adult 
stem cells.
  The authors of the analysis conclude that claims about stem cells 
being in general use for 65 diseases are false. Such claims ``mislead 
lay people and cruelly deceive patients.''
  Again, we are going to hear a lot of talk about all we can do other 
than embryonic stem cell research. This should not be a debate about 
whether we do adult stem cells, cord blood, or all these other things. 
They are all worthy of research.
  Those that are for adult stem cell research, cord blood, bone marrow 
research, that type of thing, all say they want to do that to the 
exclusion of embryonic stem cells. Those who are in support of H.R. 810 
say let's do them all and do them all in an ethically acceptable 
manner.
  Again, we have strong ethical guidelines. One, we do not create any 
embryos with this bill. You can only use the embryos that are already 
existing in IVF clinics that are left over that will be discarded. 
Second, we must have written informed consent of the donors. Third, no 
one can get paid; no money can change hands. You cannot entice someone 
to donate these embryos with money. We have strong ethical guidelines.
  Lastly, I have heard comments today time and time again about how 
this bill, H.R. 810, involves the destruction of embryos. I challenge 
anyone to show me where in H.R. 810 it provides for the destruction of 
any embryos. Under the Dickey-Wicker amendment that is now existing, no 
Federal funds can be used to destroy embryos. All H.R. 8l0 says is that 
once stem cells are derived through private means or whatever, then 
Federal funds can be used to go to universities or to other researchers 
to study these embryonic stem cells.
  There is nothing in this bill, and I challenge anyone to show me in 
H.R. 810 where it provides for the destruction of any embryos; it does 
not. To say otherwise is being disingenuous. The Dickey-Wicker 
amendment still applies. No Federal money can be used for the 
destruction of embryos, plain and simple.
  I see my colleague from Illinois is here. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Iowa not only for yielding but 
also for being the leader on our side of the aisle on this issue, with 
Senator Specter on the Republican side. I am glad this day has finally 
come. This matter has been on the calendar for over a year.
  For over a year, millions of Americans have been wondering when the 
Senate will take this up. Finally, it has been scheduled. A lot of 
people outside this Chamber had a lot to do with it being scheduled. 
First Lady Nancy Reagan stood up and spoke up when she saw the late 
President suffering from Alzheimer's. Her voice has made a difference. 
I salute her for that. Christopher and Dana Reeve, both gone now, in 
their lifetime, the dedication and energy they put on this issue made 
all the difference in the world.
  There are three votes tomorrow. There is only one that gets to the 
heart of the issue. There are some that are going to address a lot of 
different issues from different perspectives, but there is only one 
that counts when it comes to stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act is the only bill that expands Federal funding for 
embryonic stem cell research, the type that holds out so much promise.
  The other two bills are well intentioned. I am not going to say 
anything negative about them. I will vote for them because, frankly, 
they make little or no difference. One of them bans practices that 
presently are not being used. I guess that is a good thing to do. I 
will vote for that bill.
  The other one, by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, won't accomplish 
much. This was the question I asked of Dr. James Battey of the National 
Institutes of Health about the Santorum bill: Can you tell me whether 
S. 2754 authorizes research on stem cells at the NIH that currently is 
not permissible or legal?
  He answered: No, it does not.
  So it does not give new authority to NIH, and it does not expand 
research. It has some motive other than medical for being offered.
  William Neaves, a leading stem cell researcher, has it right:

       This is not a contest between adult stem cells and 
     embryonic stem cells. Instead, it is a contest between 
     society and disease.

  I have listened to some of the arguments in the Senate. Some of the 
arguments are that adult stem cell research has great potential. I 
believe that is true. I believe we should pursue it aggressively. 
However, the argument seems to be that if that is the case,

[[Page S7609]]

then we do not have to concern ourselves with embryonic stem cell 
research.
  I am a liberal arts lawyer and do not profess to know about medical 
research, but why foreclose a whole area of research with embryonic 
stem cells that the greatest minds in America tell us is so promising? 
Why wouldn't we do both, both adult stem cell research, as well as 
embryonic stem cell research? From that point of view, I cannot follow 
the logic in opposing this bill.
  Former Senator John Danforth is another person who has thought about 
this issue. I respect him a lot. He is an ordained Episcopal minister 
and a longtime opponent of abortion. Like tens of millions of 
Americans, he comes from a family that knows the pain of disease. He 
lost one of his brothers to Lou Gehrig's disease. He wrote this in the 
St. Louis-Post Dispatch:

       A choice between two understandings of human life. On one 
     hand, we have millions of people who suffer from ALS, 
     Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord 
     injuries and cancer--and the loved ones who care for them and 
     suffer by their sides. On the other hand, we have tiny 
     bundles of unfertilized cells existing in petri dishes.

  He went on to write, the people who oppose stem cell research:

       should explain to the afflicted and their loved ones why 
     they care more about those cell bundles than they do about 
     the people.

  This Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act has been supported by so many 
groups. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have the names of 
some of those groups printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Who Supports H.R. 810

       The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is supported by more 
     than 200 patient groups, scientists and medical research 
     groups. They include: American Medical Association, American 
     Association for Cancer, American Diabetes Association, 
     Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, American Pediatric Society, 
     March of Dimes, the ALS Association, Parkinsons Action 
     Network, Alzheimer's Association, Parent Project Muscular 
     Dystrophy, Kidney Cancer Association, Coalition for Pulmonary 
     Fibrosis, and the Society for Neuroscience Research.

  Mr. DURBIN. I would say that all of the big names in medical research 
in America support this bill. They understand this is the real deal. 
This is the bill that will make a difference. The other two may not.
  Among the other groups supporting the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act are the Republican Main Street Partnership, the B'nai B'rith 
International, and a long list of people representing religious 
organizations from almost every denomination in America.
  Why do we need this? We need it because President Bush decided in 
2001 to take a position on medical research. I do not think there is a 
precedent in American history for what he did. He basically said we 
were going to cut off Federal funding for those who were involved in 
embryonic stem cell research, except for a limited number of lines. He 
identified 78 stem cell lines on the day of his speech and said that 
scientists who received any Federal funding at all could work only on 
those stem cell lines.
  As Senator Harkin has pointed out over and over, not only were the 78 
lines reduced to 22, they are all contaminated. They cannot be used for 
this research anymore. So President Bush is not offering any hope when 
it comes to this area of research. I do not want to get into the moral 
argument here because it is almost religious. It is moral and 
theological here. But if the President could rationalize 78 stem cell 
lines as being appropriate and all right for research, then he has 
fundamentally decided the research is permissible, I suppose. I do not 
follow his logic. And I do not follow the logic of some who oppose it 
who say that because this is a product of in vitro fertilization and 
has the potential for life that we should not do research. We know that 
in that process, some of these fertilized eggs will end up being 
implanted in the womb of an expectant mother in the hope she becomes 
pregnant, and others will not be used. It is the nature of the process. 
They make more of these fertilized eggs than they will need in the 
hopes that one will work.
  Then what happens to the rest? Well, they are going to be discarded. 
They are not used to find cures for diseases. But for those who find it 
immoral to use the product of that process for medical research, I 
still am troubled by the notion that they have not come to the floor 
asking that we ban in vitro fertilization, because we know that is a 
natural consequence of this process. And if it is permissible and moral 
and legal to have a process which results in these extra cells, I do 
not understand the moral question about using these fertilized cells to 
give people a chance to live and to live their lives better. I just do 
not understand that.
  To measure the impact of President Bush's policy, Stanford University 
looked at peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals. They 
found that embryonic stem cell research in the United States made up 
one-third of the papers published in 2002 but only a fourth of those 
published in 2004. Research is slowing down. President Bush's decision 
is reducing the number of opportunities for embryonic stem cell 
research.
  The world's best and most respected scientists--our own NIH 
leadership--tell us that this area of scientific research could lead to 
treatments and cures. Dr. James Battey chairs the NIH working group on 
stem cells. This is what he said before the Senate Labor, HHS 
Subcommittee:

       There's no scientist that I know who would argue that more 
     stem cell lines wouldn't accelerate the pace of scientific 
     research. . . . Cell lines offer scientific opportunities 
     that are right now beyond the reach of federal funds.

  Other things have changed since President Bush's decision in 2001 as 
well. We have learned more about the potential of stem cell research. 
Dr. John Kessler is the chair of the neurology department at 
Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, which I am honored 
to represent. He is also the father of a 20-year-old daughter who is 
paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord injury. He told me personally 
that he finds the current administration policy ``unconscionable'' in 
light of everything we have learned since 2001.
  H.R. 810--the real bill, the one that is important, and the one that 
will make the difference--would loosen the handcuffs on America's 
scientists. It would allow scientists to receive Federal funding to use 
embryonic stem cell lines in their research if--and only if--two very 
specific conditions are met. First, the stem cell lines must be derived 
from eggs that were produced for in vitro fertilization but are going 
to be discarded. The choice is research or destruction of these 
potential means of creating medical opportunities. Second, both adults 
to whom the eggs belong must provide written consent that the eggs be 
donated to science.
  It is estimated 400,000 excess eggs are being stored now in clinics 
around the country, stored in petri dishes at 300 degrees below zero. 
Opponents of this research say it is unethical to use them for 
research. But if they are not used, they will be destroyed. How in the 
world can that be the right ethical, moral choice to destroy the 
opportunity for research to cure disease?

  I see my colleague from Washington is here, and I know she wants to 
speak. I will close by saying this: I have met some of the children who 
are victims of juvenile diabetes. I guess it comes home personally when 
you sit down with these kids and their mothers, and the mothers say: I 
wake my daughter up twice in the midst of the night to take a blood 
test to see how she is doing. Think about that for that poor little 
girl being awakened twice each night. And think about the mother and 
her worries that that little girl, who she loves so much, may go blind 
or lose a limb or die. And think about the hope they have in their 
hearts that this research will go forward.
  I have met the victims of ALS and diabetes and Parkinson's and 
Alzheimer's. I know they are praying we do the right thing tomorrow. I 
hope we pass this bill. I am not certain it will pass, but I am hopeful 
it will. It will have strong support on this side of the aisle, and I 
hope there will be enough votes on both sides of the aisle to enact it. 
Then the bill will go to President Bush, and he will have a moment in 
the history of this country to make a momentous decision. If he decides 
to go forward and veto the stem cell research bill, it will be the 
first veto of the Bush Presidency.

[[Page S7610]]

  President Bush described himself politically when he ran for office 
as a compassionate conservative. His decision on the future of this 
bill will be the test of his compassion. If he has compassion for those 
who are suffering across America, who are praying for the hope this 
research can bring, I hope he will pray over his decision long and 
hard. And if we pass this bill, I hope he will sign it and give these 
Americans a chance for a better tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor to 
speak about H.R. 810. I applaud the Senator from Illinois for his 
comments because I know he has many fine research institutions in his 
State and has met with many people who suffer from a variety of 
diseases who could be helped if H.R. 810 is passed and signed by the 
President. So I commend him for his remarks.
  I certainly thank the Senator from Iowa for being out here all 
afternoon talking about the importance of this legislation and trying 
to communicate how important it is that H.R. 810, the legislation that 
focuses on embryonic stem cell research, be passed and signed by the 
President.
  I also want to say I know the Senator from Kansas has been out here, 
and I have enjoyed working with him on a variety of pieces of 
legislation, particularly legislation that dealt with international 
marriage brokers, trying to protect women who come to America, making 
sure they got full information about people who were helping them apply 
for visas before they come to the country. So I certainly have enjoyed 
working with the Senator from Kansas on other legislation.
  But I wish to say I think it is important we focus our debate on H.R. 
810--an important bill on embryonic stem cell research--in the context 
of science, because I believe Congress must not stand in the way of 
science. I think tomorrow's vote is exactly what that is about. So I 
want to be clear that I support that legislation and will work to 
overturn any attempts to veto this legislation.
  Like my colleagues, I have met these Americans who for too long have 
wanted to have hope. They have waited to have real hope that there 
would be a lifesaving stem cell research program. Many Americans 
believe we can do better. We know there are 3 million Americans who 
need help, and we understand that by investing today we can save lives 
tomorrow. We understand, for Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's or 
ALS or Parkinson's disease, it really does mean hope and a new way of 
looking at opportunity for them.
  We will have a debate about this continuing today and tomorrow. But 
we need to keep in mind it is good science that is at question. For us 
in Washington State, with 35,000 Washingtonians living with Parkinson's 
disease today, understanding what embryonic stem cell research can do 
for them is of utmost importance.
  We also have 300,000 Washingtonians who have been diagnosed with 
diabetes who, obviously, are very interested in this legislation. We 
have 160,000 Washington State residents who struggle with heart failure 
and understand there is so much that could be done in this particular 
area of research. We have 5,000 Washingtonians who suffer from spinal 
cord injuries. So there are people all over our State with various 
medical challenges who are looking to us to make the right decision and 
to allow critical research to give them promise for opportunity in the 
future.
  At the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center--I know my colleague 
from Iowa has visited the Fred Hutchinson Research Center--they are 
applying groundbreaking science and using adult stem cells to treat 
blood cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma, and various other diseases. 
They are also looking to do the same for kidney cancers.
  The Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason in Seattle is 
working with stem cells on a collaborative 5-year project to grow a 
living heart. The effort could lead to tissue-engineered replacement 
hearts, and it means that could help us with various challenges in that 
particular area of health care.

  The University of Washington, which is in Seattle, boasts 70 
scientists involved in aspects of stem cell biology addressing 
everything from liver disease to coronary heart disease. Three years 
ago, the NIH named the University of Washington one of the three 
exemplary centers for human embryonic stem cell research. But in the 
last 5 years, since President Bush banned the funding for embryonic 
stem cell research, it is as though our Nation has turned its back on 
that science and that work that could be done, and I am sure not just 
in Washington State. But that is a representative example of what could 
be done if we moved forward.
  It is important we continue to move forward by passing H.R. 810. The 
truth is that right now adult stem cells do not have anywhere near the 
scientific potential as embryonic stem cells. Their application is 
limited. Their reach is finite. And we do have a better option. 
Allowing federally funded research on embryos that would otherwise be 
destroyed would provide a much-needed expansion. Everything from 
eradicating, in our past, polio to mapping the human genome, our Nation 
has been a leader and an innovator in science and medicine. So let's 
not fall behind now. Just as we are challenged with so many of these 
diseases, we need to do more.
  Of the original 78 stem cell lines the administration permitted 
scientists to work on, only 21 are available today. Lab scientists must 
turn to private investors and already struggling State governments to 
carry on this critical research. So researchers in my State, in the 
State of Washington, say that Federal funding would increase research 
opportunities and allow scientists to use that money much more 
effectively.
  In March of 2006, the University of Washington announced that because 
of Federal funding restrictions, it would seek to establish a stem cell 
institute with private money and, instead, looks to raise $100 million 
in private funds to help it move forward. The University of Washington 
plans to reflect the intense competition it faces from other 
universities around the country that are boosting their research into 
stem cells which have permitted them to treat a variety of diseases. So 
the competition will continue. But we could be working together in a 
much more collaborative fashion, in a way that would help us extend the 
scope of that research.
  It is very important because so many of those involved in this 
particular area believe passionately we need this new area of 
expansion. One of those individuals, Dr. Storb of the Fred Hutchinson 
Cancer Research Center in Seattle, recently said this:

       We have exhausted research on adult stem cells. They do not 
     do the trick. We have worked with them for 30 years now and 
     know that they do not make all of the tissues in the body.

  He further went on to say:

       If the public wants cell-based therapies, then we must 
     conduct that kind of stem cell research. We may learn more 
     from embryonic cells how to program adult cells, but we have 
     to work with embryonic cells to do just that.

  So this Congress, I believe, must not stand in the way of science. We 
have three bills we will vote on tomorrow, but only H.R. 810 actually 
clears the way for critical research that could lead to cures for so 
many debilitating diseases.
  There is no viable alternative to improving the research and serious 
investments that I believe H.R. 810 will provide. When we are talking 
to Americans who suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
and others, I think it is important, as my colleague from Illinois 
stated, that we must keep in mind the stories of individuals.
  Mr. President, one such individual is a 4-year-old who died of brain 
cancer. Her mother wrote to us saying how important this bill was in 
holding opportunities for other people in other families who suffer 
from brain cancer. To me, it is so important that we pass this 
legislation and help those individuals and families who are suffering 
by giving them hope for promising research that we know science can 
provide.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as everybody is doing, I want to 
discuss the three stem-cell-research-related bills before the Senate. I 
have been in the Senate for 26 years now. Every day, we make decisions 
that impact Americans. It becomes difficult,

[[Page S7611]]

however, when we debate bills that involve the lives of women and 
families, especially those who are sick and dying. We must be cognizant 
of their plights, but we cannot forget about those who don't have a 
voice.
  Tomorrow, I will vote in favor of those who are not yet brought into 
this world. I will vote for those who don't have a chance to speak 
against legislation that doesn't give them a chance at life.
  First, I intend to support S. 3504, the ban on fetus farming. This 
bill states that a person cannot solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, 
or accept a donation of fetal tissue or an embryo if the pregnancy was 
initiated to provide such material. This bill will reduce the 
likelihood that women will be used solely for their production of 
embryos. We have to draw the line, and we have to prevent the 
corruption that could occur.
  Second, I intend to support a bill numbered S. 2754, which directs 
the National Institutes of Health to fund alternative techniques for 
stem cell research. It will allow researchers to use different 
techniques to derive pluripotent stem cells without destroying human 
life. This research could be done under current law, but a vote in 
support of this bill will send a signal to the NIH that we want to see 
even more of this research.
  Finally, I will oppose H.R. 810 because it would expand Federal 
funding for embryonic stem cell research.
  Some of my colleagues will characterize the bill, H.R. 810, as a 
lifesaving opportunity for many people with diseases. The focus will be 
on promises, hopes, and dreams. This focus disregards that this bill 
will allow researchers to use and abuse embryos. And there are enormous 
moral and ethical consequences associated with that research.
  You cannot mess with the facts. An embryo is life. No Senator can 
disagree with that assertion. Once you realize that fact--that an 
embryo is life--you have to realize that this bill takes life and plays 
with it.
  In addition, this bill doesn't prohibit cloning. In fact, it will 
make cloning even more attractive. Why would we want to go down this 
road of unethical research when we have a method that already works?
  We all know that adult stem cell research has proven effective. We 
are investing the taxpayers' money in research that benefits the 
American people. We in Congress have to realize that there is a 
difference between hope and hype. I, for one, will not be misled.
  Adult stem cells have already proven effective for over 72 
treatments. I will not list them all, but some of them relate to adult 
stem cells being used to treat brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, 
arthritis, and Parkinson's disease. Peripheral blood stem cells have 
treated testicular cancer, lymphoma, and breast cancer. Cord blood stem 
cells have treated leukemia. Olfactory stem cells from the nose can 
develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells, muscle cells, 
brain cells, and nerve cells. Bone marrow stem cells and stem cells 
from fat have the ability to differentiate and form other body tissues.

  I wish I could list the advances with embryonic stem cell research, 
but I cannot; there are none. There are no treatments for human 
patients. So there is no evidence on which to argue that this research 
should be expanded with public resources.
  I have a story about a person that I have known for 44 years, David 
Foege. I have known him since he was a page at the Iowa State 
Legislature back in 1962. He is originally from Waverly, IA, so even 
though he lives in Florida, I still consider him a constituent. There 
is evidence, then, through Dave Foege that we should continue 
supporting adult stem cell research.
  Just 2 weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet with David, who is now 
61 years old and living in Florida. This is the story he told to me. 
David was given a life sentence because of heart failure. Three years 
ago, David was told that he had little chance of surviving. His heart 
was losing all function and there was little that doctors could do. 
David then turned to stem cell therapy. He found doctors in Bangkok 
that would harvest his own stem cells and then inject them back into 
his own heart. His own stem cells--his adult stem cells, not embryonic 
stem cells--cured him. His heart function has improved by 70 percent. 
David is alive and well, playing golf, and currently taking a cruise in 
Belize. Without adult stem cell therapy, David would not be here.
  Embryonic stem cell research, on the contrary, has not yielded this 
kind of success that we have from adult stem cells. It makes sense to 
direct public resources to what works. Prioritizing resources: It makes 
sense for public resources to help those with heart disease, the No. 1 
killer in the United States. It makes sense to encourage research that 
will work for those with Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune 
diseases. Why would we want to desert patients in the United States by 
spending dollars on research that has not been proven?
  I will oppose H.R. 810 not only because of the ethical consequences 
but because it doesn't prioritize our use of fiscal resources.
  Let's be clear. There is no current policy in place that bans 
embryonic stem cell research. Everybody knows that we are doing some 
through the Federal Government because, being perfectly legal in the 
United States, President Bush, in 2001, allowed taxpayer dollars to be 
used for that research. This debate in the Senate today and tomorrow is 
not whether we want to ban or allow research, it is whether we want to 
spend our dollars on embryo creation and destruction.
  Today, the Congress appropriates nearly $30 billion for medical 
research through the National Institutes of Health. Every year, 
hundreds of advocates come to my office to say that $30 billion is not 
enough. They say these funds are important to continue research and 
trials that are already started. So what would happen to those 
arguments if there was a higher priority placed through passage of H.R. 
810? Will we have to double the budget again for NIH like we did 
between 1998 and 2003? I don't think that is possible given that was 
already done starting in the year 1998. So it makes me wonder whether 
we are prioritizing the use of Federal research dollars through the 
National Institutes of Health the way we should.
  We don't have an infinite amount of Federal funding. We cannot 
pretend there is enough money to go around. We do have to prioritize. 
So I urge my colleagues to realize that Congress can only disburse so 
many funds. We can only fix so many problems. Therefore, we need to 
think rationally. We need to make tough choices. One of those tough 
choices might be to pursue what is proven to work, which is greater use 
of adult stem cells. The right choice, then, is to invest in what 
works. Let's keep the ball rolling with research that has been proven.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 
minutes to talk as in morning business regarding the resolution that 
will be on the Senate floor later tonight or tomorrow regarding 
condemning Hezbollah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation 
to expand the Federal investment in adult and umbilical cord blood stem 
cell research, as well as scientific ways to create embryonic stem cell 
lines without destroying human embryos.
  It is important to point out that there are two very important 
categories of stem cells. I know that my colleagues are going to have a 
little difficulty with this because I have had difficulty with this. 
This is medical terminology.
  The first, embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived 
from human embryos developed from eggs that have been fertilized in an 
in vitro fertilization clinic. Removing stem cells from these embryos 
destroys their potential life, making their use very controversial and 
something I cannot morally support.
  On the other hand, adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found 
among

[[Page S7612]]

differentiated cells in tissues or organs. Adult stem cells can renew 
themselves and will eventually differentiate into a special cell. 
However, before this occurs, the undifferentiated stem cells can be 
gathered by scientists without any harm to the individual.
  Also included in this ethical category of stem cells are those from 
umbilical cord blood derived from the placenta of a newborn baby. With 
the birth of my seventh grandchild last summer, I learned a great deal 
about the benefits of preserving cord blood stem cells. Once considered 
medical waste and discarded after birth, science has determined that 
cord blood has the potential to save thousands of lives.
  And that is exactly why I came to the floor today, to explain these 
differences and to highlight the unmatched value of adult and cord 
blood stem cells.
  By the way, when I found out about the umbilical cord blood coming 
from the placenta, we are now freezing that umbilical cord, and each 
year we will pay some money to maintain it. But that umbilical cord can 
be used to help my seventh grandchild or, for that matter, the whole 
family. It is something more people should find out about.
  I am concerned that the vast majority of Americans are unaware that 
some of the most promising advances in medical research and treatment 
today are not attributed to embryonic stem cells; rather, they are the 
result of noncontroversial, nonlife-ending use of adult and umbilical 
blood cord cells.
  Unfortunately, many of the individuals who support embryonic stem 
cell research have been kept in the dark about the advances of 
umbilical and adult stem cell treatments and have been oversold on 
embryonic stem cell research, which is still in its infancy.
  While embryonic cells have never been successfully used to treat even 
one disease--not used to treat one disease to date--adult stem cells 
have been used to treat 72 diseases, such as breast cancer, multiple 
sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia, spinal cord 
injuries, and many others. I have read reports that adult stem cells 
from a young girl's own fat cells were used to repair or regenerate a 
19-square-inch section of her skull. I have also learned of a 
Parkinson's patient who has been without the vast majority of the 
disease's symptoms for 6 years after being treated with his own adult 
stem cells.
  Even more encouraging, the potential use of adult and umbilical cord 
therapies continues to expand. In fact, there is a real possibility 
that these types of stem cells will be able to yield the same results 
as embryonic, or what they call pluripotent stem cells, without the 
need to destroy human life.
  The American Journal of Pathology recently reported that a group of 
scientists have isolated a novel population of multipotent adult stem 
cells from human hair follicles--think of that, human hair follicles--
which, like embryonic stem cells, express neural crest and neuron stem 
cell markers, as well as the embryonic stem cell transcription factors.
  In other words, what we are saying is that they produce the same 
thing we would get if we were using the embryos that so many are 
anxious to use.
  I was introduced to the promise of adult and umbilical stem cell 
research by experts at the National Center of Regenerative Medicine in 
my hometown of Cleveland, OH. The individual institutions involved in 
this partnership--Case Western Reserve University, University Hospital, 
and the Cleveland Clinic--each bring an expertise to the center that is 
leading the Nation in the use of nonembryonic stem cells to regenerate 
new tissue and diseased organs rather than using drugs or devices to 
improve the function of the organ.
  The National Center for Regenerative Medicine team has told me that 
they are interested in the rapid translation of adult and umbilical 
cord stem cell technology into patients that is not possible today with 
embryonic stem cells.
  Since 1976, investigators at the center have studied nonembryonic 
stem cells and performed their first stem cell transplant as early as 
1980. That is back in 1980. Investigators at the center are now able to 
cure leukemias and lymphomas with nonembryonic stem cell 
transplantation, as well as to fix unstable bone fractures and treat 
genetic disorders.

  In the next several years, investigators at the center believe they 
will be able to address cancer, bone, heart, and neurological disorders 
with nonembryonic stem cell treatments. They are hopeful that the new 
advances will lead to treatment of degenerative arthritis, will 
decrease the severity of graft versus host disease after stem cell 
transplantation, and allow physicians to use a patient's own stem cells 
to repair heart damage following congestive heart failure, as well as 
use their own neural stem cells to improve function after spinal cord 
damage. All of the things that folks are talking about because we have 
to have these embryonic stem cells because this is what we have to do--
we are already on our way. We are making progress with adult and with 
umbilical cord stem cells.
  The center has 10 ongoing or planned clinical trials to further 
explore the use of stem cell therapies to reduce the risks of 
chemotherapy, treat certain heart conditions, and improve umbilical 
stem cell treatment for leukemia. I recently had the privilege to 
personally hear two young Ohioans discuss the successful adult stem 
cell treatment received at the center for an aggressive form of 
leukemia and a severely broken bone that would not heal with 
traditional treatment.
  I will never forget this young woman who was there. It was a meeting 
at the regenerative center. She talked about the fact that she was in 
this terrible motorcycle accident. She was a mountain climber, she was 
a skier, she was a runner. She was told by all of her doctors that she 
wouldn't be able to run again, that she would have to hobble around. 
She went to the Cleveland Clinic, to the regenerative center, and as a 
result of using her stem cells, they were able to repair the problem 
that she had in her leg.
  Today she is running. I am getting goosebumps right now. I will never 
forget it. She started to cry. She hugged her doctor. We all started to 
cry. It was a miraculous thing using adult stem cells.
  As a result, I support the legislation introduced by my colleagues 
from Pennsylvania, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies 
Enhancement Act. The bill would require the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, 
protection or testing of stem cells not derived from a human embryo.
  The bill would also require the Secretary to prioritize stem cell 
research that will reap near-term clinical benefits. It is my hope that 
this type of progress will help eliminate the controversy surrounding 
embryonic stem cell research without any compromise of scientific 
advancement.
  I have the greatest sympathy for patients and their families who 
continue to struggle with a wide range of painful, life-ending 
diseases. Further, I understand what it is like to watch a loved one 
suffer and the tragedy of losing a member of your family, even a young 
child, to a life-ending disease. I personally lost my father to 
diabetes and my nephew C.T. to bone cancer. I have been a witness to 
the devastating effects of Alzheimer's, arthritis, and many other 
diseases.
  One can hardly take issue with these individual efforts to seek out a 
potential cure, but too often, I fear, proponents of embryonic stem 
cell research provide patients with false promises from unproven, 
unexplored embryonic stem cells, while ignoring the real substantial 
progress that has been made with adult and blood cord treatments.
  I am gravely concerned about the possible implication of spending 
taxpayers' dollars on an issue such as embryonic stem cell research 
that divides Americans on moral and ethical grounds, and I believe it 
is my moral responsibility to direct the Federal Government's dollars 
toward the areas of research that have the greatest near-term potential 
to help the largest number of Americans.
  Since I have been a Member of the Senate, we have doubled the funding 
for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and greatly increased the 
amount of medical research the Federal Government is able to fund, 
including increasing the amount of money available for research on all 
stem cells from $226 million in 1999 to $568 million this year.

[[Page S7613]]

  However, as you know, Mr. President, in recent years with the cost of 
the war, the need to protect our homeland, and natural disasters such 
as Katrina, the amount the Federal budget has available for these 
priorities is getting smaller and smaller. We are seeing that now with 
the appropriations bills in the Senate.
  I meet with groups all the time, and they ask me for increases in 
funding for research for diseases that personally impact on their 
families. I am sure they visit your office, Mr. President, every couple 
of weeks: We want more money for NIH to take care of this, to take care 
of that. Just within my own family, I met recently with my former 
brother-in-law in support of childhood cancer, and through my son I 
have heard a very emotional presentation by a group of my constituents 
on behalf of juvenile diabetes research. Again, if everyone in the 
Senate had been at that meeting, I think they would have said: Look, we 
have to do more, spend more money on juvenile diabetes.
  There is a tremendous need to pursue treatments for these and many 
other diseases, but we face a reality of limited funding. That is the 
real world.
  We have to be smart about spending our money, and in the current 
budget environment, I have concerns that increasing funding for 
research on embryonic stem cell will take away opportunities for 
research in areas such as adult and umbilical cord blood research, or 
even research for treatment of specific diseases such as cancer, 
juvenile diabetes, and others that have proven their usefulness.
  Consequently, and in light of all the advances and results science 
has provided with adult and umbilical blood cord stem cells, I urge my 
colleagues to continue to direct Federal funding toward the 
noncontroversial areas of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell 
research. I urge my colleagues to do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as we are waiting for my colleagues to 
come to the floor, I want to address some issues that have been brought 
forward and talked about previously.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague from Iowa, and I am prepared to 
answer--he had raised a question about whether we had 72 different 
areas of treatment for adult stem cells, and so I wanted to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unfortunately, the majority's time has 
expired.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Washington is here to make her statement on this bill, and I would 
yield the floor to Senator Murray for her comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me time 
tonight on this important legislation. I rise tonight to express my 
support for expanding stem cell research. This innovative research 
offers us a chance to save lives.
  Families across this country are holding out hope that we will 
finally allow science to move forward and deliver on the promise of 
stem cell research. That is exactly what we should be doing. But, 
unfortunately, today the hands of American scientists are tied by 
political restrictions. I believe we can expand stem cell research 
while still maintaining strict ethical safeguards. That is why I will 
be supporting H.R. 810.
  Back in 2001, President Bush imposed restrictions on promising stem 
cell research. Since that time, we have learned that there aren't as 
many useful stem cell lines as the President suggested. The Bush 
administration promised us that 60 lines would be available for 
research. To date, only 15 are available, and it appears that all of 
those lines have contamination problems. The President's restrictions 
have held back American science and stalled promising research. It is 
time to correct that mistake and allow our country to make progress.
  Stem cell research is about improving medicine, and it is about 
saving lives. For patients with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, diabetes or 
multiple sclerosis, stem cell research holds promising potential to 
provide the tools to understand, treat, and someday cure these 
devastating diseases.
  I understand the challenges and frustrations these diseases cause. 
When I was just 15 years old, my dad was diagnosed with multiple 
sclerosis. In a few short years, his illness became very bad, so bad 
that he couldn't work anymore, and for most of my life my dad was in a 
wheelchair. His illness had a profound impact on my entire family. My 
mom, who stayed home to raise seven kids, had to work to care for him 
and had to get a job so she could support our family. She got that job, 
but it was never enough to support seven kids and a husband who was in 
a wheelchair and with growing medical bills.
  I can only imagine how different our lives would have been had there 
been a cure for M.S. Back then, we didn't have the tools to find a 
cure, but today we do, and these tools unfortunately are being blocked 
by an ideological policy that puts politics over science. I think we 
can do better than that.
  My dad's challenges are similar to the struggles millions of 
Americans and their families face every day. They deserve a chance, and 
they deserve hope. That is why we can't let the current restrictions 
stand.
  A short time ago, I received a letter from a constituent of mine who 
lives in Mercer Island, and he wrote:

       My 17-year-old son was recently involved in an automobile 
     accident and is now paralyzed from the upper chest down. Stem 
     cell research looks to be our brightest hope by far. Please 
     help give him the chance to ride a bike, go for a hike, and 
     run with his friends again. Please, support stem cell 
     research.

  As that father points out, this is about people. It is about keeping 
our country on the cutting edge of science and research, and I am proud 
to represent a State that has a strong reputation for scientific 
research. But for our country to remain a leader in this promising 
field, our scientists and our researchers need the support of our 
Government. America should never take a back seat to other countries in 
the search for promising new cures.
  Unfortunately, the President's current stem cell research policy is 
tying the hands of our scientists by limiting the number of lines 
eligible for Federal funding. We can do better than that.
  In fact, the majority of this Congress has been trying to correct the 
President's mistake for over a year now. H.R. 810 passed the House of 
Representatives 13 months ago. Since that date, my colleagues and I 
have been fighting to bring this issue of stem cell research to the 
Senate floor. We wrote letters, we pleaded on the floor, and we asked 
Republican leaders numerous times for even a few hours to debate and 
pass this bipartisan bill. Our efforts to promote research and offer 
hope had been denied at every turn. But now, finally, our day has come, 
and after more than a year of obstruction, we finally have a chance to 
offer hope to millions of patients and their families. On a bipartisan 
basis, I believe this bill will pass.
  But, of course, we know that is not the whole story. Shortly after we 
got word that this bill would finally come to the floor, I was dismayed 
to see headlines announcing that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief 
political officer and adviser, guaranteed a veto of this important 
bill. In nearly 6 years in office, President Bush has never once vetoed 
a bill. It is pretty amazing to me that he would choose this bill--this 
bill which offers basic hope and opportunity to so many Americans--for 
his first veto. I believe the President is wrong on this issue, and I 
think threatening a veto is wrong.

  I am here this evening to pledge my support for this bill and to call 
on my colleagues to support it. But next, I call on them to ask the 
President in no uncertain terms to stand with us in support of open 
opportunity, stand with us in support of medical research, stand with 
us and, more importantly, with millions of Americans who are waiting on 
a cure, in support of stem cell research.
  For far too long, this administration's ideology has trumped 
research. Politics has been more important than science. With this 
bill, President Bush has a chance to change course and put people ahead 
of personal political ideology. I urge him to do the right thing.
  For our patients, for their families, and for the future of our 
Nation's research leadership, it is time for the Senate to pass H.R. 
810, and it is time for the President to sign it. Let's take the 
handcuffs off of our scientists and

[[Page S7614]]

let them find the cures that will save lives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her very eloquent statement, and I thank all of the Senators who have 
come over here today to speak on this important issue.
  We have about 20 minutes left in this half hour. I don't have any 
other Senators right now, but if there are other Senators on our side 
who wish to take a few minutes to speak on this bill, I would be glad 
to yield to them.
  However, I would like to take this time to sum up, if I can, what we 
have heard today. We have come to the end of our first day of debate on 
stem cell research, and I think it has been a very enlightening debate 
and a very good exposition of the different sides of this issue. I hope 
the American people who have tuned in to watch this have learned a 
great deal about why we need to pass H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. As we know, that bill passed the House by a bipartisan 
majority over a year ago, and I think it has a strong bipartisan 
majority here in the Senate. Certainly the bill itself is sponsored 
bipartisanly. If we can pass it tomorrow--and I am confident we can and 
we will--H.R. 810 can go straight to the President's desk.
  I would like to reiterate a few things we have heard today.
  First, H.R. 810 has enormous popular support. I have here a letter 
that was just transmitted to me, and it is a list of different advocacy 
groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific 
societies, religious groups, and other interested institutions and 
associations representing millions of patients, scientists, health care 
providers, and advocates, writing in strong support for H.R. 810. They 
point out in this letter that this is the bill which holds promise for 
expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills, the Alternative 
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, and the Fetus 
Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, are not substitutes for a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 810.
  This letter is signed by 590 advocacy groups. I have been on this 
Senate floor now 21 years. We all get letters and things that come in 
expressing support, but I daresay I have never seen anything as 
overwhelming as this: 590 different groups. Earlier this year, I 
submitted a list of 205 different groups.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
comments on this portion, this list of 590 groups be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Again, those are advocacy groups and scientific associations--590.
  How about the American people? Three out of four Americans agree: 
support stem cell research. The question asked in a national poll: Do 
you support embryonic stem cell research? Seventy-two percent of 
Americans said yes. Seventy-two percent. That is pretty overwhelming.
  I heard the distinguished Senator from Ohio here just a few moments 
ago say that one of the reasons he was opposed to the bill was because 
we wanted to do things that would not divide Americans. He thought this 
would divide Americans. Divide Americans? Seventy-two percent are in 
favor of it. Over 590 different advocacy groups expressing support, and 
205 other disease-related groups all in support. This doesn't divide 
America at all. Of course, there is always going to be somebody opposed 
to something around here. But I haven't seen anything that received 
this much overwhelming support in a long time. As a matter of fact, 
passing embryonic stem cell research, H.R. 810, will pull Americans 
together in the fight against disease. And it is bipartisan. As I said, 
the bill passed the House bipartisanly. The sponsors of the bill itself 
were three Republicans and three Democrats.
  It was stated earlier today a couple of times about a letter that 
former First Lady Nancy Reagan had written. I thought I would have it 
blown up and put on a chart for people around the country to take a 
look at, just to show you how this has nothing to do with partisanship. 
It shows it is from the office of Nancy Reagan dated May 1, 2006, a 
letter to Orrin Hatch, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was one of the 
cosponsors of this bill. It says:

       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 U.S. Senate 
     action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.
       I understand that the U.S. 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.
  When you have seen a loved one suffer from Alzheimer's--I am sure as 
Mrs. Reagan watched the former President suffer from Alzheimer's--it 
motivates you to say: Whatever we can do to advance the research, to 
hopefully get a cure someday, that is what we should do.
  For those of us who have friends who have Parkinson's disease, those 
of us who have seen friends and loved ones die of Lou Gehrig's disease, 
for those of us who have members of our family or close friends who 
have had spinal cord injuries, this motivates us to do everything 
humanly possible to expand this field of research.
  My friend Christopher Reeve said, one time when we had watched a film 
of a rat, a white mouse or white rat, that had its spinal cord damaged 
so it couldn't walk and then it received embryonic stem cells and then 
it walked again, Christopher Reeve, former Superman said, ``Oh, to be a 
rat.''
  It holds so much promise, embryonic stem cell research, to ease the 
suffering and the pain of so many people.
  I hear today talk about we have to do adult stem cells; maybe there 
is not enough money.
  Again, I refer to my friend from Ohio, who was here earlier who said 
funding for medical research is probably going down because of the war 
and because of Katrina and because of homeland security.
  I said: Wait a minute, earlier this year this Senate voted 73 to 27, 
to put $7 billion back in the budget so we wouldn't cut medical 
research--73 votes in the Senate. I don't know, 73 votes is pretty 
overwhelming. It was $7 billion we were supposed to put back in to help 
medical research. I don't know to what the Senator was referring.
  I have heard talk today about adult stem cells and all these other 
things and how we had adult stem cells do this and adult stem cells do 
that. Why haven't embryonic stem cells led to treatment as much as 
adult stem cells have? Scientists have been doing research on adult 
stem cells for over 30 years, and we still, after 30 years, have not 
extracted one stem cell line from adult cells--not one.
  Now embryonic stem cells were only derived in 1998, 8 years ago, and 
they have only been getting Federal funding in a limited manner since 
2002, under the guidelines the President set down in 2001, which 
limited the number of stem cell lines to then 78, which we found out 
later was only 21 stem cell lines.
  Again, there are no arbitrary restrictions on research on adult stem 
cells. Scientists and private companies don't have to be skittish about 
doing the research. They don't have to worry that all of a sudden the 
Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it, so they can plan 
ahead and do long-term research.
  Let's compare that situation with human embryonic stem cells. As I 
said, we didn't derive them until 1998 and the first Federal grant 
wasn't awarded until 2002. Even now, only a tiny fraction of the total 
Federal budget for human stem cell research is used for human embryonic 
stem cells. The vast majority still goes for adult stem cells.
  Here it is. I pointed this out earlier today. Human embryonic stem 
cells in fiscal 2006 from NIH, $38.3 million. Adult stem cells, $200 
million. Again, only a tiny fraction going for human embryonic stem 
cells. Five times as much is going for adult stem cell research. So it 
is no wonder, after 30 years and all this research and all this money, 
that more diseases are being treated today with adult stem cells.
  Scientists have only been studying embryonic stem cells for 5 years, 
with

[[Page S7615]]

one arm tied behind their back. That one arm being tied their back by 
the President's proclamation of August 9, 2001, that only stem cell 
lines derived before 9 p.m. that evening could receive Federal funding. 
Anything derived after 9 p.m. could not receive Federal funding.
  I have wondered ever since, why was it morally acceptable to use stem 
cell lines derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 but morally 
unacceptable for funding of stem cell lines derived after 9 p.m. Can 
someone please tell me the ethics of that. Can someone please tell me 
why 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 is some kind of a moral dividing line? 
It is totally arbitrary. The President could have said stem cell lines 
derived at 10 p.m. or he could have said stem cell lines derived before 
Christmas of this year. It is the same thing. No one has taken this 
floor to define why August 9, at 9 p.m, is some kind of a moral 
dividing line.
  The fact is, it doesn't really matter what I think about the 
potential of embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't matter a heck of 
a lot what other Senators may think about the potential of embryonic 
stem cell research. What matters is what does the great body of 
scientists think about the potential.
  The overwhelming majority of reputable biomedical scientists also 
believes we should pursue embryonic stem cell research; not to the 
exclusion of others but that we should pursue it.
  I have a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop who won the Nobel Prize in 
medicine in 1989. Here is what he says:

       The vast majority of the biomedical community believes that 
     human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key 
     discoveries relating to many debilitating diseases. In fact, 
     some of the strongest advocates for human embryonic stem cell 
     research are those scientists that have devoted their careers 
     to the study of adult stem cells.

  I have a letter from Dr. Alfred G. Gilman, who won the Nobel Prize in 
medicine in 1994.

       It has become obvious, however, that the number of stem 
     cell lines actually available under current policy is too 
     small and is controlled by a limited monopoly, which has made 
     it significantly more difficult and expensive for research to 
     be conducted. These limits have hindered the important search 
     for new understanding and treatment of devastating diseases.

  I have a letter from the Director of the NIH, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.

       Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for 
     treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease.

  The breakthroughs are coming. But they take time. They take a lot of 
scientists researching. This is not something you can put two people 
on. They need a lot of different lines. Embryonic stem cell research 
should be ongoing at universities all across America, at our great 
research institutions, and it ought to be done under the guidance and 
direction and ethical guidelines of NIH and the ethical guidelines that 
we have in this bill.
  The clampdown on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a 
chance to start shows a total lack of understanding about how science 
works, how research works. I have often said that basic research is 
similar to having 10 doors and they are closed. There is a high 
probability that behind one of the doors is the answer to your 
question. If you open one door, you know what the odds are of finding 
the right answer. If you open two doors, the odds are a little bit 
better. If you open five doors, the odds are 50-50.
  That is what basic research is about. It has been said here a lot of 
the earlier research on fetal tissue came to nothing. A lot of basic 
research comes to nothing--in terms of an actual application. But 
almost all basic research adds to our body of knowledge. Maybe, from 
one of those basic research grants that was put on the shelf, some 
other scientist coming along later on might pick something from that, 
put two or three together and find something.
  I am reminded of John Embers, a scientist--I believe he was at 
Harvard. I will check my facts on that, but I believe he was a doctor 
at Harvard many years ago. I am talking about a long time ago. I am 
talking about in the 1940s. He had done some interesting research, 
basic research on kidney cells of monkeys because they had unique 
properties. It was a funny research. It was on certain Rhesus monkeys 
and the oddity of certain kidney cells.
  Dr. John Enders didn't get anything for it. He did the research, put 
it on the shelf, and nothing ever came of it, until a few years later 
another scientist, examining in another area, remembered Dr. Enders' 
work, went back and got it, coupled it with his, and came up with 
something called the Salk polio vaccine. It wasn't until over 25 years 
later that Dr. John Enders finally received the Nobel Prize for his 
research.
  But I suppose someone 5 years after Dr. Enders had done his research 
would have said: Why did we spend money on that foolish kind of 
research? It didn't lead to anything. It kept some scientists employed, 
but it didn't lead to anything. But Dr. Salk came along, coupled that 
research with what he was doing and came up with the Salk polio 
vaccine.
  That is a true story.
  Again, we have to understand a lot of this is basic research. A lot 
of it will lead to nothing. But as more and more scientists get 
involved in examining embryonic stem cells and how they grow, how they 
multiply, how they differentiate, how they become nerve tissue, how 
they become brain tissue, how they become skin tissue, how they become 
blood tissues--as they begin to investigate that, I am sure there will 
be a lot of blind alleys. But I submit that everything that is done 
builds the body of scientific evidence that we need, the science that 
will eventually lead to a cure of a disease. That is the promise of 
embryonic stem cell research. To stop it now or to limit it doesn't 
make sense.
  People talk about the ethics and morality. I have heard talk about we 
have to protect innocent life. This is an embryo; an embryo with 100 
cells, 200 cells. You can take whatever view you want of that embryo. 
The point is that the bill we are talking about does not destroy one 
embryo. It only says that we can get funding for the research on those. 
These are embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, in in vitro 
fertilization clinics. They are being discarded every day.
  Why don't people come out and say: Stop in vitro fertilization. Make 
it a crime. You don't hear anybody saying that because 50,000 babies 
were born last year to people who wanted to have a baby and couldn't 
have one and used in vitro fertilization. Once they have their 
children, they call up the in vitro clinic and say: I don't want the 
remaining embryos, just discard them. I ask you, what is the moral 
thing to do, just discard them or, with the written consent of the 
donors, use those embryonic stem cells to save lives and ease suffering 
and cure disease? That, to me, is the moral and the ethical choice.
  I see my time is up and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 2006.
       Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups, 
     health organizations, research universities, scientific 
     societies, religious groups and other interested institutions 
     and associations, representing millions of patients, 
     scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you 
     with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem 
     Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of 
     H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.
       Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810 
     will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is 
     the bill which holds promise for expanding medical 
     breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative 
     Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and 
     the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT 
     substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810.
       H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote 
     in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support 
     of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial 
     progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810 
     immediately.
           Sincerely,
         A O North America; AAALAC International; AARP; Abbott 
           Laboratories; Acadia Pharmaceuticals; Accelerated Cure 
           Project for Multiple Sclerosis; Adams County Economic 
           Development, Inc.; AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology 
           Association); Affymetrix, Inc.; Albert Einstein College 
           of Medicine of Yeshiva University; Alliance for Aging 
           Research; Alliance for Lupus Research; Alliance for 
           Stem Cell Research; Alnylam US, Inc.; Alpha-1 
           Foundation; ALS Association; Ambulatory Pediatric 
           Association; AMDeC-Academic Medicine Development Co.; 
           America on the Move Foundation; American Academy of 
           Neurology.
         American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of 
           Pediatric Dentistry; American Academy of Pediatrics; 
           American Association for Cancer Research;

[[Page S7616]]

           American Association for Dental Research; American 
           Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; American 
           Association for the Advancement of Science; American 
           Association of Anatomists; American Association of 
           Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Colleges 
           of Osteopathic Medicine; American Association of 
           Colleges of Pharmacy; American Association of 
           Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological 
           Surgeons; American Association of Public Health 
           Dentistry; American Autoimmune Related Diseases 
           Association; American Brain Coalition; American Chronic 
           Pain Association; American College of Cardiology; 
           American College of Medical Genetics; American College 
           of Neuropsychopharmacology; American College of 
           Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
         American College of Surgeons; American Council on 
           Education; American Council on Science and Health; 
           American Dental Association; American Dental Education 
           Association; American Diabetes Association; American 
           Federation for Aging Research; American 
           Gastroenterological Association; American Geriatrics 
           Society; American Institute for Medical and Biological 
           Engineering; American Lung Association; American 
           Medical Association; American Medical Informatics 
           Association; American Medical Women's Association; 
           American Pain Foundation; American Parkinson's Disease 
           Association; American Parkinson's Disease Association 
           (Arizona Chapter); American Pediatric Society; American 
           Physiological Society; American Psychiatric 
           Association.
         American Psychological Association; American Public 
           Health Association; American Society for Biochemistry 
           and Molecular Biology; American Society for Bone and 
           Mineral Research; American Society for Cell Biology; 
     American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and 
     Therapeutics; American Society for Microbiology; American 
     Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair; American 
     Society for Nutrition; American Society for Pharmacology 
     and Experimental Therapeutics; American Society for 
     Reproductive Medicine; American Society for Virology; 
     American Society of Clinical Oncology; American Society of 
     Critical Care Anesthesiologists; American Society of 
     Hematology; American Society of Human Genetics; American 
     Society of Nephrology; American Society of Tropical 
     Medicine and Hygiene; American Surgical Association; 
     American Surgical Association Foundation.
         American Thoracic Society; American Thyroid Association; 
           American Transplant Foundation; Americans for Medical 
           Progress; amFAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research; 
           Arizona State University College of Nursing; Arthritis 
           Foundation; Arthritis Foundation, Rocky Mountain 
           Chapter; Association for Clinical Research Training; 
           Association for Medical School Pharmacology Chairs; 
           Association for Prevention Teaching and Research; 
           Association for the Accreditation of Human Research 
           Protection Programs, Inc.; Association of Academic 
           Chairs of Emergency Medicine; Association of Academic 
           Departments of Otolaryngology; Association of Academic 
           Health Centers; Association of Academic Physiatrists; 
           Association of American Medical Colleges; Association 
           of American Physicians; Association of American 
           Universities; Association of American Veterinary 
           Medical Colleges.
         Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology 
           Chairs; Association of Anesthesiology Program 
           Directors; Association of Black Cardiologists; 
           Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology; 
           Association of Independent Research Institutes; 
           Association of Medical School Microbiology and 
           Immunology Chairs; Association of Medical School 
           Pediatric Department Chairs; Association of Medical 
           School Pharmacology Chairs; Association of Professors 
           of Dermatology; Association of Professors of Human and 
           Medical Genetics; Association of Professors of 
           Medicine; Association of Public Health Laboratories; 
           Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; 
           Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry; 
           Association of Specialty Professors; Association of 
           University Anesthesiologists; Assurant Health; Asthma 
           and Allergy Foundation of America; Athena Diagnostics; 
           Aurora Economic Development Council.
         Axion Research Foundation; B'nai B'rith International; 
           Baylor College of Medicine; Baylor College of Medicine 
           Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences; Biotechnology 
           Industry Organization; BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Inc.; 
           Blue Cross and Blue Shield Foundation on Health Care; 
           Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Boston University 
           School of Dental Medicine; Boston University School of 
           Public Health; Brigham and Women's Hospital; Bristol-
           Myers Squibb Company; Broadened Horizons, LLC; Brown 
           Medical School; Buck Institute for Age Research; Bums & 
           Allen Research Institute; Burrill & Company; Burroughs 
           Wellcome Fund; C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition; 
           California Biomedical Research Association.
         California Institute of Technology; California Institute 
           for Regenerative Medicine; California Wellness 
           Foundation; Californians for Cures; Campaign for 
           Medical Research; Cancer Research and Prevention 
           Foundation; Canon U.S. Life Sciences, Inc.; Case 
           Western Reserve University School of Dentistry; Case 
           Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Cedars-
           Sinai Health System; Center for the Advancement of 
           Health; Central Conference of American Rabbis; CFIDS 
           Association of America; Charles R. Drew University of 
           Medicine and Science; Charles River Laboratories; Child 
           & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation; Children's Memorial 
           Research Center; Children's Neurobiological Solutions 
           Foundation; Children's Research Institute (Columbus); 
     Children's Research Institute (Washington).
         Children's Tumor Foundation; Childrens Hospital Boston; 
           Christopher Reeve Foundation; City and County of 
           Denver; City of Hope National Medical Center; Cold 
           Spring Harbor Laboratory; Coleman Institute for 
           Cognitive Disabilities, University of Colorado System; 
           Colfax Marathon Partnership, Inc.; Colorado Bioscience 
           Association; Colorado Office of Economic Development 
           and International Trade; Colorado State University; 
           Columbia University; Columbia University College of 
           Dental Medicine; Columbia University Medical Center; 
           Community Health Partnership; Conference of Boston 
           Teaching Hospitals; Connecticut United for Research 
           Excellence, Inc.; Conquer Fragile X Foundation; Cornell 
           University; Council for the Advancement of Nursing 
           Science (CANS).
         Creighton University School of Medicine; CURE (Citizens 
           United for Research in Epilepsy); Cure Alzheimer's 
           Fund; Cure Paralysis Now; CuresNow; Damon Runyon Cancer 
           Research Foundation; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; 
           Dartmouth Medical School; David Geffen School of 
           Medicine at UCLA; DENTSPLY International; Digene 
           Corporation; Discovery Partners International; Doheny 
           Eye Institute; Drexel University College of Medicine; 
           Drexel University School of Public Health; Duke 
           University Medical Center; Dystonia Medical Research 
           Foundation; East Tennessee State University James H. 
           Quillen College of Medicine; Eli Lilly and Company; 
           Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.
         Emory University; Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff 
           School of Nursing; Emory University Rollins School of 
           Public Health; Emory University School of Medicine; 
           FasterCures; FD Hope Foundation; Federation of American 
           Scientists; Federation of American Societies for 
           Experimental Biology (FASEB); Federation of State 
           Medical Boards of the United States, Inc.; Fertile 
           Hope; Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority; Florida 
           Atlantic University Division of Research; Ford Finance, 
           Inc.; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer 
           Research Center; Friends of Cancer Research, Friends of 
           the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial 
           Research, Friends of the National Institute of Nursing 
           Research; Friends of the National Library of Medicine; 
           Genetic Alliance.
         Genetics Policy Institute; George Mason University; 
           Georgetown University Medical Center; Guillain Barre 
           Syndrome Foundation International; Gynecologic Cancer 
           Foundation; Hadassah; Harvard University; Harvard 
           University School of Dental Medicine; Harvard 
           University School of Public Health; Hauptman-Woodward 
           Medical Research Institute, Inc.; Hereditary Disease 
           Foundation, HHT Foundation International, Inc.; Home 
           Safety Council; Howard University College of Dentistry; 
           Howard University College of Medicine; Huntington's 
           Disease Society of America; IBM Life Sciences Division; 
           Illinois State University Mennonite College of Nursing; 
           ImmunoGen, Inc.; Indiana University School of 
           Dentistry.
         Indiana University School of Medicine; Indiana University 
           School of Nursing; Infectious Diseases Society of 
           America; Institute for African American Health, Inc.; 
           Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus; International 
           Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery (IFADD); 
           International Longevity Center--USA; International 
           Society for Stem Cell Research; Invitrogen Corporation; 
           Iraq Veterans for Cures; Iris Alliance Fund; Iron 
           Disorders Institute; Jacobs Institute of Women's 
     Health; Jeffrey Modell Foundation; Johns Hopkins; Johnson 
     & Johnson; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare 
     Organizations (JCAHO); Joint Steering Committee for Public 
     Policy; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Keck School 
     of Medicine of the University of Southern California.
         Kennedy Krieger Institute; Keystone Symposia on Molecular 
           and Cellular

[[Page S7617]]

           Biology; KID Foundation; Kidney Cancer Association; La 
           Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology; Lance 
           Armstrong Foundation; Lawson Wilkins Pediatric 
           Endocrine Society; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; 
           Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown 
           University; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute 
           at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center; Louisiana State 
           University Health Sciences Center; Louisiana State 
           University Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry; 
           Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Loyola 
           University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine; Lung 
           Cancer Alliance; Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.; 
           Lupus Foundation of Colorado, Inc.; Lupus Research 
           Institute; Lymphatic Research Foundation; Mailman 
           School of Public Health of Columbia University.
         Malecare Prostate Cancer Support; March of Dimes Birth 
           Defects Foundation; Marine Biological Laboratory; 
           Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource Center; Masonic 
           Medical Research Laboratory; Massachusetts 
           Biotechnology Council; Massachusetts General Hospital; 
           Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MaxCyte, Inc.; 
           McLaughlin Research Institute; Medical College of 
           Georgia; Medical University of South Carolina; Medical 
           University of South Carolina College of Nursing; 
           MedStar Research Institute (MRI); Meharry Medical 
           College School of Dentistry; Memorial Sloan-Kettering 
           Cancer Center; Memory Pharmaceuticals; Mercer 
           University; Metro Denver Economic Development 
           Corporation; Miami Children's Hospital.
         Midwest Nursing Research Society; Morehouse School of 
           Medicine; Mount Sinai Medical Center; Mount Sinai 
           School of Medicine; National Alliance for Eye and 
           Vision Research; National Alliance for Hispanic Health; 
           National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and 
           Depression; National Alliance on Mental Illness; 
           National Alopecia Areata Foundation; National Asian 
           Women's Health Organization; National Association for 
           Biomedical Research; National Association of Hepatitis 
           Task Forces; National Caucus of Basic Biomedical 
           Science Chairs; National Coalition for Cancer Research; 
           National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; National 
           Coalition for Women with Heart Disease; National 
           Committee for Quality Health Care; National Council of 
           Jewish Women; National Council on Spinal Cord Injury; 
           National Down Syndrome Society.
         National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National 
           Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias; National Health 
           Council; National Hemophilia Foundation; National 
           Hispanic Health Foundation; National Jewish Medical and 
           Research Center; National Marfan Foundation; National 
           Medical Association; National Multiple Sclerosis 
           Society; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National 
           Partnership for Women and Families; National 
           Pharmaceutical Council; National Prostate Cancer 
           Coalition; National Quality Forum; National Spinal Cord 
           Injury Association; National Venture Capital 
           Association; Nebraskans for Research; Nemours; New 
           Jersey Association for Biomedical Research; New Jersey 
           Dental School.
         New York Blood Center; New York College of Osteopathic 
           Medicine; New York State Association of County Health 
           Officials; New York Stem Cell Foundation; New York 
           University College of Dentistry; New York University 
           School of Medicine; New York-Presbyterian Hospital; 
     North American Brain Tumor Coalition; North Carolina 
     Association for Biomedical Research; Northwest Association 
     for Biomedical Research; Northwestern University; 
     Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine; 
     Nova Southeastern University College of Dental Medicine; 
     Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Oklahoma Medical Research 
     Foundation; Oral Health America; Oregon Health & Science 
     University; Oregon Health & Science University School of 
     Nursing; Oregon Research Institute; Oxford Bioscience 
     Partners.
         Pacific Health Research Institute; Paralyzed Veterans of 
           America; Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; Parkinson's 
           Action Network; Parkinson's Disease Foundation; 
           Partnership for Prevention; Pennsylvania Society for 
           Biomedical Research; Pharmaceutical Research and 
           Manufacturers of America; Pittsburgh Development 
           Center; Princeton University; Project A.L.S.; Prostate 
           Cancer Foundation; Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum 
           International; Quest for the Cure; RAND Health; 
           Research! America; Resolve: The National Infertility 
           Association; RetireSafe; Rett Syndrome Research 
           Foundation; Rice University.
         Robert Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins; 
           Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science; 
           Rush University Medical Center; Rutgers University; 
           Salk Institute for Biological Studies; sanofi-aventis; 
           Scleroderma Research Foundation; Secular Coalition for 
           America; Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Inc.; Society 
           for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research 
           (SAVIR); Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; 
           Society for Education in Anesthesia; Society for Male 
           Reproduction and Urology; Society for Neuroscience; 
           Society for Pediatric Research; Society for 
           Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; Society for 
           Women's Health Research; Society of Academic 
           Anesthesiology Chairs; Society of General Internal 
           Medicine; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.
         Society of Reproductive Surgeons; Society of University 
           Otolaryngologists; South Alabama Medical Science 
           Foundation; South Dakota State University; Southern 
           Illinois University School of Medicine; Spina Bifida 
           Association of America; Stanford University; State 
           University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental 
           Medicine; State University of New York Downstate 
           Medical Center College of Medicine at Brooklyn; State 
           University of New York Upstate Medical University; Stem 
           Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation; 
           Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Stony Brook 
           University, State University of New York; Strategic 
           Health Policy International, Inc.; Student Society for 
           Stem Cell Research; Suicide Prevention Action Network-
           USA (SPAN); Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's, Inc.; 
           Targacept, Inc.;
         Temple University School of Dentistry; Texans for 
           Advancement of Medical Research; Texas A&M University 
           Health Science Center; Texas Medical Center; Texas Tech 
           University Health Sciences Center; The Arc of the 
           United States; The Association for Research in Vision 
           and Ophthalmology; The Biophysical Society; The Brody 
           School of Medicine at East Carolina University; The 
           Burnham Institute; The CJD Foundation; The Critical 
           Path Institute (C-Path); The Endocrine Society; The 
           FAIR Foundation; The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis 
           Network; The Food Allergy Project, Inc.; The Forsyth 
           Institute; The Foundation Fighting Blindness; The 
           George Washington University Medical Center. The 
     Georgetown University Center for the Study of Sex 
     Difference in Health, Aging and Disease.
         The Gerontological Society of America; The J. David 
           Gladstone Institutes; The Jackson Laboratory; The Johns 
           Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health; 
           The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing; The 
           Medical College of Wisconsin; The Medical Foundation, 
           Inc., The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's 
           Research; The Ohio State University College of 
           Dentistry; The Ohio State University College of 
           Medicine and Public Health; The Ohio State University 
           School of Public Health; The Parkinson Alliance and 
           Unity Walk; The Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, 
           Inc.; The Rockefeller University; The Schepens Eye 
           Research Institute; The Scientist; The Scripps Research 
           Institute; The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute; 
           The Society for Investigative Dermatology; The Spiral 
           Foundation.
         The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine; 
           The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine; The 
           University of Iowa College of Dentistry; The University 
           of Iowa College of Public Health; The University of 
           Mississippi Medical Center; The University of 
           Mississippi Medical Center School of Dentistry; The 
           University of Oklahoma College of Dentistry; The 
           University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; The 
           University of Tennessee Health Science Center; The 
           University of Tennessee HSC College of Nursing; The 
           University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston; 
           The University of Texas Health Science Center at San 
           Antonio; The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer 
           Center; The University of Texas Medical Branch at 
           Galveston School of Medicine; The University of Texas 
           Southwestern Medical Center; The University of Toledo 
           Academic Health Science Center; Tourette Syndrome 
           Association; Travis Roy Foundation; Tufts University 
           School of Dental Medicine; Tulane University.
         Tulane University Health Sciences Center; Union for 
           Reformed Judaism; Union of Concerned Scientists; 
           Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; 
           United Spinal Association; University of Alabama at 
           Birmingham School of Medicine; University of Alabama at 
           Birmingham School of Nursing; University of Alabama at 
           Birmingham School of Public Health; University of 
           Arizona College of Medicine; University of Arkansas for 
           Medical Sciences; University of Buffalo; University of 
           California System; University of California, Berkeley; 
           University of California, Berkeley School of Public 
           Health; University of California, Davis; University of 
           California, Irvine; University of California, Los 
           Angeles; University of California, Los Angeles School 
           of Dentistry; University of California, Los Angeles 
           School of Medicine; University of California, San 
           Diego.

[[Page S7618]]

         University of California, San Francisco; University of 
           California, San Francisco School of Dentistry; 
           University of California, San Francisco School of 
           Nursing; University of California, Santa Cruz; 
           University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati Medical 
           Center; University of Colorado at Denver and Health 
           Sciences Center; University of Colorado at Denver and 
           HSC School of Dentistry; University of Colorado at 
           Denver and HSC School of Nursing; University of 
           Connecticut School of Medicine; University of Florida; 
           University of Florida College of Dentistry; University 
           of Georgia; University of Illinois; University of 
           Illinois at Chicago; University of Illinois at Chicago 
           College of Dentistry; University of Illinois at Chicago 
           College of Nursing; University of Iowa; University of 
           Kansas; University of Kansas Medical Center.
         University of Kansas Medical Center School of Nursing; 
           University of Kentucky; University of Kentucky College 
           of Dentistry; University of Louisville; University of 
           Louisville School of Dentistry; University of Maryland 
           at Baltimore; University of Maryland at Baltimore 
           College of Dental Surgery; University of Maryland at 
           Baltimore School of Nursing; University of Miami; 
           University of Michigan; University of Michigan College 
           of Pharmacy; University of Michigan Medical 
     School; University of Michigan School of Dentistry; 
     University of Michigan School of Nursing; University of 
     Michigan School of Public Health; University of Minnesota; 
     University of Minnesota School of Public Health; 
     University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Dentistry; 
     University of Montana School of Pharmacy and Allied Health 
     Sciences; University of Nebraska Medical Center.
         University of Nebraska Medical Center College of 
           Dentistry; University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of 
           Dental Medicine; University of Nevada, Reno School of 
           Medicine; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 
           University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of 
           Dentistry; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
           School of Public Health; University of North Dakota; 
           University of North Texas Health Science Center; 
           University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania School 
           of Dental Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School 
           of Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School of 
           Nursing; University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of 
           Public Health; University of Pittsburgh School of 
           Dental Medicine; University of Pittsburgh School of 
           Medicine; University of Rochester Medical Center; 
           University of Rochester School of Medicine and 
           Dentistry; University of Rochester School of Nursing; 
           University of South Carolina Office of Research and 
           Health Sciences; University of South Dakota School of 
           Medicine and Health Sciences.
         University of South Florida; University of South Florida 
           College of Nursing; University of Southern California; 
           University of Southern California School of Dentistry; 
           University of Utah HSC School of Medicine; University 
           of Vermont College of Medicine; University of 
           Washington; University of Washington School of 
           Dentistry; University of Washington School of Nursing; 
           University of Washington School of Public Health and 
           Community Medicine; University of Wisconsin-Madison; 
           Van Andel Research Institute; Vanderbilt University and 
           Medical Center; Vanderbilt University School of 
           Nursing; Virginia Commonwealth University School of 
           Dentistry; Virginia Commonwealth University School of 
           Medicine; Wake Forest University School of Medicine; 
           Washington University in St. Louis; Washington 
           University in St. Louis Center for Health Policy; 
           Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.
         WE MOVE; Weill Medical College of Cornell University; 
           Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research; WiCell 
           Research Institution; Wisconsin Alumni Research 
           Foundation; Wisconsin Association for Biomedical 
           Research and Education; Woodruff Health Sciences Center 
           at Emory University; Wright State University; School of 
           Medicine; Yale University; Yale University School of 
           Medicine; Yale University School of Nursing.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about stem cell 
research. This is a very delicate and very tough issue and these are 
difficult decisions that we will all have to make this week.
  Some scientists believe that advancement in research requires the 
creation and development of new embryonic stem cell lines. The truth of 
the matter is that there are very promising alternatives to embryonic 
stem cell research, such as stem cells from adult tissue like bone 
marrow and umbilical cord blood. These cells have repeatedly 
demonstrated the capability of turning into most tissue types providing 
the basis for advanced research to find cures for many diseases, 
including leukemia, Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, sickle cell 
anemia, heart disease and spinal cord injuries. To date, we have seen 
promising results coming from the research that has been conducted on 
these types of cells. Doctors have successfully treated 69 diseases and 
injuries using adult stem cells such as Lupus, arthritis, liver damage, 
brain tumors and various forms of cancer. It is vital that we continue 
to conduct important medical research and continue producing these 
types of results providing hope for patients and their families.
  I am very thankful for the accomplishments that have been made in 
modern medicine, those of which many of us have already enjoyed or 
perhaps will in the future.
  However, I see the life changing results that have come from adult 
stem cell research, and can't help but compare these to the lack of 
results we have seen from embryonic stem cell research which has not 
provided the concrete benefits to patients that we have seen otherwise. 
We should not discount the possibilities surrounding the discoveries 
that lie ahead within medical research, but, since we have seen results 
from alternative types of stem cell research, not involving embryonic 
stem cells, should we spend federal money on researching something that 
has yielded few positive results?
  I have seen positive results from the research we have done in the 
area of adult stem cell research. In fact, an overwhelming proportion 
of privately funded research is going towards adult stem cell research.
  This is a strong indication of what researchers think regarding the 
direction of future stem cell research. Adult stem cells and other 
similar alternatives have helped thousands of patients throughout the 
world, while the results of embryonic stem cell research have not 
helped any one patient yet.
  I have seen the proven results and lives that have benefited from the 
research done on adult stem cells. It has been proven that the results 
of this research have created procedures that have assisted in saving 
lives, and curing illnesses. Advancements are constantly being made in 
science, medical research, and technology and so this issue is 
constantly changing. Just look at how far we have come in the last year 
on this issue. This debate is not going to be over after this vote, 
tomorrow but rather the debate is just beginning. However, at this 
time, I feel that the taxpayer's money should be spent in places where 
we yield the best results for patients, and currently this is in the 
area of adult stem cell research.
  It is my hope, Mr. President, that we continue to see monumental 
steps made in medical research, stem cell and otherwise, and that we 
find cures to diseases such as juvenile diabetes, cancer, sickle cell 
anemia, and Alzheimer's disease.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for 
his comments. We are about to wrap up the first full day of debate. We 
will vote tomorrow on a package of three votes. This is an important 
debate. This is one area that we have needed to debate for some period 
of time. We haven't had a real debate on a pending bioethics bill since 
1998. The science has changed dramatically since 1998 and the debate at 
that point in time. We should benefit from this debate and from the 
science. All of us are interested in people such as Jacki Rabon. I have 
shown her picture before, but I want to make the point again because 
several of my colleagues have talked about people with spinal cord 
injuries. They talk about people with Parkinson's disease and what they 
wanted to do was cure that--to get something that would work for them. 
That is what was motivating them. I just want to help this person.
  Here is a real live person; traffic accident; paraplegic from the 
waist down; an active athlete; excited about her future--and that all 
changed in a few seconds.
  We all know this story too well because we have heard it and seen it 
in our own communities. I simply ask my colleagues: What is the most 
likely treatment route for her? Is it adult and cord blood stem cells 
or is it embryonic stem cells? We have to make choices

[[Page S7619]]

on dollars and where you invest funds. If we take the $.5 billion that 
we have invested in the embryonic stem cells in human and animals over 
the last 5 years and say we are going to get people such as Jacki 
walking again, what are we going to invest that money in? Is it going 
to be on embryonic or adult? She is already showing some improvement 
and feeling in her hip area. She is able to walk now with braces--
through use of adult stem cell therapy which, unfortunately, she has 
had to go to Portugal to get. Researchers are here, but they cannot get 
into the FDA trials.
  Clearly, the answer, if we want her to walk again during her 
lifetime, is to work and to fund adult and cord blood stem cells. That 
is where we are going to get the treatments. That is where it is 
working.
  The other areas may provide some interesting science. But if we are 
interested in helping people such as Jacki, we have one area that 
works, and we have another area into which we have put $.5 billion and 
it hasn't worked--and we know that.
  I want to show you a picture of Dennis Turner. He has been brought up 
in this debate. I have had him in to testify. He is a Parkinson's 
patient. We want to cure Parkinson's disease. He was Parkinson's-free 
for 5 years because of adult stem cell therapy. It started to come back 
after that period of time, but he got 5 years of his life back.
  If our objective is to have a treatment or cure for people such as 
Dennis Turner, where are we going to put the money? Are we going to put 
it in embryonic stem cells, where the scientists supporting it say this 
will take decades to find any sort of treatment, if they ever find a 
treatment, or put it into the adult stem cell area where they are 
already showing some results?
  I know if I have limited resources, I would want to put my money 
where it is most likely to yield. It clearly is in the adult and cord 
blood stem cell area.
  A lot of allegations and questions have been made regarding adult 
stem cells and cord blood and whether they are actually showing the 
types of results that I have been suggesting.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of 
my statement the current list--it gets updated often--of 72 current 
human clinical applications using adult stem cells.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, next week it will may be 75, but for 
this week it is 72.
  My point in saying highlighting this is that some have said they 
really question whether we are getting that many treatments. There have 
only been nine FDA-approved full clinical trials, full treatment areas 
using adult stem cells. Okay. I will take that. I do not know if that 
is an accurate number. But remember that FDA is the standard where you 
have to go through clinical trials 1 and 2 to get the application and 
get it tested before it is fully used.
  I note that people are challenging how many areas of adult stem cell 
are being treated. I welcome this debate. I think we should be looking 
at the science and where it is going. They were saying we really 
question whether this many areas of adult stem cell treatments are 
actually happening. They produced an addendum to their challenge on it. 
They went through all of the 65 areas at that time. It is now 72. But 
when they did the review, it was 65. The Senator from Iowa was 
particularly challenging whether we have this many treatment areas. He 
pulled out one on testicular cancer and said: I don't think they are 
really getting it there. But this addendum is the people challenging 
the number of adult stem cell areas that have treatment. On testicular 
cancer, the researcher described a clinical evaluation showing improved 
long-term survival of a relapsed testicular cancer patient following 
the radical therapy that included a transplant of adult stem cells from 
bone marrow or blood. The research is actually showing that it was an 
improvement.
  I am not saying that these are all FDA-approved areas. This is an 
area of research. But you actually have a researcher saying it showed 
improvement. This isn't the group who is challenging whether we are 
getting these treatments at all. They are not cures today. This is 
research. But the research shows a promise even in the area that they 
challenge.
  Leukemia--this is from the same addendum. Two clinical studies, each 
incorporating multiple leukemia types, indicate that adult stem cell 
transplants from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood improved the 
survival of children with leukemia.
  That is not FDA approved. But it is working. This, after only a short 
period of time that we have been working with all these different types 
of adult stem cells. We have known about them in bone marrow for some 
period of time.
  Some patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma show an overall improved 
survival rate when transplanted with adult stem cells from blood.
  The list goes on and on.
  I welcome a debate about whether we are getting treatment for areas 
where people are showing improvement taking place with adult and cord 
blood because the truth of matter is we are. These are not all FDA 
approved. We never said that they were. The problem is we need more 
money to be able to get more of these FDA trials so that we can get 
more people treated. If we do that, there is a very promising area that 
is already showing results. Why not put your money there?
  Let me give my colleagues a visual of this, if anybody is interested. 
There is a notebook of showing the accumulation of recent advances in 
adult stem cell research and other alternatives to cloning and 
embryonic stem cell research. This is a one-page summary of each of 
these areas where we are getting treatment. Note that I am not saying 
cures. I want to be very careful with my words. The treatments are 
promising in adult and cord blood.
  Look how thick this book is. This is just one-page summaries of each 
of these various areas--cord blood, cartilage, brain damage, cancers. 
It has been very impressive.
  If you do not like this example or if you are still questioning 
whether we are showing this much progress in adult stem cell, I invite 
people to go on the Internet and look at a site called 
ClinicalTrials.gov. This is an area where clinical trials are listed on 
the Internet. I didn't know about it until today. It sounded very 
interesting to me. It shows, as of now--I guess these numbers are 
actually growing with 565 such clinical trials currently active or 
recruiting patients using adult or cord blood stem cells to treat 
people.
  If we want to cure people, if we want to find real treatments, if we 
want to see cures for people with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, 
diabetes, cancer or heart disease, the clear area to invest in is adult 
and cord blood. That is the clear area to go into.
  Let us look on the other side of the aisle on this the embryonic stem 
cell work which is being pushed here today.
  By the way, my colleagues have known about this for a very long time. 
We have known about embryonic stem cells for 25 years. We have worked 
and looked at these things for a long period of time.
  They say this is arbitrary and it is not going to support killing 
embryos. What is being talked about is using taxpayer money to expand 
the lines of embryonic stem cell research. To get embryonic stem cells, 
you have to destroy an embryo.
  The President set a date, August 9 at 9 p.m, when he was delivering a 
speech to the Nation saying, after this point in time, we are not going 
to fund it any further because we do not want to fund the additional 
destruction of human life. We will work on it on a prior date. That is 
why that date was picked.

  Here is a clear demarcation. We will fund it prior; we have to the 
tune of half a billion on human and animal. It is both. After that, we 
will not fund it on humans because the life-and-death decision has 
already been made on these designs prior to August 9 but not on future 
ones.
  Now, if we say we are going to use taxpayer money to fund any human 
embryonic stem cell research, people could go out today after we fund 
this, destroy human embryos, develop the lines, and have Federal 
taxpayer dollars. I again point out to my colleagues, there are no 
prohibitions in the United States today against any embryonic stem cell 
research. You can do it anywhere you want. We do have a

[[Page S7620]]

limitation on the Federal taxpayer dollars, on where they can go in the 
future destruction of human life.
  Now, with this half a billion that we have invested over the last 5 
years, how many human treatments do we have from embryonic stem cells? 
I have a notebook that shows the number of human treatments. I will 
show this notebook again. This is adult and cord blood. Here are human 
treatments on embryonic stem cell research. We do not have the 
research. It is not there. They do not exist.
  It is interesting research. It has proven very problematic to get to 
people.
  A number of my colleagues have been pushing this bill for some period 
of time, and I do not question or challenge what they were doing. I 
think they want to find cures. But the problem is we have not found 
treatments in the embryonic field.
  They were saying in the year 1999 one of my colleague's medical 
experts testified that it may well be within 5 years of a cure for 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and a long list of other human 
ailments. Stem cell research has enormous potential.
  That is true. But it is adult cord blood stem cell research that is 
working. It is not embryonic. The embryonic has not produced the 
treatments. That was 1999. We are 7 years later, and it has not 
produced a peer-reviewed treatment.
  We have scientists who testified at a hearing in 1998. Mr. President, 
I refer my colleagues to www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate for that 
testimony.
  Mr. President, when Dr. Gearhart was asked how long will it be before 
we get these cures to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or cancer, he 
responded:

       I actually think within several years, to be honest with 
     you . . .

  That was 1998. Eight years later, here we are. Dr. Gearhart--one of 
the leading researchers in this field.
  Then Dr. Thompson, one of the leading researchers on Parkinson's:

       I am going to say 5 to 10 years more.
       It will be one of the first ones.

  We do have a treatment being developed. And it is adult stem cells 
for Parkinson's. We do not need to make this life-and-death decision 
and expand taxpayer funding for the embryonic lines.
  My point is, in 1998 the leading researchers were saying we will have 
these cures in a few years, 5 to 10 years, and now researchers are 
saying it is decades, if even in their lifetime, that it will happen.
  I conclude with this point. If this were all in the abstract and we 
were saying that we will spend another half a billion in this area, go 
ahead and do that, you could say: Well, all right, we spend a lot of 
money around here, we will do that. The problem with it is: how many 
millions of dollars will be spent on research, which is based on 
destroying human embryos that become human people? This is the 
beginnings of human life. That is the real ethical rub on top of the 
financial rub of whether this is the right place to invest.
  I have cited the snowflake child, Hannah previously. Was she just a 
clump of stem cells? Early life can be very fragile.
  This is Isaiah Royal, born to one of my staff members. Isaiah Royal 
was born at 24 weeks of age, very early. He is a fighter. But I don't 
think you can possibly say he is not human life. He is just 23 weeks 
after the embryonic stage that we are talking about, 23 weeks and a 
couple of days after that. Would you deny that he is human life? You 
would say no, of course not. Isaiah is struggling. He weighed 1 pound 
14 ounces at birth. He is a good, tough, fighter. But we are talking 
about fragile human life, and it should be treated as sacred. We should 
not do research on it. Human life is important.
  This is an important question. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
H.R. 810.

                               Exhibit I

     72 Current Human Clinical Applications Using Adult Stem Cells


                    anemias & other blood conditions

       Sickle cell anemia.
       Sideroblastic anemia.
       Aplastic anemia.
       Red cell aplasia (failure of red blood cell development).
       Amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia.
       Thalassemia (genetic [inherited] disorders all of which 
     involve underproduction of hemoglobin).
       Primary amyloidosis (A disorder of plasma cells).
       Diamond blackfan anemia.
       Fanconi's anemia.
       Chronic Epstein-Barr infection (similar to Mono).


                          auto-immune diseases

       Systemic lupus (auto-immune condition that can affect skin, 
     heart, lungs, kidneys, joints, and nervous system).
       Sjogren's syndrome (autoimmune disease w/symptoms similar 
     to arthritis).
       Myasthenia (An autoimmune neuromuscular disorder).
       Autoimmune cytopenia.
       Scleromyxedema (skin condition).
       Scleroderma (skin disorder).
       Crohn's disease (chronic inflammatory disease of the 
     intestines).
       Behcet's disease.
       Rheumatoid arthritis.
       Juvenile arthritis.
       Multiple sclerosis.
       Polychondritis (chronic disorder of the cartilage).
       Systemic vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels).
       Alopecia universalis.
       Buerger's disease (limb vessel constriction, inflammation).


                            bladder disease

       End-stage bladder disease.


                                cancers

       Brain tumors--medulloblastoma and glioma.
       Retinoblastoma (cancer).
       Ovarian cancer.
       Skin cancer: Merkel cell carcinoma.
       Testicular cancer.
       Lymphoma.
       Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
       Hodgkin's lymphoma.
       Acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
       Acute myelogenous leukemia.
       Chronic myelogenous leukemia.
       Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.
       Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia.
       Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic 
     lymphadenopathy.
       Multiple myeloma (cancer affecting white blood cells of the 
     immune system).
       Myelodysplasia (bone marrow disorder).
       Breast cancer.
       Neuroblastoma (childhood cancer of the nervous system).
       Renal cell carcinoma (cancer of the kidney).
       Soft tissue sarcoma (malignant tumor that begins in the 
     muscle, fat, fibrous tissue, blood vessels).
       Ewing's sarcoma.
       Various solid tumors.
       Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (type of lymphoma).
       Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
       POEMS syndrome (osteosclerotic myeloma).
       Myelofibrosis.


                             cardiovascular

       Acute Heart damage.
       Chronic coronary artery disease.


                           immunodeficiencies

       Severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome.
       X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome.
       X-linked hyper immunoglobulin M syndrome.


                             liver disease

       Chronic liver failure.
       Liver cirrhosis.


                NEURAL DEGENERATIVE DISEASES & INJURIES

       Parkinson's disease.
       Spinal cord injury.
       Stroke damage.


                                 ocular

       Corneal regeneration.


                           wounds & injuries

       Limb gangrene.
       Surface wound healing.
       Jawbone replacement.
       Skull bone repair.


                       other metabolic disorders

       Hurler's syndrome (hereditary genetic disorder).
       Osteogenesis imperfecta (bone/cartilage disorder).
       Krabbe Leukodystrophy (hereditary genetic disorder).
       Osteopetrosis (genetic bone disorder).
       Cerebral X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to my colleague from Virginia who is here to 
speak on some important topics.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We 
have another distinguished colleague here. It is my understanding that 
at 8 o'clock, the time of the distinguished Senator from Kansas now 
shifts to the other side of the aisle, but my colleague said he only 
wants 3 or 4 minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I have other things I can cover. I understand the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia wanted to come over and speak on a 
very pressing matter of foreign policy. That is why I yielded the time 
to my colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. I will try to compress my time in 10 minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Good.
  If I could, what does the Senator from Iowa desire?

[[Page S7621]]

  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator would yield, I understand the Senator from 
Virginia wanted 10 minutes. I said I didn't intend to speak for half an 
hour; I just wanted to speak for about 5 minutes at 8 o'clock and yield 
back the remainder of my time and he could speak as long as he wanted 
to at that time. It is only 15 minutes from now. I thought the Senator 
from Kansas was probably going to use up most of the time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I was. But I understood that my colleague wanted to 
speak on this particular issue. If the Senator wants to summarize and 
my colleague from Virginia wants to wait, I was offering him that 
courtesy because he had discussed coming over here early to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. I am here to accommodate all.
  Would the Senator like to finish his remarks?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from Virginia, go ahead and take 
your time. I will speak later. That is fine.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a long-time supporter of stem cell 
research, I want to commend the majority leader for working out an 
agreement that will give the Senate the opportunity to act on this 
critically important issue.
  I am particularly pleased that the Senate will finally have the 
opportunity to vote on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill which will expand the 
number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded 
research, enabling scientists to take full advantage of the scientific 
and medical opportunities provided by stem cells. At the same time, it 
establishes standards and creates a framework to ensure that this 
research is conducted ethically.
  The promise of embryonic Stem cell lines lies with their potential to 
develop into virtually any cell, tissue, or organ in the body. As a 
consequence, this research holds considerable potential to treat and 
even cure a vast array of diseases and conditions. Researchers could, 
for example, potentially generate insulin-producing islet cells for 
patients with juvenile diabetes; neurons to treat Parkinson's disease, 
ALS, and Alzheimer's disease; as well as bone marrow cells to treat 
cancer. It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans are 
currently afflicted by diseases or disabilities that have the potential 
to be treated through this research.
  On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that Federal funds could, 
for the first time, be used to support research on embryonic stem 
cells. This research, however, was limited to existing embryonic stem 
cell lines created prior to 9 p.m. on that day.
  In the 4 years since the President made that announcement, this stem 
cell policy has fallen far short of its original goals. While the Human 
Embryonic Stem Cell Registry at the NIH lists 78 stem cell lines, at 
best, no more than 212 lines will ever be available for research under 
the current policy.
  Moreover, as Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University told the 
Special Committee on Aging last year, existing lines are ``contaminated 
with animal cells, lack genetic diversity, are not disease-specific and 
are not adequate for researchers to apply to a wide variety of 
diseases.'' Limiting researchers to these lines therefore places huge 
and unnecessary roadblocks in the way of possible treatments and cures 
for devastating diseases like Alzheimer's disease, ALS, cancer and 
diabetes.
  We have learned a lot about stem cells since 2001. For example, 
scientists have now crated methods for growing stem cell lines that are 
free of animal cells, greatly improving their potential for treating 
and curing disease. They have also created ``disease specific'' stem 
cell lines. Under the current policy, however, these ``new and 
improved'' stem cell lines are not available to federally funded 
researchers in the United States.

  It is therefore time for us to update our stem cell policy to reflect 
what we have learned so that we can accelerate this important research, 
which hold such promise for millions of Americans and their families.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act lifts the current restriction 
so that stem cell lines are eligible for federally funded research 
regardless of the date on which they were created. Federal funding, 
however, would continue to be restricted to stem cells derived from 
embryos originally created for fertility treatments that are in excess 
of the clinical need and that otherwise would be discarded.
  The legislation also requires the informed consent of the donors and 
prohibits any financial inducement to donate. Finally, the bill calls 
on the National Institutes of Health to develop strict guidelines to 
ensure that researchers adhere to clear ethical and moral standards.
  As the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I am 
particularly excited about the promise that stem cell research holds 
for a cure for diabetes. Early research has shown that stem cells have 
the potential to develop into insulin-producing cells to replace those 
that have been destroyed in people with type I diabetes.
  Last year, I chaired a hearing in conjunction with the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation's Children's Congress to examine the 
devastating impact that juvenile diabetes has had on American children 
and their families. We heard heartbreaking testimony from children who 
had traveled to Washington to tell Congress what it is like to have 
diabetes, just how serious it is, and how important it is that we fund 
the research necessary to find a cure.
  Steffi Rothweiler from Falmouth, ME, told the committee that she 
actually couldn't remember having a normal life without nights and 
weekends, and every hour of every day to take care of diabetes. She 
told us about her parents, who have given up their nights and weekends, 
and every hour of every day to take care of her and make sure that she 
stays in tight control of her blood sugar levels so that she can stay 
as healthy as possible. Steffi asked that we do all that we can to find 
a cure for diabetes as quickly as possible. We simply cannot ignore the 
potential that embryonic stem cell research holds for wonderful young 
people like Steffi.
  I am sensitive to the ethical concerns raised by opponents of this 
research. That is why I have cosponsored the legislation introduced by 
Senators Santorum and Specter to encourage the development of 
alternative methods for deriving stem cells without using embryos.

  The fact is, however, that the embryos that will be used for this 
research would otherwise be discarded. In my view, the ethical choice 
is to use them for research that may benefit millions of Americans 
rather than discard them as medical waste.
  Moreover, what is often ignored in this debate is that embryonic stem 
cell research is occurring in the private sector, where it is outside 
the purview of the NIH. It therefore lacks the scientific and ethical 
oversight that routinely occurs with federally funded research. Dr. 
Allen Spiegel, who was then the Director of the National Institute of 
Diabetes anti Digestive and Kidney Diseases, testified at our 
Children's Congress hearing last year. He told the committee that, 
while NIH routinely works very closely with the private sector, in the 
area of stem cell research, ``there is a wall.'' By expanding our 
current stem cell policy, we are tearing down that wall, allowing more 
research but with clear ethical standards.
  Opponents of embryonic stem cell research contend that adult stem 
cells derived from tissue, such as bone marrow, are a sufficient 
replacement for embryonic stem cells in forwarding this important 
research. I believe that we need both. But, as Dr. Speigel told our 
committee, with regard to diabetes research:

       We need to do embryonic stem cell first because it can give 
     us a better understanding of what causes Type I diabetes . . 
     . because it will actually inform our ability to work with 
     adult stem cells . . . and finally, because, and one cannot 
     guarantee or promise this, the embryonic stem cells 
     themselves, if successfully turned into insulin-secreting 
     beta cells, could be the source of cell therapy.

  Mr. President, I believe that it would be tragic not to take 
advantage of this opportunity to accelerate research that can 
potentially help millions of people. I therefore urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

[[Page S7622]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take the entire 25 minutes that 
are left, but I did want to close out a little bit today before we 
proceed into tomorrow by just responding to a few of the things that 
were said today to try to clear up a couple of issues.
  The Senator from Kansas, my good friend, was going on and on about 
stem cells, as he has most of the day, and about how all these 
treatments and everything are out there. I could respond to every one 
of them, but I think what we have to keep in mind is that if all of 
these diseases that the Senator from Kansas talked about have been 
treated with adult stem cells, how come all of the patient advocacy 
groups for these diseases support H.R. 810?
  One has to wonder, when you listen to the Senator from Kansas outline 
all these diseases that are being helped by adult stem cells. He brings 
up the picture of the guy who had Parkinson's. He was helped with adult 
stem cells. But, again, he has now gone back and he is where he was 
before.
  Well, if adult stem cells are doing so much, why is the Parkinson's 
group, the Parkinson's Action Network, supporting H.R. 810? Why are all 
these advocacy groups supporting H.R. 810 if adult stem cells are so 
great? Are they just a bunch of stupid people out there? Have they been 
hoodwinked and misguided?
  These advocacy groups know. They know what is going on. And they know 
that S. 2754 is no substitute for H.R. 810. While adult stem cells are 
fine, as I pointed out earlier, they have been investigating and doing 
science on adult stem cells for over 30 years.
  Now, just another little thing that happened: The Senator from 
Kansas, I heard him say: Well, they have been investigating animal stem 
cells for 20 years.
  That might lead you to think: Well, we have been looking at stem 
cells for 20 years. Not so. We never derived human embryonic stem cells 
until 1998--8 years ago. So I wanted to make the record clear on that.
  Now, the Senator also mentioned something about testicular cancer. He 
made all kinds of claims about adult stem cells helping testicular 
cancer. Let me read from a letter written by Craig Nichols, MD, a 
member of the board of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. We all know the 
Lance Armstrong Foundation is basically focused on testicular cancer 
because that is what Lance Armstrong had. And he licked it. But let me 
quote from the letter written on July 14:

       Dear Senator Frist:
       As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation's Board of 
     Directors, I am writing in response to assertions that adult 
     stem cells have treated or cured the disease of testicular 
     cancer. . . . I feel that it is important to set the record 
     straight on this issue.
       Testicular cancer is the most common cancer among men ages 
     15-35 and approximately 8,000 men will be diagnosed with 
     testicular cancer in the United States this year. While 
     testicular cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer, 
     our organization would like to emphasize as the Senate 
     debates H.R. 810 . . . that we have NOT completely eradicated 
     the disease.
       There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment 
     generally available to treat testicular cancer.

  The Senator from Kansas kind of, in his comments, led us to think 
that there might be. Here is what Dr. Nichols said:

       Rather, adult stem cells enable testicular cancer patients 
     to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment 
     for the disease.

  The adult stem cells enable patients to withstand a higher dose of 
chemotherapy. Dr. Nichols says:

       We support exploring every avenue of research, including 
     embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits, 
     until a cure is found. . . .
       The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your 
     colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Lance Armstrong 
Foundation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Lance Armstrong Foundation,

                                        Austin, TX, July 14, 2006.
     Hon. William Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: As a member of the Lance Armstrong 
     Foundation's (LAF) Board of Directors, I am writing in 
     response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated or 
     cured the disease of testicular cancer. While the mission of 
     the LAF is to inspire and empower people affected by ALL 
     types of cancer, I feel that it is important to set the 
     record straight on this issue.
       Testicular cancer is the most common cancer among men ages 
     15-35 and approximately 8,000 men will be diagnosed with 
     testicular cancer in the United States this year. While 
     testicular cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer, 
     our organization would like to emphasize as the Senate 
     debates H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, 
     that we have NOT completely eradicated the disease.
       There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment 
     generally available to treat testicular cancer. Rather, adult 
     stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a 
     higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease.
       We support exploring every avenue of research, including 
     embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits, 
     until a cure is found. The most respected scientists in our 
     field view embryonic stem cells as an area of research that 
     must be explored, and one that our government must make a 
     commitment to support. The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks 
     that you and your colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept 
     any substitutes.
           Sincerely,

                                          Craig Nichols, M.D.,

                                              Member of the Board,
                                       Lance Armstrong Foundation.

  Mr. HARKIN. Now, we hear claims that leukemia and lymphomas have been 
cured or treated by adult stem cells. Here is what George Dahlman of 
the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has to say about that:

       On behalf of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, I am 
     writing in response to assertions that adult stem cells have 
     treated or cured several blood cancers, including several 
     leukemias, lymphomas and multiple myeloma.
       As a representative of more than 700,000 patients and their 
     caregivers in this country that battle blood cancers on a 
     daily basis, our organization would like to emphasize, as the 
     Senate debates H.R. 810 . . . that we exist today because we 
     have not found cures for these devastating diseases. . . . 
     the claim that treatment of blood cancers with cord blood, 
     blood or marrow stem cells--known as hematopoietic stem 
     cells--demonstrates a potential of ``adult stem cell'' 
     research or is a substitute of embryonic stem cell research 
     is misleading and disingenuous.

  Again, this says that the claim that treatment of blood cancer with 
marrow stem cells demonstrates that adult stem cells is a substitute is 
misleading and disingenuous.
  Mr. Dahlman concludes:

       The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society asks that you and your 
     colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes.

  Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk about these embryos and 
that we all started as a dot. I have often used this example. I have 
said: What is an embryo? I have often put a dot on a piece of paper and 
held it up for audiences to see and said that is what we are talking 
about. It is that big, the size of a period at the end of a sentence. 
That is not to diminish the importance of an embryo. But I use it in 
comparison. An embryo at the blastocyst stage has between 100 and 200 
cells. That embryo we are talking about that is in an in vitro 
fertilization clinic and frozen in liquid nitrogen will never become a 
human being unless and until it is implanted into a uterus and it takes 
hold and develops. Sometimes they are implanted and they don't take 
hold and they are discharged. So an embryo is potential life--potential 
in that if it is implanted and takes hold, it could become a human 
being. It is potential life.
  Look at this photo of Lauren Stanford. She says:

       I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of 
     passing H.R. 810. I can dream again--dream of that great day 
     when I write a thank you letter to the Senate, the House, and 
     everyone who helped me become just another girl; a girl who 
     dreamed and hoped and one day got just what she wanted; her 
     health and future.

  Lauren Stanford has diabetes. She knows what will happen if she is 
not cured. At some point in her life, she will probably become blind. 
At some point in her life, she will probably lose a foot, a leg, one or 
more of her limbs. At some point in her life, diabetes will take her. 
Lauren Stanford. I don't know her. I don't know that I ever met Lauren 
Stanford. This is not potential life; this is real life. This is a 
human being who is living right now.
  That dot on the paper is an embryo. Is it alive? Of course it is 
alive. Is it a human being? No. It is potential life. Lauren Stanford 
is real life.
  Read the bill. Read H.R. 810. Ethical guidelines. We can only use 
those embryos that are left over from in vitro

[[Page S7623]]

fertilization that are going to be discarded. Read the bill:

       Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through 
     consultation with the individuals seeking fertility 
     treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be 
     implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

  Written consent.

       The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the 
     embryos with written informed consent and without receiving 
     any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

  It has to be determined, before any embryo could ever be used for 
stem cell derivation, that the embryos would never be implanted in a 
woman and would otherwise be discarded. Every day, fertility clinics 
discard unwanted embryos. People have IVF--50,000 babies were born last 
year to couples who wanted to have a baby and could not and needed IVF. 
But some embryos were left over. Well, couples who have had their 
children then call up the clinic or the clinic calls them and the 
clinic says: Do you want to continue to pay for us to keep these 
embryos frozen?
  If you have had your children and you don't want to expand your 
family, you say: No, I don't want to pay for that anymore. Guess what. 
The IVF clinic discards it. I have heard they basically throw them in 
the sink and wash them down the sink. They are only as big as a period 
at the end of a sentence.
  So the real question for us really comes down to that, unless we want 
to outlaw in vitro fertilization and make it a crime, which I don't 
hear anybody here wanting to do. As long as we have in vitro 
fertilization and have leftover embryos, the real question for us is 
this: If the donors of those embryos, through written informed consent, 
determine it will never be implanted in a woman and will be discarded, 
is it better to have them discarded and flushed down the drain or used 
for the kind of scientific research that will cure Lauren Stanford of 
her diabetes? Potential life versus real life. Potential life that will 
be discarded versus real life. Potential life that will be flushed down 
the drain versus Lauren Stanford, real life. That is the question for 
us.
  We hear all of these arguments around here about we were all an 
embryo at one time. Of course we were. The question is, What happens to 
all those embryos? Right now, they are being discarded, and it is 
perfectly legal to do so. I don't see anyone here with legislation 
saying it is going to be a crime for them to be discarded, a crime to 
have in vitro fertilization. Really, that is the choice. Do we discard 
potential life or do we use it to save real life? This is not potential 
life, this is real.
  My nephew Kelly, who suffered a tragic accident on an aircraft 
carrier 27 years ago, hasn't walked since. He keeps hope alive that one 
day he will walk again. He knows about the research that has been done 
on rats and mice where spinal cords have been reconnected using 
embryonic stem cells. He knows that. I have never heard him say it, but 
I suppose he would probably echo what Christopher Reeve once said: Oh, 
to be a rat.
  He knows that. That is real life. Kelly is a real person. He is 
alive. He is not potential life. That is our decision when we face the 
vote tomorrow on H.R. 810.
  So all these other arguments about adult stem cells and this kind of 
stuff, fine, I have nothing against adult stem cell research. I am in 
favor of it. We ought to keep it going. But to choke off--not what I 
say but what the leading scientists say, the leading Nobel Prize 
winners say, what all of these disease groups who have medical people 
sitting on their boards, what they all say is the most promising avenue 
of research for curing Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord 
injuries, Parkinson's, and ALS, the most promising is not adult stem 
cells. It is embryonic stem cells. That is what they say, not me.
  To cut that off and to say, no, we won't do it is telling Lauren 
Stanford that potential life, that an embryo the size of a pencil dot, 
yes, is life; it is human potential that is as important as she is; 
that they have equal weight on the scales. I am sorry, Mr. President, I 
don't think so, not when it is going to be discarded, legally thrown 
down the drain. And as long as we have strict ethical guidelines in the 
bill--strict ethical guidelines, more than exists right now, stronger 
ethical guidelines than are in the law right now.
  To me, there is really only one answer. We should be in favor of this 
real life of curing diseases, seeking treatments and cures in an 
ethical manner, which is what this bill does. So I hope that tomorrow 
we have an overwhelming vote in favor of H.R. 810.
  I understand today the administration came out with a Statement of 
Administration Policy, or SAP as it is called around here, saying the 
President would veto it. I hope the President rethinks this. He is 
overseas anyway. Let's face it, we are all kind of captives of our 
staff around here. Staff tells us this and that. OMB says this, OMB 
says that. I am hopeful this is the work of some staff, that the 
President hasn't thought about it. He has been overseas focused on the 
G8; now, I am sure, focused on the Middle East.
  I hope when President Bush thinks about it that he remembers Lauren 
Stanford, that he will remember the letter from Nancy Reagan and he 
will come down on the side of real life, and he will come down on the 
side of an ethical approach to embryonic stem cell research.
  I still believe in miracles, and I hope a miracle will occur and the 
President of the United States finds it in his heart to say that what 
he did on August 9, 2001, was done with a lack of adequate knowledge. 
He can say: Look, we thought there were 78 lines, and there were not; 
there were only 21 lines. We didn't know they were all contaminated 
with mouse feeder cells. They can't be used for human therapies. That 
he will say in light of all that we know now, and with the strict 
ethical guidelines we have in this bill, I see fit to sign into law 
H.R. 810.
  That is my hope. That is the hope of Lauren Stanford. That is the 
hope of the millions of Americans out there who suffer from 
Alzheimer's, the millions who suffer from spinal cord injuries and 
their families and caregivers and Parkinson's and ALS, and so many 
more.
  Tonight they are praying--they are praying--that a miracle occurs and 
that the President will change his mind and sign this bill. And until 
the very moment that he vetoes it, I will remain hopeful that miracle 
will occur.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.

                          ____________________