Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7654-S7673]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m.
having arrived, the Senate will resume 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of stem cell
research.

[[Page S7655]]

I plan to vote in favor of each of the three bills that we will be
considering today. I call upon my colleagues to pass all three of these
bills. I call upon the President to sign all of them into law.
Make no mistake about it. This is an important debate. We will cast
important votes today.
Even with all the events taking place the world today, including the
developments in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, it is my hope--and the hope
of many others--that when the history of our time is written, the
ultimate outcome of today's debate over stem cell research will have
been a major breakthrough in our understanding of, and ability to
promote, human health and prevent and treat disease.
I admire and respect President Bush tremendously for being the first
President to dedicate Federal funds for stem cell research. As many may
recall, in August 2001, the President announced that Federal funds
would be used for research on 60 stem cell lines that were created from
embryos that have already been destroyed. Unfortunately, many of these
stem lines became contaminated so the cells could never be used for
scientific research. I believe that H.R. 810 must be signed into law in
order to make the President's policy work because in my view, the
President already made the decision to use the cells. H.R. 810 just
changes the guidelines for stem cell research by allowing embryos that
would otherwise be discarded to be made available for research. I
believe that by using these embryos for medical research, we are, in
fact, promoting life.
One of the reasons why so many are so interested in this debate is
that literally everyone either has, or knows, a loved one who has, one
of the diseases or conditions that may one day benefit from stem cell
research.
One reason why I support stem cell research so strongly is because I
have heard from so many of my fellow citizens of Utah and fellow
Americans about how important this issue is to them and their families.
That is the reason why Nancy Reagan wrote me the following letter
about stem cell research:

May 1, 2006
Dear Orrin: Thank you for your continued commitment to
helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating
and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope
to so many.
It has been nearly a year since the United States House of
Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that
would open the research so we could fully unleash its
promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific
progress to help their loved ones, the wait for United States
Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.
I understand that the United States Senate is now
considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can
count on friends like you to help make sure this happens.
There is just no more time to wait.
Sincerely,
Nancy.

I want to make it clear that there is broad consensus among leading
scientists that among the three bills we will vote upon today--the Stem
Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 810; the Alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754; and the Fetus
Farming Prohibition Act of 2006--it is H.R. 810 that can most
immediately advance science.
The vote on H.R. 810 is the one that really counts.
Some in this debate suggest that passage of the Specter-Santorum
alternatives bill would obviate the need for H.R. 810. Neither Senator
Specter nor I believe that. Nor do the leading scientists in America
believe that. Nor should you believe that.
To put a point on it, the other two bills, S. 2754 and S. 3504, are
most emphatically not a substitute for H.R. 810. These bills complement
H.R. 810. In no way can, or do, they replace H.R. 810.
I support the alternatives bill, S. 2754, for a lot of the same
reasons why I coauthored the cord blood stem cell research bill that
President Bush signed into law last year. I believe that all
scientifically credible and ethically sound avenues of stem cell
research ought to be pursued. I might add that when we passed the cord
blood legislation, that form of research had already yielded tangible
results for several types of diseases, such as some forms of bone
marrow cancer.
In sharp contrast, whatever benefits the alternatives bill may yield,
experts tell us that they are largely unrealized today and, as often
the case with cutting edge science, uncertain in the future. But that
is the way science works. Advance in science often progresses in fits
and starts. Sometimes, actually most of the time, particular avenues of
research are found to be blind alleys and advances do not come. Many
seeds of discovery have to be planted for the flower of progress to
bloom.
Today's votes give us an opportunity to move forward on several
fronts.
Let us be clear that the centerpiece of today's debate is H.R. 810.
This is the bill that will help provide the long overdue expansion of
the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally funded biomedical
research. This is what our leading scientists have told us they want
and need to move the field of stem cell research forward.
I have worked with leading scientists throughout my 30-year career in
the Senate. Few, if any, issues have created the genuine sense of
excitement among the scientific community as have the current
opportunities in stem cell research.
Listen to what Dr. Harold Varmus has said about the promise of stem
cell research. Dr. Varmus is a Nobel Laureate. He is the former
Director of the National Institutes of Health. He currently runs the
prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. By all accounts, he is one
of the leading scientists in the world. I met with Dr. Varmus on
several occasions to learn what scientists think about stem cell
research.
Here is Dr. Varmus' assessment:

(t)he development of a cell that may produce almost every
tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific
breakthrough. It is not too unrealistic to say that this
practice has the potential to revolutionize the practice of
medicine.

More than 40 other Nobel prize-winners and as well most of our
Nation's leading scientists, disease advocacy organizations, and many
other interested citizens and organizations share this view.
For example, here is what Dr. Edward Clark of the University of Utah
Department of Pediatrics has told me about stem cell research:

. . . I can assure you that the scientific progress of
stem cell research is extraordinary.
. . . In pediatrics, stem cell research offers therapy,
and indeed possibly a cure, for a wide variety of childhood
diseases, including neurologic disease, spinal cord injuries,
and heart disease . . .
I can think of nothing that will provide as much meaningful
therapy for children and children's problems than the promise
offered by stem cell research.

It is not hard to understand why the additional stem cell lines that
can and will be used by federally funded scientists if H.R. 810 becomes
law is so exciting for scientists and important for the American
public.
The stakes of today's debate are high. As a report of the influential
National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine has stated:

(S)tem cell research has the potential to affect the lives
of millions of people in the United States and around the
world.

This Institute of Medicine Report goes on to cite the following high
prevalence diseases as likely candidates for stem cell research:
Cardiovascular Disease--58 million U.S. patients; Autoimmune Diseases--
30 million U.S. patients; Diabetes--16 million U.S. patients;
Osteoporosis--10 million U.S. patients; Cancer--10 million U.S.
patients; Alzheimer's Disease--5.5 million U.S. patients; Parkinson's
Disease--1.5 million U.S. patients.
What family in America does not include someone afflicted with a
disease on this list? And a complete list includes many other diseases
and conditions such as spinal cord injuries, burns, and many birth
defects. Experts believe that upward of 100 million Americans--and
hundreds of millions of others around the world--may one day benefit
from stem cell research.
For example, let us consider spinal cord injuries. Who does not know,
or know of, someone whose life has been devastated by a spinal cord
injury?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter I received just last month from Michael Armstrong, Chairman of
the Board of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7656]]

Johns Hopkins Medicine,

Naples, FL, June 26, 2006.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I'm writing to let you know about an
exciting recent breakthrough in biomedical research at the
Johns Hopkins University. Using mouse embryonic stem cells,
scientists led by Dr. Douglas Kerr have regenerated damaged
nerve tissue in paralyzed rats, thereby restoring motor
function. The details of Dr. Kerr's research are described in
a press release attached to this letter.
This breakthrough represents the first time that scientists
have actually re-grown damaged components of a nervous
system, and it could lead to human therapies that seemed
previously to be beyond our reach. Treatments not only for
paralysis, but for ALS, 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.
Due to restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem
cell research, Dr. Kerr will likely seek state support for
his continuing work. We at Johns Hopkins applaud the
courageous efforts of the Maryland General Assembly to make
that support possible by passing the Maryland Stem Cell
Enhancement Act earlier this year.
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. It is
therefore crucial that current federal stem cell policy be
revised.
We are grateful for your ongoing commitment to biomedical
research. I'm sure your leadership on this issue will
continue to uphold the best interests of American researcher,
physicians, and above all, patients.
Sincerely,
C. Michael Armstrong,
Chairman.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this letter describes groundbreaking
research conducted by a Johns Hopkins scientist, Dr. Douglas Kerr, on
how mouse embryonic stem cells have been able to regenerate damaged
nerve tissue in paralyzed rats. According to the letter from Johns
Hopkins University, one of the world's most respected biomedical
research institutions in the world, Dr. Kerr's ``breakthrough
represents the first time that scientists have actually re-grown
damaged components of a nervous system, and it could lead to human
therapies that seemed previously to be beyond our reach. Treatments not
only for paralysis, but for ALS, multiple sclerosis, and similar
diseases of the brain now seem possible.''
The current Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias
Zerhouni, has said that this research is ``a remarkable advance that
can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great
promise.''
However, unless H.R. 810 becomes law and the number of stem cells
lines eligible for Federal funding is expanded, this promising research
could die on the vine.
As Mr. Armstrong explains in his letter:

The level of funding that will that will ultimately be
required to advance this field of science to human clinical
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. It is therefore crucial that current stem cell
policy be revised.

The precise type of revision that the scientists at Johns Hopkins
tell us is needed is precisely the change in Federal policy that H.R.
810, the Castle-DeGette bill, will bring about.
And the scientists at Johns Hopkins are hardly alone.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from Dr. Darrel Kirch, President of the Association of
American Medical Colleges.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Association of

American Medical Colleges,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2006.
Dear Senator: The Association of American Medical Colleges
(AAMC) urges you to vote in favor of the ``Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2005'' (H.R. 810) when it is considered by
the Senate. The AAMC, which represents the nation's 125
accredited medical schools, some 400 major teaching
hospitals, and more than 105,000 faculty in 94 academic and
scientific societies, endorses this legislation to expand
Federal support for stem cell research while adhering to
strict federal oversight and standards. In accordance with
current law, the legislation ensures that no Federal funding
shall be used to derive stem cells or destroy embryos.
The discovery of human pluripotent stem cells is a
significant research advance and Federal support to American
researchers is essential both to translate this discovery
into novel therapies for a range of serious and intractable
diseases, and to ensure that this research is conducted under
a rigorous and credible ethical regime. The therapeutic
potential of pluripotent stem cells is remarkable and could
well prove to be one of the important paradigm-shifting
advances in the history of medical science. These cells have
the unique potential to differentiate into any human cell
type and offer real hope of life-affirming treatments for
diabetes, damaged heart tissue, arthritis, Parkinson's, ALS
and spinal cord injuries, to name but a few examples. There
is also the possibility that these cells could be used to
create more complex organ structures that could replace
diseased vital organs, such as kidneys, livers, or even
hearts.
We recognize the significant ethical issues that are raised
about embryonic stem cell research and we respect the view of
those who oppose such research, including some in our own
medical school community. However. we are persuaded otherwise
by what we believe is an equally compelling ethical
consideration, namely, that it would be tragic to waste the
unique potential afforded by embryonic stem cells, derived
from embryos destined to be discarded in any case, to
alleviate human suffering and enhance the quality of human
life.
This legislation recognizes the need to expand Federal
support of research on pluripotent stem cells so that the
tremendous scientific and medical benefits of their use may
one day become available to the millions of patients who so
desperately need them. Again, we urge you to vote for this
bill, which will help ensure the potential of this research
is translated into treatments and cures.
Sincerely,
Darrell G. Kirch, M.D.,
President.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this organization represents our Nation's
125 accredited medical schools, 400 teaching hospitals, and more than
105,000 medical school faculty in 94 academic and scientific societies.
This letter, sent to all Senators last Tuesday, call for us to support
H.R. 810. The AAMC letter states:

The therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cells is
remarkable and could well prove to be one of the important
paradigm-shifting advances in the history of medical science.

Support for H.R. 810 is not confined solely to academicians. Last
year, when the House took up and passed H.R. 810 on a bipartisan basis,
over 200 organizations gave their wholehearted support for this
legislation. This includes many leading patient advocacy organizations
such as the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric
Aids Foundation, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the American
Association for Cancer Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research,
to name a few.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of organizations that support the passage of H.R. 810.
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, 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,
Alliance for Aging Research; Alliance for Stem Cell
Research; Alpha-1 Foundation; ALS Association; American
Association for Cancer Research; American Association
of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons; American Autoimmune Related Diseases
Association; American College of
Neuropsychopharmacology; American

[[Page S7657]]

College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American
Diabetes Association; American Gastroenterological
Association; American Medical Association; American
Parkinson's Disease Association (Arizona Chapter);
American Society for Cell Biology; American Society for
Microbiology; American Society for Neural
Transplantation and Repair; American Society for
Reproductive Medicine; American Society of Hematology.
American Thyroid Association; Association of American
Medical Colleges; Association of American Universities;
Association of Independent Research Institutes;
Association of Professors of Medicine; Association of
Reproductive Health Professionals; Axion Research
Foundation; Biotechnology Industry Organization; B'nai
B'rith International; The Burnham Institute; California
Institute of Technology; Californians for Cures; Cancer
Research and Prevention Foundation; Cedars-Sinai Health
System; Children's Neurobiological Solutions
Foundation; Christopher Reeve Foundation; Columbia
University Medical Center; Cornell University;
CuresNow.
Duke University Medical Center; Elizabeth Glaser
Pediatric AIDS Foundation; FasterCures; FD Hope
Foundation; Genetics Policy Institute; Hadassah;
Harvard University; Hereditary Disease Foundation;
International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery
(IFADD); International Longevity Center--USA;
International Society for Stem Cell Research; Jeffrey
Modell Foundation; Johns Hopkins; Juvenile Diabetes
Research Foundation; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society;
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; National Alliance
for Eye and Vision Research; National Association for
Biomedical Research; National Coalition for Cancer
Research.
National Council on Spinal Cord Injury; National Health
Council; National Partnership for Women and Families;
National Venture Capital Association; New Jersey
Association for Biomedical Research; New York
University Medical Center; Parkinson's Action Network;
Parkinson's Disease Foundation; Pittsburgh Development
Center; Project A.L.S.; Quest for the Cure;
Research!America; Resolve: The National Infertility
Association; Rett Syndrome Research Foundation; Robert
Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins;
Rutgers University; Sloan-Kettering Institute for
Cancer Research; Society for Women's Health Research;
Stanford University.
Stem Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation;
Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Student Society
for Stem Cell Research; Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's,
Inc.; Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research;
Tourette Syndrome Association; Travis Roy Foundation;
University of California System; University of
Minnesota; University of Rochester Medical Center;
University of Southern California; University of
Wisconsin--Madison; Vanderbilt University and Medical
Center; Washington University in St. Louis; WiCell
Research Institution; Wisconsin Alumni Research
Foundation; Wisconsin Association for Biomedical
Research and Education.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, support for the passage of H.R. 810 is not
limited to the not-for-profit sector. While it is sometimes typical for
the private sector to keep out of some controversial issues, this is
not the case with stem cell research.
Last week, I received a letter of support for H.R. 810 from the
Biotechnology Industry Organization. BIO represents more than 1,100
biotechnology companies, state biotechnology centers, and academic
institutions. The BIO letter notes:

Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also
go a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed to
develop drugs because new chemical or biological compounds
meant to treat diseases could be tested in specific human
cells prior to their use in live human beings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the July 12, 2006, letter from BIO calling for passage of H.R. 810.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Biotechnology Industry

Organization,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2006.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: As President & CEO of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization (BIO), I am writing to express BIO's
support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Other stem cell legislation being debated by the Senate has
merit, but only H.R. 810 expands the research that our
nation's leading scientists believe holds the promise of
finding cures and treatments for the millions of patients who
currently suffer from a variety of diseases and disabilities.
BIO is the national trade association representing more
than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions,
state biotechnology centers and related organizations in all
50 U.S. states and 33 foreign nations. BIO members are
involved in the research and development of health-care,
agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology
products.
Our nation's top scientists agree that embryonic stem cell
research has the potential to lead to cures and treatments
for many of our society's most devastating diseases and
disabilities such as cancer, diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's
disease, Alzheimer's disease, and spinal cord injuries.
Embryonic stem cell research will further the development of
cell-based therapies by leading to greater scientific
understanding of cell differentiation--the process by which
our cells become specialized to perform certain functions--
and proliferation--the process where cells expand, or
multiply for controlled use as a potential therapeutic.
Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also
go a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed to
develop drugs because new chemical or biological compounds
meant to treat diseases could be tested in specific human
cells prior to their use in live human beings.
Importantly, the legislation creates an ethical framework
for this research. It prohibits funding unless the cell lines
were derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization
clinics that were created for reproductive purposes and would
otherwise be discarded. It also requires voluntary informed
consent from the couples donating the excess embryos and
prohibits any financial inducements.
H.R. 810 provides hope to millions of patients and their
families by expanding current federal policy regarding
federal funding of stem cell research. I urge you to support
its passage.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or
Brent Del Monte, BIO's Vice President for Federal Government
Relations, at 202-962-9200.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,

James C. Greenwood,

President & CEO,
Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, some aspects of this issue involve
complicated scientific facts and complex moral questions. Elected
officials and the American public alike have had much to learn and
consider since this issue first arose on the scene in 1998.
The more the American public thinks about this issue, the more it
coalesces around the policy embraced by H.R. 810 which will
significantly improve and expand taxpayer supported stem cell research.
Public opinion polls show that U.S. citizens are squarely behind stem
cell research and H.R. 810.
For example, a poll commissioned by the Coalition for the Advancement
of Stem Cell Research and taken in May of this year found that 72
percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research and 70
percent favor the Senate adopting H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act. This finding of broad public support is consistent
with other previously conducted polls. For example, a Harris poll taken
in August 2004 found that 73 percent of Americans think stem cell
research should be allowed and a June 2004 Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll placed public support for this research at 71 percent.
Some may try to quibble about how particular poll questions were
phrased in particular surveys, but few would question the fact that for
some time most Americans have wanted the type of research that H.R. 810
will help enable to go forward.
I can tell you this. The poll results I have just cited are
consistent with what I hear from my neighbors and constituents in Utah.
I come from a conservative State. But whenever the issue of stem cell
research comes up at one of my meetings in Salt Lake City or other
places in my State, somebody will come up to me to tell me their
personal story with the diseases of a loved one and tell me that I am
doing the right thing on stem cell research.
One of the reasons why I got involved with the issue of stem cell
research in the first place was because of a little boy named Cody
Anderson, whose family used to live in West Jordan, UT.
Cody and his family came to visit me in Washington in 2001 to tell me
their tragic family struggle with diabetes. Cody's grandfather
succumbed to diabetes at age 47 after a series of painful amputation
operations. Cody, his grandfather's namesake, never got the chance to
meet or know his grandfather because of diabetes.

[[Page S7658]]

Let me read you part of a letter that Cody and his family wrote me:

I don't want other small children like me to have to go
through the things that I have already had to go through. I
do not want to suffer the effects that my grandfather did
throughout his life because of this disease. I want to grow
old and not have to worry about all the bad things that could
happen to me because of diabetes. We have seen what diabetes
can do to an innocent life. Please don't let this happen to
me in my life now. I hope you will take it in your hearts to
listen to us, the people who live with this disease for every
minute of every day for now and the rest of our lives.

In a few hours we can pass a bill that can only help Cody and
thousands of others suffering from diabetes and millions of others who
suffer from other diseases and conditions that may benefit from stem
cell research.
How do you think young Cody's parents felt when they learned of their
son having the same diagnosis as his grandfather?
How would you feel if you were told that your child would lead a life
revolving around multiple daily blood tests, insulin injections, and a
tightly regulated diet and constricted activity schedule that no child
would relish?
The answer of any parent is that you would want your government to
leave no stone unturned in finding a cure for that disease. And you
would want the cure found as soon as possible.
Let me say a few sobering words about the immediacy of the promise of
stem cell research. Cures are not around the corner. While stem cell
research may prove in time to be a revolutionary advance in science
such progress does not come quickly or on the cheap.
If we start a vigorous program of federally funded stem cell research
program progress will not likely be measured in hours and days. It will
take years, perhaps 10 or 20 years, before American patients are
administered a new class of products and treatments derived from stem
cell research.
In this regard I am reminded of an instance in which, when advised
that a certain type of rare plant took years and years to bloom if
placed in a certain hostile environment, a great French General simply
said, ``Then we must not delay, we must plant today.''
We have to proceed with stem cell research with a passion and urgency
today precisely because we do not know how long it will take to find
tomorrow's cure. But we do know that the sooner we start, the faster we
will get there.
Nor will this research be inexpensive. No doubt one reason why the
biotechnology industry is supporting H.R. 810 is because since the end
of World War II basic biomedical research in this country has primarily
been funded by taxpayers through the programs conducted or supported by
the National Institutes of Health. Today, about 80 percent of the $28
billion NIH budget is invested in highly-competitive, peer-reviewed
research that is undertaken by universities and research hospitals.
There has been a continuum of effort between the public sector basic
research and private sector applied research that attempts to translate
the new basic knowledge gleamed from federally supported NIH research
into tangible FDA-approved products or other treatments before they can
reach even the first patient's bedside. Americans should take pride in
the fact that virtually every major advance in the biological sciences
in the last 50 years emanated in some way from our investment in the
NIH.
In my view, it would be in tragic and nearly incalculable mistake for
our country to continue our present policy that materially constricts
the cadre of investigators leading over 46,000 ongoing university
based, NIH research grants from pushing the envelope of stem cell
research. To cede our leadership in such a promising field of endeavor
of biomedical research as stem cell research can only be shortsighted
in the long run.
For example, the University of Utah is the proud home of one of the
world's foremost mouse stem cell researchers. His name is Dr. Mario
Capecchi and he has already won one of the most prestigious awards in
American science, the Lasker Award. A great deal of the support for Dr.
Capecchi and other researchers at the University of Utah and other
research universities across the country come from NIH grants and
contracts.
I want Dr. Capecchi to stay in Utah. I want the world's leading
scientists to stay in the United States. It is critical to relax the
current straitjacket on testing new stem cell lines if we are to keep
the best stem cell researchers in this country.
Some might say good riddance to this research and to stem cell
researchers. Look what happened in South Korea when a group of stem
cell researchers conducted unethical experiments, faked the results and
lied to the public.
I say that if the NIH is involved in this research and it is
conducted in America, federally supported researchers will have to live
within longstanding NIH ethical guidelines and principles as well as
special rules that will apply only to stem cell research. In this way,
as we have done so many times in the past with breakthrough research
such as with recombinant DNA technology and organ transplants, the
United States can help set a moral and ethical climate that our
neighbors in the world community will emulate and follow.
I hope we never reach the day when the best biomedical researchers
trained in America must go elsewhere to conduct the most cutting-edge
basic biomedical research. Once that happens, we could face the day
when sick Americans must actually leave our country to get the latest
in treatments. I sure would not want to see a day when a citizen of
Salt Lake City has to go to South Korea or any place else to get the
best medical treatment possible.
Today, for all of its warts, the U.S.A. is widely recognized as the
world's leader in developing and disseminating the latest in medical
breakthroughs.
Passage of H.R. 810 will help us keep it that way.
The purpose of H.R. 810 is to expand the opportunities for the type
of federally funded basic biomedical research that has proven so
beneficial to the American public time and time again in the past.
Having described how many experts and interested parties believe that
the promise of stem cell research is so great, I want to spend the next
few minutes describing why some are opposed to this research and why I
think their opposition is misplaced.
In order to do this, I feel compelled to spend a few minutes to
define and discuss some technical scientific terms. I know that others
have used many or all of these terms during the course of the debate
but please bear with me if I am repeating some one or get too
technical.
Perhaps the best place to start a discussion of stem cell research is
with a broader term that many scientific experts believe more
accurately describes the field and what is at stake.
The term is regenerative medicine.
Regenerative medicine seeks to uncover knowledge about how healthy
cells contained in tissues and organs are formed and how they are lost
through normal wear and tear or impaired more extensively through
injury or degenerative disease.
The growing field of regenerative medicine is increasing our
understanding of embryonic development, birth defects, organ
transplantation, and the developmental biology of both healthy and
diseased tissues. A key avenue of research of regenerative medicine
involves stem cells. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has
the unique capacity to renew itself and give rise to specialized cell
types. These stem cells are called pluripotent because of this ability
to develop into different kinds of specialized cells, perhaps into all
or most of the 200 known types of tissues that comprise the human body.
Stem cells have the ability to divide and replicate for long periods of
time in a laboratory colonies called cell lines.
The flexibility of these pluripotent stem cells is distinct from most
cells in the body, because most cells are typically dedicated to
performing a specific task such as heart muscle cells and specialized
nerve cells. Scientists, like Dr. Kerr, the Johns Hopkins nerve cell
researcher whom I talked about earlier, hope to be able to use stem
cells to study how healthy and diseased cells work and, one day use
this knowledge and use stem cell lines to treat or repair diseased
tissues or organs. If this research is successful, many currently
untreatable diseases and conditions may go the way of small pox and
polio.
There are several different sources of stem cells.

[[Page S7659]]

Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are found in
specialized adult tissues. These cells can renew themselves and, with
certain limitations, can differentiate to yield all the specialized
cells types of the tissue in which they are found, and perhaps others
as well. Adult stem cells have been found in many tissues including
bone marrow, blood, the brain, skeletal muscle, dental pulp, liver,
skin, eye, and the pancreas.
There is no serious opposition to adult stem cell research. I fully
support this research.
There is, however, much debate over the potential limitations of
adult stem cell research. For example, the seminal 2001 National
Academy of Sciences study I mentioned earlier summarized the concerns:

(I)t is not clear whether . . . adult stem cells . . .
truly have plasticity or whether some tissues contain several
types of stem cells that each give rise to only a few
derivative types. Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to
identify and purify, and when grown in culture, are difficult
to maintain in the undifferentiated state. It is because of
those limitations that even stem cells from bone marrow, the
type most studied, are not available in sufficient numbers to
support many potential applications of regenerative medicine.

Although some opponents of H.R. 810 have taken exception to this
characterization of the limitations of adult stem cells, it is my
understanding that most experts in the field believe that embryonic
stem cells offer advantages over adult stem cells because of the
reasons I have just reported from the NAS study.
Moreover, some proponents of adult stem cell research claim that many
diseases have been effectively treated with adult stem cells.
Unfortunately, the weight of evidence does not support many of these
claims. Nor do most of the leading experts in the field agree with the
notion that adult stem cell research exceeds the promise of embryonic
stem cell research despite the fact that adult stem cell research has
at least a 40-year head start on embryonic stem cell research and has
enjoyed a sustained funding commitment from the NIH.
The current issue of Science magazine contains a detailed letter
written by three scientists, Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven
Teitelbaum challenging claims made by a leading advocate of adult stem
cell research, Dr. David Prentice. I understand that most experts come
down on the Smith-Neaves-Teitlebaum side of the debate concerning the
scientific limitations and opportunities of embryonic stem cells
relative to adult stem cells.
Additional sources of stem cells are those acquired from placental
and umbilical cord blood. Last fall the Congress passed and President
Bush signed into law legislation that I co-authored to expand the use
of the valuable and proven source of stem cell therapy. Due to the work
of pioneers like Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg from Duke University and Dr.
Pablo Rubinstein of the New York Blood Center, cord blood has become an
important mode of treatment for diseases like bone marrow disorders and
has proven to be particularly useful in the African-American community
where it is often difficult to find suitable bone marrow matches.
Yet another source of stem cells is those derived from human embryos.
Public debate and discussion have centered on two types of embryonic
stem cells.
First, stem cells may be derived from embryos created for, but no
longer needed in, the in vitro fertilization process.
Second, stem cells can potentially be derived from so-called cloned
embryos through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Today's debate centers on the first source of embryonic stem cells--
excess embryos formed in fertility clinics slated for destruction.
Under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement--and it is an
agreement I fully support and commend Senators Frist and Reid for
negotiating--the bills we debate today do not involve cloned embryos
formed by somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is the process whereby
the nucleus of an egg and its complement of 23 chromosomes is removed
and replaced with the nucleus of one of the standard 46-chromosome
containing somatic cells that constitute the 200-plus tissues of the
human body.
Senator Feinstein and others have developed legislation that would
ban and criminalize the act of using the somatic cell nuclear transfer
process to give birth to a cloned human being. In addition, our bill,
the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act, S. 876,
would set forth a tightly defined set of ethical restrictions and NIH
oversight for anyone in the private sector that undertakes somatic cell
nuclear transfer in order to produce new stem cell lines.
Others, led by Senator Brownback, have offered legislation that would
effectively ban somatic cell nuclear transfer altogether, even purely
for research purposes and even with tight ethical controls that will
govern wholly private sector funded experiments.
One day we will have that debate. We will not have it today under the
rules of this debate. As I will describe, those opposed to deriving
additional stem cell lines through the somatic stem cell process also
oppose using spare embryos as a source of additional stem cell lines
and do so for the same basic argument.
The great topic of today's debate is whether it is ethical and proper
for taxpayer funded scientists to use stem cells derived from embryos
no longer needed in fertility treatment.
The process of in vitro fertilization consists of fertilizing a
woman's egg in a laboratory and then placing the fertilized egg in a
woman's womb so that gestation and childbirth can occur. This is what
is done when couples have fertility problems. Although IVF procedures
were very controversial when they were first developed and used back in
1983, over 200,000 Americans have been born through this technique that
is widely accepted today.
Many had grave reservations about the IVF process when it was
developed. Some of the fiercest opponents of IVF back then are also the
most ardent opponents of S. 810. While I respect their views--and these
are sincere and earnest individuals--I think they were wrong then and
wrong now.
As part of the fertility treatment process, it is inevitable that
there will be some test tube embryos that will not be needed and will
never be implanted in a mother's womb. And let me be clear here, I
believe that the highest and best use of a human embryo is to be used
by loving parents to add to their family. I wholeheartedly support
adoption of spare embryos and would give adoption precedence over use
for research. I think most would agree with me on this.
But the fact of the matter today is that there may exist at any point
in time more than 400,000 such unused embryos in the United States and
each year tens of thousands of such spare embryos are routinely and
unceremoniously discarded and destroyed. It is important to note that
more than 11,000 of these embryos have already been used for research.
It is from these embryos that scientists have derived stem cell
lines.
Here is how it works.
During the first few days of embryo development, whether in a
mother's womb or in a Petri dish inside a fertility clinic, the
fertilized egg--called a zygote--begins to divide and transform into a
sphere of cells called a blastocyst. Depending on its stage of
development, a blastocyst is comprised of about 30 to 150 cells. It is
from the inner layer of the blastocyst that scientists can derive the
unspecialized but pluripotent stem cells that hold so much promise.
As I said earlier, while there is some debate on this issue, the
great bulk of the evidence and consensus view of leading experts is
that, at this point in time, research on the embryonic stem cells holds
at least as much, and probably a lot more, promise than research on
adult stem cells and cord blood. That is because the experts believe
that embryonic stem cells appear to be easier to identify and work with
and appear to be more flexible than other sources of stem cells.
The sole purpose of H.R. 810 is to expand the number of stem cell
lines eligible for Federal funding. If H.R. 810 passes and is signed
into law, Americans will finally get the vigorous program of federally
funded stem cell research complete with a rigorous system of Federal
oversight of the ethical protections that the National Institutes of
Health will place on this research.

[[Page S7660]]

The policy dispute that requires the legislative fix set forth in
H.R. 810 revolves around the moral status of a spare embryo. Some,
including President Bush and some in Congress, have reservations about
using stem cells derived from embryos for research purposes. This
concern is anchored in the perspective that human life begins at the
moment of conception, be it in the womb or in the lab of a fertility
clinic.
While I respect this view and those who hold it, I do not agree with
it.
Let me say that I come into this debate as longtime, right-to-life
Senator. I oppose abortion on demand. I think that Roe v. Wade was
wrongly decided. I have worked to return the power to outlaw abortion
from the courts to the states. In 1981, I proudly worked to report an
anti-abortion constitutional amendment from the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
In the 108th Congress, I served as chairman of the House-Senate
Conference Committee that finalized long-overdue legislation to outlaw
the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. I was at the
President's side when he signed this bill into law.
When it comes to a right-to-life philosophy, I do not take a back
seat to anyone in this Chamber or the House of Representatives. I will
put my pro-life track record up against anyone inside or outside of
Congress.
When I considered the question of the moral status of stem cells
created for, but no longer needed in, the in-vitro fertilization
process, I did so from a long and fervently held pro-life philosophy.
I have discussed this issue with many experts in science and ethics
on all sides of this issue. I spoke to many Utahns and other citizens
about their views on this matter. I consulted books ranging from
medical texts and the Bible.
I thought long and hard about this matter.
Sometimes, I simply prayed to God for guidance.
I take my pro-family, pro-life philosophy very seriously.
I believe the worth of each soul is absolute.
Accordingly, I reject any purely utilitarian argument that the
promise of stem cell research is so great that the ends justify the
means.
I do not think that research can ever justify the taking of even a
single human life, no matter how frail or defenseless that person may
be.
Let me just say that there is not a fairer or finer man in the U.S.
Senate than my friend from Kansas, Senator Sam Brownback. As he has
attempted to frame the issue:

The central question in this debate is simple: Is the
embryo a person or a piece of property? If you believe . . .
that life begins at conception and that the human embryo is a
person fully deserving of dignity and the protection of our
laws, then you have to believe that we must protect this
innocent life from harm and protection.

After much thought, reflection, and prayer, I concluded that life
begins in, and requires, a nurturing womb. Human life does not begin in
a Petri dish.
I do not question that an embryo is a living cell.
But I do not believe that a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic
freezer constitutes human life.
To my knowledge, as a matter of law, no member of the U.S. Supreme
Court has ever taken the position in even a dissenting opinion, let
alone a majority opinion, that fetuses, let alone embryos, are
constitutionally protected persons.
I cannot imagine, for example, that many Americans would view an
employee of a fertility clinic whose job it is to destroy unneeded
embryos as a criminal--and a murderer at that. Yet this is a task that
is performed thousands of times each and every year by hundreds of
fertility clinic employees.
As well, the logical extension of Senator Brownback's life-begins-at-
conception view might be to criminalize the actions of a woman or her
doctor from using, or recommending the use of, some longstanding forms
of contraception that impede fertilized eggs from attaching onto the
uterine wall.
I simply do not believe that passing H.R. 810 and allowing federally
funded researchers to use new stem cell lines derived from spare
embryos from fertility clinics is somehow ethical.
It seems to me that you would have to believe that the in vitro
fertilization process was unethical to begin with if you believe that
it is unethical to use spare embryos that would never be used for
fertility purposes and were slated for routine destruction.
I find both fertility treatment and embryonic stem cell research to
be ethical.
I believe that being pro-life involves helping the living.
Regenerative medicine is pro-life and pro-family; it enhances, not
diminishes human life.
My friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, and I share a similar
perspective on this important issue. Here is Senator Smith's eloquent
response to the concerns raised by our friend, Senator Brownback:

. . . when does life begin? Some say it is at conception.
Others say it is at birth. For me in my quest to be
responsible and to be as right as I know how to be, I turn to
what I regard as sources of truth. I find this: ``And the
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living
soul.'' This allegory of creation describes a two-step
process to life, one of the flesh, the other of the spirit .
. . Cells, stem cells, adult cells, are, I believe, the dust
of the earth. They are essential to life, but standing alone
will never constitute life. A stem cell in a petri dish or
frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years,
become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. An
ancient apostle once said: ``For the body without the spirit
is dead.'' I believe that life begins in the mother's womb,
not in a scientist's laboratory. Indeed, scientists tell me
that nearly one-half of fertilized eggs never attach to a
mother's womb, but naturally slough off. Surely, life is not
being taken here by God or by anyone else.

I find much wisdom in Senator Smith's remarks and ask all of you to
reflect upon his thoughtful and valuable perspective.
When the roll is called on H.R. 810, I will vote yea. I urge my
colleagues to do likewise.
I applaud President Bush's decision to allow Federal funds to be used
in connection with a limited number of stem cell lines that preexisted
his August 9, 2001 speech. Frankly, I had hoped back in 2001 that
President Bush would announce a more expansive policy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter I wrote to President Bush on this matter in June, 2001 on the
issue of stem cell research as well as an accompanying letter to then
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2001.
The President George Walker Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I urge you to support federal funding
of human pluripotent embryonic stem cell research. Upon
substantial reflection, I find--and hope you will as well--
that proceeding with this research is in the best interests
of the American public and is consistent with our shared pro-
life, pro-family values.
After carefully analyzing the factors involved, I conclude
that, at this time, research on human pluripotent embryonic
stem cells is legal, scientifically compelling, and ethically
sound. I want to emphasize that my support for such research
is contingent upon adherence to the applicable statutes,
regulations and guidelines. For your information, I have
provided a copy of my correspondence to Secretary Thompson
that more fully explains my reasoning on this important
matter.
Mr. President, one of the great legacies of your father's
Presidency was the fall of the Berlin Wall which represented
the victory of democracy in a 50-year battle with
totalitarian regimes. Through sacrifice and love of country
``the Greatest Generation'' prevailed over both fascism and
communism and proved more than equal to the challenges of the
times. As a result, today the United States is in a unique
position of leadership in the world. How America exerts this
influence and invests our resources and energies will be
observed closely by all of our global neighbors. It seems to
me that leading the way in finding new cures for disease is
precisely the type of activity that accrues to our benefit
both at home and abroad.
In the opening days of your term in office, scientists have
completed the task of sequencing the human genome. While this
acccomplishment--the work of many in the public and private
sectors--is of historical significance, it is only the end of
the beginning in a new era of our understanding of the
biological sciences, Over your next eight years in office,
you have an unprecedented opportunity to provide the personal
leadership required to see to it that your Administration
will be remembered by future historians as the beginning of
the end for such deadly and debilitating diseases as cancer,
Alzheimer's, and diabetes.

[[Page S7661]]

To accomplish this, all promising and proper avenues of
research must be explored. Throughout my career I have been
proud to have worked with patients and families struggling
with the daily realities of disabling high prevalence
illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. As
author of the Orphan Drug Act, I also am proud that over 200
drugs have been approved since this law was enacted in 1984
for such small population, but devastating diseases, as
Hemophilia, Cystic Fibrosis, and ALS. In my 25 years of
working to sustain and build America's formidable biomedical
research enterprise, I have rarely, if ever, observed such
genuine excitement for the prospects of future progress than
is presented by embryonic stem cell research.
Mr. President, once you have considered the complexities of
the questions at hand, I hope you will conclude, as other
pro-life, pro-family Republicans such as Strom Thurmond,
Gordon Smith, Connie Mack, and I, that the best course of
action is to lead the way for this vital research.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch,
United States Senator.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2001.
Hon. Tommy G. Thompson,
Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to express my views
regarding federal funding of biomedical research involving
human pluripotent embryonic stem cells. After carefully
considering the issues presented, I am persuaded that such
research is legally permissible, scientifically promising,
and ethically proper. Therefore, at this time, I support the
use of federal funds to conduct research involving human
pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos produced through
the in vitro fertilization process. My support is, of course,
conditioned upon such research being conducted in strict
accordance with the relevant statutes and the protections set
forth in the applicable regulations and guidelines, including
those issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
I am mindful that this is a matter over which reasonable,
fair-minded persons may ultimately disagree. Despite this
likely outcome, I believe it constructive for public dialogue
to take place over this issue. For that reason, I recommend
that you convene the National Institutes of Health Human
Pluripotent Stem Cell Review Group (HPSCRG) or a similar
expert advisory body to help bring resolution to this matter.
The HPSCRG, to be chaired by Dr. James Kushner of the
University of Utah, can become a key forum to provide
information and advice for policymakers.
At the outset, let me be clear about one of my key
perspectives as a legislator: I am pro-family and pro-life. I
abhor abortion and strongly oppose this practice except in
the limited cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of
the mother. While I respect those who hold a pro-choice view,
I have always opposed any governmental sanctioning of a
general abortion on demand policy. In my view, the adoption
of the Hyde Amendment wisely restricts taxpayer financed
abortions. Moreover, because of my deep reservations about
the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, I proposed--
albeit unsuccessfully--an amendment to the Constitution in
1981 that would have granted to the states and Congress the
power to restrict or even outright prohibit abortion.
In 1992, I led the Senate opposition to fetal tissue
research that relied upon cells from induced abortions. I
feared that such research would be used to justify abortion
or lead to additional abortions. It was my understanding that
tissue from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies
could provide a sufficient and suitable supply of cells.
Unfortunately, experts did not find these sources of cells as
adequate for their research needs. Subsequently, the 1993 NIH
reauthorization legislation changed the legal landscape on
this issue.
Because of my strong pro-life beliefs, I am a co-sponsor of
the Unborn Victims of Violence legislation that makes it a
separate criminal offense to cause death of or bodily injury
to unborn children. I also support the Child Custody
Protection Act that addresses the problem of minors crossing
state lines to obtain abortions in avoidance of home state
parental consent or notification requirements. I have also
helped lead the effort to outlaw partial birth abortion, a
procedure I find to be particularly repugnant. I hope that
the l07th Congress will succeed in adopting, and transmitting
for the President's signature, legislation that will end late
term abortions unless necessary to save the life of the
mother.
I am proud of my strong pro-life, anti-abortion record. I
commend the Bush Administration for its strong pro-life, pro-
family philosophy. In my view research, on stem cells derived
from embryos first created for, but ultimately not used in,
the process of in vitro fertilization, raises questions and
considerations fundamentally different from issues attendant
to abortion. As I evaluate all these factors, I conclude that
this research is consistent with bedrock pro-life, pro-family
values. I note that our pro-life, pro-family Republican
colleagues, Senators Strom Thurmond and Gordon Smith, as well
as former Senator Connie Mack, support federal funding of
embryonic stem cell research. It is my hope that once you
have analyzed the issues, you will agree with us that this
research should proceed.

The Legal Framework

After reviewing the relevant statutes and regulations, I
conclude that there is no mandatory legal barrier under
federal law to federal funding of research on human
pluripotent embryonic stem cells. On January 15, 1999, the
then-General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human
Services, Harriet Raab, issued a legal opinion regarding
federal funding for research involving human pluripotent stem
cells. This opinion summarized the applicable law as follows:
``The statutory prohibition on the use of funds
appropriated to HHS for human embryo research would not apply
to research utilizing human pluripotent stem cells because
such cells are not within the statutory definition. To the
extent human pluripotent stem cells are considered human
fetal tissue by law, they are subject to the statutory
prohibition on sale for valuable consideration, the
restrictions on fetal tissue transplantation research that is
conducted or funded by HHS, as well as to the federal
criminal prohibition on the directed donation of fetal
tissue. Research involving human pluripotent stem cells
excised from a non-living fetus may be conducted only in
accordance with any applicable state or local law. Finally,
the Presidential Directive banning federal funding of human
cloning would apply to pluripotent stem cells, only if they
were to be used for that purpose.''
While some take exception to this reading of the law, I
believe that it sets forth a permissible interpretation of
the current state of the law with respect to research on
human pluripotent stem cells. I would also note that while
subsequent to the issuance of the HHS Legal Opinion in
January, 1999 attempts have been and are being made to change
the law, Congress has not passed a bill that has altered the
legal status quo. For example, Senator Brownback and others
have attempted to change the law to prohibit flatly such
research on fetal and embryonic stem cells. On the other
hand, Senator Specter and others have supported legislation
that would expand the range of permissible federally funded
research activities to include derivation of pluripotent stem
cells from totipotent stem cells. The considerable
disagreement over what the law in this area should be stands
in contrast to the common understanding of how the law has
been interpreted by the Department.
It is worth noting that NIH has a carefully crafted network
of regulations and guidelines that govern stem cell research.
These guidelines, finalized in the Federal Register, on
August 25, 2000 (65 FR 51976) were the subject of over 50,000
public comments. Among the key provisions of these
requirements are:
NIH funds may only be used for research on human
pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos, if such cells
were derived from frozen embryos that were produced for the
purpose of procreation but subsequently were not intended to
be used for that purpose.
No financial or other inducements, including any promises
of future remuneration from downstream commercialization
activities, may be used to coerce the donation of the embryo.
A comprehensive informed consent must be obtained that
includes recognition that the donated embryo will be used to
derive human pluripotent stem cells for research that may
include transplantation research; that derived cells may be
stored and used for many years; that the research is not
intended to provide direct medical benefit solely to a donor
and that the donated embryo will not survive the derivation
process; and, there must be a distinct separation between the
fertility treatment and the decision to donate the embryos
for research.
The donation may not be conditioned on any restrictions or
directions regarding the individual who may receive the cells
derived from the human pluripotent stem cells.
All recipients of NIH funds to conduct stem cell research
must comply with guidelines and all laws and regulations
governing institutional review boards.
NIH funds may not be used to: clone a human being; derive
pluripotent stem cells from human embryos; conduct research
using pluripotent stem cells derived from a human embryo
created solely for research purposes; conduct research that
creates or uses pluripotent stem cells derived from somatic
cell nuclear transfer; or, combine human pluripotent stem
cells with an animal embryo.
If there is a need to further strengthen the applicable
guidelines and regulations, this should be done. But let us
recognize that there already exists a thorough and thoughtful
regulatory framework to build upon. It should also be noted
that these guidelines build upon an extensive body of earlier
work of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee, the
Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH, and a special Human
Embryo Research Panel convened by your predecessor. At this
juncture, it appears that NIH is developing its stem cell
research policies in an informed fashion within an area of
its expertise, and is operating within a statutory
environment such that, once finalized, the agency's actions
will likely survive legal challenge due to the deference the
courts grant these types of decisions.

The Scientific Opportunities

Scientific experts believe that stem cells have tremendous
potential in benefiting human health. Stem cells are thought
to be a unique biological resource because these cells
apparently have the potential to develop into most of the
specialized cells and

[[Page S7662]]

tissues of the body, including muscle cells, nerve cells, and
blood cells. As the American Association for the Advancement
of Science has characterized the promise of stem cell
research: ``Research on these cells could result in
treatments or cures for the millions of Americans suffering
from many of humanity's most devastating illnesses, including
Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and heart
disease.'' Potentially, stem cell research can help virtually
every American family. It has been estimated that over 28
million Americans are afflicted with conditions that may
benefit from embryonic stem cell research.
It is also worth noting in the pro-family context that stem
cell research is of particular interest to pediatricians.
Consider the views of Dr. Edward B. Clark, Chairman of the
Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of
Medicine:
``. . . I can assure you that the scientific promise of
stem cell research is extraordinary.
``In pediatrics, stem cell research offers therapy, and
indeed possibly a cure, for a wide variety of childhood
diseases, including neurologic disease, spinal cord injuries,
and heart disease . . .
``I can think of nothing that will provide as much
meaningful therapy for children and children's problems than
the promise offered by stem cell research.''
``We citizens of Utah are proud to be home of the Huntsman
Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. The medical
director of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Dr. Stephen
Prescott, advises me that in his expert opinion stem cells
research `is an incredibly promising area that has potential
application in many different fields of medicine. One of
these is in the treatment of cancer, particularly as a way to
control the side effects following standard treatments.' ''
I am also aware that some believe, including highly-
respected scientists and many of my friends and colleagues in
the Right to Life community, that adult stem cells actually
hold greater promise than embryonic stem cells and that
research on adult stem cells should be pursued to the
exclusion of fetal or embryonic stem cells. It is my
understanding that, at the present time, the view that adult
stem cell research is sufficient or even scientifically
preferable to embryonic stem cell research is not the
predominant view within the biomedical research community.
While I have great admiration for, confidence in, and
strongly support America's biomedical research enterprise,
and I believe that our policy should be made on the best
science available, I am hardly one who invariably follows the
lead of what some may term ``the science establishment.''
With Senator Harkin, I authored the legislation that created
the Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CCAM)
at NIH and believe there is great benefit in encouraging
challenges to scientific orthodoxy. Similarly, I authored the
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act that set
parameters on how the Food and Drug Administration may
regulate dietary supplements as well as establishing the
Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at NIH. To be sure, the
creation of CCAM and ODS had their fair share of critics at
NIH and among mainstream scientists. So be it.
In parallel to funding research on human pluripotent
embryonic stem cells, I believe it is essential to carry out
significant research on adult stem cells. I strongly urge the
Administration to continue to provide sufficient resources to
investigate fully the utility of adult stem cells as well
cells derived from adipose tissue.
Policymakers should also consider another advantage of
public funding of stem cell research as opposed to leaving
this work beyond the reach of important federal controls.
Federal funding will encourage adherence to all of the
safeguards outlined above by entities conducting such
research even when a particular research project is conducted
solely with private dollars.
I also think it important to recognize explicitly that the
knowledge gained through biomedical research can be harnessed
for critical pro-life, pro-family purposes. When one of our
loved ones is stricken by illness, the whole family shares in
the suffering. The quality of life for America's families can
improve as strides are made in biomedical research. This is
why we are making good on the bipartisan commitment to double
the funding of the NIH research program by 2003. I commend
the Administration for its leadership in allocating resources
for this worthy pro-life, pro-family purpose.

Ethical Appropriateness

While society must take into account the potential benefits
of a given technological advance, neither scientific promise
nor legal permissibility can ever be wholly sufficient to
justify proceeding down a new path. In our pluralistic
society, before the government commits taxpayer dollars or
otherwise sanctions the pursuit of a field of research, it is
imperative that we carefully examine the ethical dimensions
before moving, or not moving, forward.
I would hope there is general agreement that modern
techniques of in vitro fertilization are ethical and benefits
society in profound ways. I have been blessed to be the
father of six children and the grandfather of nineteen
grandchildren. Let me just say that whatever success I have
had as a legislator pales in comparison to the joy I have
experienced from my family in my roles of husband, father,
and grandfather. Through my church work, I have counseled
several young couples who were having difficulty in
conceiving children. I know that IVF clinics literally
perform miracles every day. It is my understanding that in
the United States over 100,000 children to date have been
born through the efforts of IVF clinics.
Intrinsic with the current practice of IVF-aidcd
pregnancies is the production of more embryos than will
actually be implanted in hopeful mothers-to-be. The question
arises as to whether these totipotent embryonic cells, now
routinely and legally discarded-- amid, I might add, no great
public clamor--should be permitted to be derived into
pluripotent cells with non-federal funds and then be made
available for research by federal or federally-supported
scientists?
Cancer survivor and former Senator, Connie Mack, recently
explained his perspective on the morality of stem cell
research in a Washington Post op-ed piece:
``It is the stem cells from surplus IVF embryos, donated
with the informed consent of couples, that could give
researchers the chance to move embryonic stem cell research
forward. I believe it would be wrong not to use them to
potentially save the lives of people. I know that several
members of Congress who consider themselves to be pro-life
have also come to this conclusion.''
Senator Mack's views reflect those of many across our
country and this perspective must be weighed before you
decide.
Among those opposing this position is Senator Brownback,
who has forcefully expressed his opinion:
``The central question in this debate is simple: Is the
embryo a person, or a piece of property? If you believe that
life begins at conception and that the human embryo is a
person fully deserving of dignity and the protection of our
laws, then you believe that we must protect this innocent
life from harm and destruction.''
While I generally agree with my friend from Kansas on pro-
life, pro-family issues, I disagree with him in this
instance. First off, I must comment on the irony that stem
cell research--which under Senator Brownback's construction
threatens to become a charged issue in the abortion debate--
is so closely linked to an activity, in vitro fertilization,
that is inherently and unambiguously pro-life and pro-family.
I recognize and respect that some hold the view that human
life begins when an egg is fertilized to produce an embryo,
even if this occurs in vitro and the resulting embryo is
frozen and never implanted in utero. To those with this
perspective, embryonic stem cell research is, or amounts to,
a form of abortion. Yet this view contrasts with statutes,
such as Utah's, which require the implantation at a
fertilized egg before an abortion can occur.
Query whether a frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a
clinic is really equivalent to an embryo or fetus developing
in a mother's womb? To me, a frozen embryo is more akin to a
frozen unfertilized egg or frozen sperm than to a fetus
naturally developing in the body of a mother. In the case of
in vitro fertilization, extraordinary human action is
required to initiate a successful pregnancy while in the case
of an elective abortion an intentional human act is required
to terminate pregnancy. These are polar opposites. The
purpose of in vitro fertilization is to facilitate life while
abortion denies life. Moreover, as Dr. Louis Guenin has
argued: ``If we spurn [embryonic stem cell research] not one
more baby is likely to be born.'' I find the practice of
attempting to bring a child into the world through in vitro
fertilization to be both ethical and laudable and distinguish
between elective abortion and the discarding of frozen
embryos no longer needed in the in vitro fertilization
process.
In evaluating this issue, it is significant to point out
that no member of the United States Supreme Court has ever
taken the position that fetuses, let alone embryos, are
constitutionally protected persons. To do so would be to
thrust the courts and other governmental institutions into
the midst of some of the most private of personal decisions.
For example, the use of contraceptive devices that impede
fertilized eggs from attaching onto the uterine wall could be
considered a criminal act. Similarly, the routine act of
discarding ``spare'' frozen embryos could be transformed into
an act of murder.
As much as I oppose. partial birth abortion, I simply can
not equate this offensive abortion practice with the act of
disposing of a frozen embryo in the case where the embryo
will never complete the journey toward birth. Nor, for
example, can I imagine Congress or the courts somehow
attempting to order every ``spare'' embryo through a full
term pregnancy.
Mr. Secretary, I greatly appreciate your consideration of
my views on this important subject. I only hope that when all
relevant factors are weighed both you and President Bush will
decide that the best course of action for America's families
is to lead the way to a possible new era in medicine and
health by ordering that this vital and appropriately
regulated research proceed.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch,
United States Senator.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, although at one time it appeared that as
many as 78 stem cell lines might qualify under the President's policy,
as many had feared, the number of lines that might be practically
accessed today is no more than around a dozen at best. Moreover, all of
these cell lines were

[[Page S7663]]

grown with so-called mouse feeder cells so could never pass muster with
the FDA for use to make products for humans. Thus for the President's
initial goals to be accomplished, new embryonic stem cell lines must be
made available.
It has been over a year since he House has taken its historic action
of passing H.R. 810 by a bipartisan 235-to-189 vote. I commend the
leadership of Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette for moving
the bill through the House.
I must pay special respects to Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom
Harkin for their dogged determination in conducting a series of some 15
oversight hearings on the issue of stem cell research since this
breakthrough science was first reported in 1998. In fact, it was the
work of the Specter-Harkin Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that
developed the factual basis and legal analysis that resulted in the
legislation that became H.R. 810.
At long last, today the Senate will finally vote on this important
legislation.
I hope that it will pass and if it does, I will strenuously urge
President to reconsider his position and sign this bill into law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am awaiting the arrival shortly of
Senator Lautenberg on our side, but in the meantime I thank Senator
Hatch for the eloquent statement he made, to thank him for his long-
time support of this endeavor to open more stem cell lines for
research. It shows clearly, as I said earlier today, this is not a
partisan issue. I see no real partisan cleavage lines anywhere. It was
passed with a bipartisan majority in the House. The leader in the House
was Congressman Mike Castle, a Republican from Delaware. The Democrat
was Congresswoman Diana DeGette from Colorado. Our leader here is
Senator Specter, leader on the bill, and I am his counterpart on the
Democrat side. We have had great support from both sides of the aisle
on this legislation. I don't cast it in any type of partisan terms.
There are those who obviously spoke yesterday very eloquently about
their moral objections to using embryos. But, again, I point out this
bill does not create any new embryos. All we are talking about is using
the leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization and only if (a) the
donors give their written, informed consent; (b) that no money changes
hands; and (c) that the embryo will never be implanted in a uterus and
will be discarded.
Fifty thousand healthy babies were born last year to couples who went
to fertility clinics. Obviously, there are some embryos left over after
that. They are frozen. After the parents have the children they want to
have, they call the clinic or the clinic calls them and asks, do you
want to continue to pay to keep these embryos frozen; and they say, no,
we have our family. The clinic will then discard them. That is all we
are talking about. Those embryos are going to be discarded, and with
the donor's written, informed consent. They can say, no, I don't want
them used for that, and then we wouldn't. You cannot induce anyone to
do that by saying we will pay you for it. This clearly has to be kept
in mind, that this is what we are talking about in this legislation.
Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey is here. I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I ask I
be notified when 4 minutes 30 seconds has passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is one of those debates that
makes the American people scratch their heads and ask, what are those
people in Washington thinking about? From the perspective of everyday
people, this should not even be a debate. Of course we should fully
fund research with embryonic stem cells because it has the potential to
save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. It is
common sense.
But our President is a captive of ideologs and extremists of his
political party. Nearly 5 years ago President Bush enacted a policy
that made no scientific contribution, only political fodder for another
election. He put a stop to the development of new stem cell lines for
research. It was a devastating blow to Americans suffering from
diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and
other injuries and diseases.
For many years, I have met with children stricken with juvenile
diabetes. We have established friendships, their parents and I, and the
children and I. These children ask their parents, brothers, sisters,
and me why the President won't allow research to move forward so their
disease can be cured. There is no decent answer I can give them.
When I ask them what the worst thing about living with diabetes is,
they respond plaintively, begging for help, so they can stop drawing
blood from their finger six times a day. They are pleading to live
their lives like other kids. One child said he is forbidden something
so simple--to sleep at other friends' houses--because of the fear that
he will go into insulin shock.
I promised these kids I would do everything I possibly could to get
the message to the President of the United States, to help us find the
cure for them. Today we have an opportunity, finally, to help these
children.
It has been over 1 year since the House passed this bill. Why the
delay? There is no comprehensible reason. All we know is that people
wanted to obstruct this discussion today. We can only wonder how many
people have had their hopes dashed and their spirits broken during that
wasted year.
Americans in large majorities support stem cell research. I don't
understand this ``fiddling while Rome burns'' policy. Seventy-two
percent of Americans register support for embryonic cell research, a 3-
to-1 margin over opposition. One of the most outspoken supporters of
stem cell research is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. She spent 10
years watching her husband's memory fade from life, probably not even
recognizing her. I have friends whose parents do not know who they are.
Virtually every major medical, scientific, and patient group supports
embryonic stem cell research. In my home State of New Jersey, support
for stem cell research is overwhelming. We were the second State after
California to authorize embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately,
President Bush has cut off Federal funding for those projects.
My colleague Senator Menendez and I recently visited the Coriell
Institute in Camden, NJ. They are not well known, but they were founded
in 1953 and hold the world's largest collection of human cells for
research. Coriell has everything in place to find cures and help
millions of people. But there is one problem: President Bush is
undermining their efforts with his irrational policy on stem cell
research.
Because of the scarcity of embryonic stem cell lines caused by his
Executive Order, the Coriell Institute in New Jersey had to go overseas
to the Technion Institute in Israel to get access to an embryonic stem
cell line so they could continue their research.
The President denies hope to millions of people based on his standard
of ``ethics and morality.'' But what is ethical about denying a cure to
children suffering from diabetes? What is moral about denying paralyzed
people the chance to walk again?
Any real, ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem cell
lines will come from embryos donated by fertility parents under strict
guidelines. There will not be embryos created for research.
What we are talking about in this bill are embryos that would
otherwise be disposed of--thrown away.
I believe compassion and common sense must prevail over rigid
ideology
If we pass this bill, I understand that the President intends to veto
it. That would be a terrible and tragic mistake.
President Bush has never vetoed a bill. In the nearly 6 years of his
Presidency--not one veto.

[[Page S7664]]

What would it saw to the American people if his first veto was of a
bill that could save millions of lives?
And I say to the American people: don't be fooled by the sleight of
hand we are seeing today. There are three bills being considered but
only one of them matters.
The other two bills are part of a shell game. They are there to give
President Bush something to sign.
But will those two bills do much to help the American with a shaky
hand from being cured of Parkinson's disease?
Will those two bills make real strides toward relieving a child with
diabetes from the constant shots of insulin? I don't think so.
Only one bill can do that--the House stem cell bill. Let's vote to
approve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will look in the
faces of their children and their grandchildren and say: We do not want
them to be sick. And if they get sick, we want to help them. I hope
this bill will pass overwhelmingly.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from
Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the
Senator from Iowa for his real leadership on this issue.
This Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act debate is one of the most
important debates the Senate will have in this year and in this decade.
I believe this is such a great opportunity to be able to save lives. I
believe it is like when we announced the endeavor to map the human
genome, like when we announced the national war against cancer. That is
how important this issue is.
I am a firm, unabashed supporter of stem cell research. It is a
cornucopia of opportunity for new breakthroughs for some of the
diseases that are the most devastating and costly conditions facing
thousands of Americans, including Alzheimer's disease, from which my
father died, diabetes, of which our family faces an inherent
propensity, spinal cord injuries, which we see through accidents like
Christopher Reeve had, and spina bifida, from which little children
suffer.
Stem cell research has the potential for saving lives, and we need to
be able to pursue it. I also would urge that this research be done in
the sunshine. One of the reasons we need a national framework is so it
will not be done in dark corners of the world without the United States
of America participating.
We need a national framework to establish bioethical standards based
on sound science and ethical principles. I fear that without national
standards and national legislation, this could be conducted outside of
the public eye, without national and international scrutiny, where dark
and ghoulish things could occur.
One of the reasons I came to the Senate was to help save lives. In my
home State, we are the home to the National Institutes of Health, the
Federal Drug Administration, the University of Maryland, and also Johns
Hopkins University. I, every day, know that in my own home State they
are working on new ideas for new cures. Whether it is to ensure that
women have accurate mammograms to diagnose breast cancer, streamlining
the drug approval process so that lifesaving drugs can reach patients
more quickly, or fighting to double the budget at NIH, we have
consistently fought to improve the lives and health of the American
people.
This is why I am such an advocate of stem cell research. It holds the
potential to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases, such as Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, all those autoimmune
diseases, such as MS and spinal cord injuries.
Just imagine if scientists could find a cure or the cognitive
stretchout ability for Alzheimer's. Even giving individuals with a
disease a longer mental capacity would be a big breakthrough. Eighty
percent of Medicaid costs go to paying for long-term care for seniors.
Eighty percent is primarily spent on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Think
of just the financial savings we could have, let alone dealing with the
tragedy in lives.
I, along with Senator Bond, am the lead sponsor of the Ronald Reagan
breakthrough legislation to sponsor breakthroughs. We have spoken
personally with Nancy Reagan, and she has endorsed this legislation,
just as Senator Lautenberg has talked about. We need this opportunity
to pursue the opportunity.
If we do not have national legislation, we are going to do it one
State at a time. California has done it. My own home State of Maryland
has done it. But do you know what. There is $30 million here and $30
million there, but we do not have national standards, which means, can
we replicate the research? Can we have international cooperation?
For too long, this Federal health research has been operating with
one hand tied behind its back. Scientists have been prohibited from
doing embryonic stem cell research.
Five years ago, President Bush restricted Federal funding for
embryonic stem cells. He said: Oh, we have these little lines, these
little stem cell lines.
Those little stem cell lines did not turn out very well. The result
is, federally funded research was almost halted. Stem cell research is
conducted by private entities, and there are no national Federal
bioethical standards.
I want bioethical standards. I want to ban human cloning. I want to
make sure the ghoulish is not done in laboratories.
I support the other legislation. We should not turn this into
financial opportunity. We should sign it into pure opportunity.
What I like about this legislation is that it removes the
restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, but it does provide
for an ethical and medical framework and allows for sound science and
sound ethics to be able to proceed. This ensures transparency and
public accountability. But most of all, it ensures opportunity.
When my father was in that nursing home and he could no longer
recognize me or the woman to whom he had been married for 50 years, it
did not matter that I was a Senator. There was no cure for Alzheimer's.
It did not matter that I could get five Nobel Prize winners on the
phone because they did not have the answer.
My father, when he passed away, was a modest man. He would not have
wanted big, lavish testimonials. What he would have liked to have had
was the fact that I cared enough to look out that no family would go
through what we went through. And whether you were the First Lady of
the United States, like Nancy Reagan, and the first caregiver, or my
mother, who was by my father's bed when he passed away, we watched what
that disease did. And now I will not stand patiently by and watch the
opportunity to find a cure pass by.
So let's remember President Reagan. Let's remember the little guys
like Mr. Willy, who ran a grocery store in Highlandtown, and who looked
out for his neighbors and for his girls, as he called his daughters.
Let's look out for the American people and pass stem cell research.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the
Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I welcome this vote on such an important
piece of legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As we
have heard eloquently from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
stem cell research holds the promise of new cures and treatments for
countless diseases and millions of Americans with chronic, incurable
conditions.
The wide range of applications for stem cells may lead to
unparalleled achievements on behalf of research concerning Alzheimer's
disease, as my friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, so passionately
described with respect to her own family and her own experience; spinal
cord injuries, like my dear friend Christopher Reeve; diabetes, and
other conditions.
For example, in my State of New York, research at Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Cancer Center has shown real

[[Page S7665]]

promise for the use of stem cell research in bone, cartilage, and
muscle replacement therapies. At Columbia University researchers have
shown that stem cells can develop into neurons, special nervous system
cells that would allow us to actually treat vision loss. Other
scientists at Columbia University and at the University of Rochester
Medical Center are working to cultivate stem cells into spinal cells
that control motor function as possible treatments for ALS, otherwise
known as Lou Gehrig's disease.
And researchers from Rockefeller University, also in New York City,
have explored ways in which stem cells can be used to develop dopamine-
producing cells which could help Americans living with Parkinson's
disease who experience a decline in these types of important cells.
A broad consensus in New York and across our country has brought us
to this debate and vote. There has been an upsurge of demand. It has
crossed every line we can imagine, certainly partisan lines, ethnic,
racial, geographic lines. People in every corner of our Nation are
demanding that we in Washington open the doors to this promising
science.
It is long overdue, but finally we are at this point. My friends,
Christopher and Dana Reeve, whom we have lost in the last several
years, were eloquent, passionate advocates for this research.
Christopher, from his wheelchair, performed his greatest role. He may
have been Superman in the movies, but he was a super human being after
his accident which paralyzed him, consigned him to a wheelchair to help
with his breathing and respiratory functions. But he never gave up.
He launched his greatest battle to try to bring our Nation to the
point where we would take advantage of the science that is there. He
worked and struggled on behalf of all who might benefit from stem cell
research and other scientific breakthroughs.
His brave, beautiful wife Dana, who passed away just this past March,
showed a devotion to her husband and her son that was just
inspirational. She, too, continued Christopher's work through the Reeve
Foundation. And I know that both of them are looking down upon this
debate and so pleased and relieved that this day has come.
As I travel around New York, I run into constituents who speak to me
about this issue. They are living with type I diabetes or their
children are. They are suffering from Parkinson's. They have a relative
who is struggling with Alzheimer's. They are paralyzed from an
accident, as Christopher was. And they believe that this holds promise
for their lives, for their futures, and if not for them in their
lifetimes, certainly for their children and their grandchildren.
Yet we know that the work of researchers in New York and across our
country has been stymied, has been held back by the ban on certain
kinds of scientific research. In 2001, when President Bush put a stop
to all Federal funding for this type of research, it was limited to
using already existing stem lines, which has proven to be a barrier to
scientific advancement. We only have 20 lines, not 70 as was
advertised, that scientists can use. And the utility of these lines has
been outstripped by the scientific advances made in the past 5 years.
But the ban still stands, and we have to pass this legislation. The
House already did. We are now joining with the House. We need to have
additional stem cell lines in order to pursue the promising avenues for
research. I am worried the President has signaled he intends to veto
this legislation, the first veto he will use since he has been
President.
This research is not standing still around the world. We are looking
at other countries putting billions of dollars into supporting stem
cell science. They are creating establishments of all kinds, centers of
research, special clinical centers because they know they can attract
scientists from the United States who will come to pursue this
research. We are losing ground instead of doing what Americans do best,
leading the world in innovation, ingenuity, new ideas.
We can send this legislation to the President's desk, as I anticipate
us doing after our vote this afternoon. And then the President has a
decision to make: Will he support the scientific community at this
moment of unequaled optimism and discovery or will he set us back?
I am going to support the other two bills that are going to be before
us as well because I think we have to clearly put an ethical fence
around this research, send a very clear message about what is permitted
and what is not.
Right now we have no Federal laws prohibiting the worst of some of
this research. That is one of the results of the fact that we have an
Executive order, but we don't have any legal prohibitions on some of
the worst things people might decide to do. I think it is important
that we have a strong ethical stand, a strong legal stand, strong
prohibitions and penalties for people who don't pursue research in the
way that we set forth.
But we cannot make the progress that we need to make for the sake of
new treatments, new discoveries, and new hope for countless millions of
people who are alive today and are suffering, for those born with
diseases and conditions that could be ameliorated or even cured.
This is a delicate balancing act. I recognize that and acknowledge
it. I respect my friends on the other side of the aisle who come to the
floor with grave doubts and concerns. But I think we have struck the
right balance with the legislation we will vote on this afternoon. I
think we will make a serious mistake if the President vetoes this
measure and sets this research back.
Mr. President, I hope we will pass it with a large margin, and I hope
that the President will allow it to become law so we can, once again,
stand for those who need this help to face the suffering that they
encounter while living day-to-day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the majority yields 10 minutes to the
Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from Kansas will follow him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 810,
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. First of all, I join with
everyone in the Senate--in fact, everybody around the country--in
saying that, of course, we want to further research and opportunity for
the cure and the treatment of very serious illnesses. Of course, we
want to do everything possible, within a strong ethical framework, to
push for that scientific research and that progress. But at least I
want to do that in a clear, certain, ethical framework. That is why I
must oppose the details of the provisions of H.R. 810.
Mr. President, I oppose it on two significant grounds. First of all,
because one of my solemn duties in the Senate, I believe, is to protect
and defend all human life--every case of human life, the beauty, the
sanctity, and the importance of the individual which God has created.
Secondly, I do this in particular focusing on the fact that we are
talking about the use of taxpayer dollars. We are not merely talking
about what is allowed and disallowed. We are talking about the use of
taxpayer dollars for specific purposes, when some of these types of
research are so utterly controversial in terms of the impact on
individual human lives.
Mr. President, a human embryo is a human life. I believe that to the
core of my being. It is at the initial stages of life and development,
of course; but an embryo is a human life. Each and every one of us
began as an embryo. Therefore, I firmly believe neither Congress nor
independent researchers, nor any human being, for that matter, should
be allowed to, in effect, play God by determining that one life is
inherently more valuable than another, determining that one life should
essentially be sacrificed for some other purpose, to advance the
welfare of other separate human lives.
Of course, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this
research only kills embryos that would be discarded anyway. But there
are many cases that prove otherwise, where embryos have been adopted
while still embryos or donated to infertile couples by their parents.
We know that as many as 99 families have adopted and given birth to
children from those very same frozen embryos. These kids are often
referred to

[[Page S7666]]

as ``snowflake babies.'' They are beautiful, they are miracles. They
remind us that, of course, we are talking about human life. How can we
justify killing these tiny humans by saying that these embryos would be
discarded anyway, when there is proof that, in some cases, they are not
discarded, they are adopted. They grow up to be full, mature, healthy
children, human beings.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this research
is essential to curing many diseases and federally funding it is our
only hope for curing diseases. I point out that there are many other
alternatives. In fact, those alternatives are more promising, in many
ways, than the type of research we are debating today. The facts show
that adult stem cells have been used to perform at least 69 successful
treatments for human patients. So we have 69 treatments in human
patients using adult stem cells which do not require the taking of
human life. These were clinical applications, successful applications.

What is the experience in terms of embryonic stem cells? Zero
successful treatments in human patients, zero direct clinical
applications.
There have been 25 years of this research, and there are still no
successful direct human clinical trials, and there have been many stops
and starts and complications with regard to other research.
The following are some disorders and diseases with treatments from
adult stem cell research that are worth noting: brain cancer,
testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, acute heart damage,
multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, spinal cord injury, stroke
damage, Parkinson's disease, chronic liver failure, sickle cell anemia,
end-stage bladder disease. Again, these were not just promising but
successful in many cases--human clinical trials that directly focus on
these very serious diseases.
So if one weighs all of these factors in the balance, I truly believe
that the thing to do is to respect all human life, to respect the very
heartfelt feelings of millions upon millions, tens of millions of
Americans who have fundamental problems with this sort of research.
Again, it is worth underscoring that we are not debating whether this
research can happen. We are debating if we are going to use taxpayer
dollars to fund it, if we are going to forcibly take money from those
Americans who, like me, have fundamental moral reservations with the
research and spend it on that very research.
I am happy to say that there is other legislation that we are
considering today. I strongly support those two other bills. First of
all, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, which prohibits the
creation and gestation of human beings for the purpose of harvesting
spare organs, body parts, and tissue. Many people think fetus farming
sounds akin to something out of a science fiction movie, and it does.
But it is already being explored in animals. This is something that is
advancing scientifically. Congress must prevent science from subjecting
human beings to organ, body part, and tissue harvesting before it is
too late.
The second bill which I proudly support today is the Alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754. It requires
that the NIH support research into alternative methods, other than
destroying human embryos, of creating pluripotent stem cells. These
pluripotent stem cells are valuable for treating diseases because they
are capable of forming most or all of the tissues of the adult body.
So, again, this would forge a new path to make sure we explore other
avenues to create these stem cells that do not involve the destruction
of precious embryos, human beings, human life. I believe this
alternative path is far more productive. I believe it is far more in
keeping with upholding the values of our society, the very strongly
held belief of tens of millions of Americans who, like myself, have
fundamental moral reservations with the destruction of individual human
life for these other purposes.
So I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join me and others in
supporting those two bills about ethical alternatives but in opposing
this underlying bill, H.R. 810, because it would involve the
destruction of individual, precious embryos, human life.
Mr. President, I don't come to this conclusion quickly or easily or
rashly. Similar to virtually every American family, mine has been
touched by very serious diseases to which this research pertains. My
dad had Parkinson's disease. He suffered with it for about 8 years. It
was very debilitating and, of course, eventually, similar to most folks
with Parkinson's disease, he passed from that and complications of it.
With that personal history, of course, I want to advance research in
every ethical way possible. But we must do it, again, in a strong,
moral framework. We must do it within clear, reasonable bounds,
particularly when we are talking about taxpayer funding of research.
I believe that defeating H.R. 810--but also passing the two bills
that set up alternative paths toward promising research--is the correct
way to proceed. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in adopting that
path.
With that, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I
have 2 minutes left. I want to start with a picture of Dennis Turner
because this is a real-life case of Parkinson's disease. The prior
speaker, Senator Vitter, talked about his dad dying of Parkinson's
disease; it is a terrible disease. It is incredibly debilitating. I met
with a friend of mine last week who has something similar. It is not
Parkinson's, but it is also debilitating.
Dennis Turner testified at a hearing we had in the Senate Commerce
Committee. He had been cured of his symptoms for 5 years. We had
difficulty getting him in because he was out doing fun things such as
safaris. After a period of 5 years, the symptoms started to return. He
had received an adult stem cell therapy, not embryonic stem cell
therapy. His symptoms went away for 5 years, and then they started
coming back. He needed to have another treatment; he could not get it.
International doctors--to try to get their help and support, we need to
fund that type of work, which is working, for people like Dennis
Turner.
My colleagues say we need to do this with embryonic stem cell
research, that that is going to cure Dennis, Dennis Turner will be
cured that way. I want to remind some of my colleagues that they said
this about fetal tissue research about 10 years ago in this debate. In
1993, this was a typical statement debate at that time:

There is substantial evidence that fetal tissue research--

Taking a human embryo, fetal tissue, and let's work and mold and work
with this and put it inside a person, and let's deal with issues like
Parkinson's this way.

--will offer new hope of prolonged life, greater quality of
life, perhaps one day even a cure for many of these diseases,
and a tremendous economic and social cost-saving to the
country.
So we funded fetal tissue research for a long period of time, like we
are funding embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of half a billion
dollars over the last 5 years in human and animal models.
We funded fetal tissue research. Now, this is tissue and cells that
are further developed than embryonic cells. They are further
differentiated and they are more stabilized, so they go off in fewer
tangents. So if they are put in some particular area of the body, like
they come from the brain, from the fetal tissue, and you put them back
in the brain, they are more stable. We did this research. We funded
this. We even tried it in humans, to disastrous results--disastrous
results.
This is Parkinson's research set back by failure of fetal cell
implants. Disastrous side effects are the quotes from the people who
did the testing. Absolutely devastating. It was tragic, catastrophic.
It is a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off. My
goodness, this is strong wording that is taking place, to be
catastrophic for fetal cell implants. Catastrophic? What happened?
These cells, the fetal cells, formed tumors, and in some cases these
tumors, they were implanted in the brain, the fetal cells implanted in
the brain, and these tumors ended up being fingernail or hair that was
in the brain, and we can't selectively turn it off.
Think about this just for a minute, if we could. Everybody is saying
we want to cure people. I want to cure people. If we have a route that
is working in 72 different disease areas with the adult

[[Page S7667]]

cord blood--and here is real research we funded. We tried it in humans
even, with fetal cells. These are further developed cells than
embryonic. They formed tumors, to disastrous results in Parkinson's
patients.
Yesterday, I entered into the Record a series of six one-page--this
is the front-page summary of peer-reviewed articles on the formation of
tumors using embryonic stem cells, and these were all articles saying:
OK, we use embryonic stem cells; they formed tumors.
Now, I am not a scientist, but it seems that if you got it in fetal
tissue, which was further developed cells, and you found out that these
are wild and they grow too fast and they form in other areas, and you
back it up to embryonic stem cells and they are even younger, more
malleable, and less formed, and we now have research saying they are
forming tumors, you would look at that and say: Well, I don't think
this is working particularly well.
Now, it is interesting science. We may learn something of how the
cell works in this process. I don't deny that at all. But if I am
looking for a cure for Dennis, and I have--I want a cure for Dennis. I
want something that works for him, and he has had a treatment that has
worked for 5 years in him, in the adult field, and I have research that
says, in the embryonic field, it is going to form tumors, and I have
research earlier in fetal tissue that says it did form tumors in
humans, how am I going to cure Dennis in this case by putting more into
embryonic stem cell lines, taking precious dollars from adult stem cell
work and cord blood and putting it into a speculative field, the
embryonic field, which is producing no results and, in fact, the
results it is producing are producing tumors? That doesn't seem to make
much sense to me as far as how we would invest these sorts of dollars.
People are talking about spinal cord injuries, and I think we should
because we are going to deal with this area. I hope that in the next 10
years we are going to see for people, once they get a spinal cord
injury, there is an immediate therapy they have and it starts to knit
that spinal cord back together, so they are not waiting years and
letting it further atrophy but immediately there is a therapy.
The therapy you see right here in Jacki Rabon--I have had her in to
speak at a press conference. This was a spinal cord injury accident--
paraplegic from the hips down. Now she has feeling in her spinal cord.
She had to go overseas to get this treatment. It should have been done
in America. It wasn't. Adult stem cells from the base of the nose--
olfactory--taken, harvested, and put in. She is getting feeling. My
guess is she is going to need several treatments.
Now, one of the greatest dismays we have is that a number of people
are citing a rat model that has been shown on television of embryonic
stem cells helping a rat to walk again. And that is fine. I am glad
people are showing it. But a lot more people know about this rat model
than know about Jacki Rabon. It seems as if there has been a media
blackout on the adult stem cell successes and treatments and cord
blood, and this rat has gotten all the publicity, even though we know
that if you do this in humans, you are going to form tumors. Why? Why
wouldn't we embrace what is working and has no ethical problem?
I wish to close this section with a letter from a child. This is the
first snowflake baby. This was a frozen embryo that was adopted--
Hannah. She wrote this last year. It is her letter. She is a pioneer.
She says: ``We're kids. I love you.'' X's and O's--hugs and kisses. I
love these letters. When my youngest daughter Jenna does them, they are
absolutely precious. Then she draws three faces. This is her face as an
embryo. She is happy. She got adopted. She is no longer frozen. Here is
a sad face as an embryo that is still frozen, and her explanation of
this letter is he is sitting there frozen, hoping somebody adopts him.
Here is a third face with a straight line, and her explanation is this
is a young embryo saying: What, you are going to kill me?

This is a child's explanation of a frozen embryo. A frozen embryo
that is life, that is human life. If you destroy Hannah at this stage,
you don't get any sweet letters from Hannah to her parents. And we have
a lot of frozen embryos.
We are saying: Well, let's make some utility out of them. Isn't that
against human dignity, to say, We will just research on this, when this
could be this child? This is this child? We don't need to do it. Even
the research we are funding in this area isn't working.
I ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to a lot of debate today,
and I have heard a lot of statements. Let me just go through a few.
Cures are not around the corner; that is right. Embryonic stem cell
groups are now starting to realize they have years upon years upon
years to offer any hope of cure of any disease using embryonic stem
cells.
Yesterday in the debate, I challenged those on the other side of this
issue to deny the fact that the only way we will ever have a treatment
will be that you will have to clone yourself to be able to get a
treatment. Nobody has refuted that, and the reason they can't refute
that is because that is the only way embryonic stem cells will ever be
successfully used to treat a human condition. You will have to clone
yourself. That raises all sorts of other ethical conditions.
The fact that cures are not around the corner with embryonic stem
cells belies the fact that cures are here with adult stem cells, with
cord blood stem cells, and it belies the fact that we are not
recognizing the latest advance just available in the last 6 months,
confirmed in Germany, of what is called germ cell pluripotent stem
cells. They can make any type of cell, and it makes sense. What has
been constant through the history of man that has survived? The ability
to propagate and to repeat the species. And the unique thing about germ
cell pluripotent stem cells is they come from both the testes and the
ovaries of us, and we can capture from ourselves pluripotent stem cells
that do all the things and have all the potential that an embryonic
stem cell might have.
The real question before us is, If there was a way for us to
establish this research and avoid any ethical questions, wouldn't we
all want to go there? And what I am putting forward today is that way
is here today. That way is here. The scientific community, in terms of
their money-raising and fundraising and grant-seeking, hasn't caught up
with it. But mark my words: The real research in the pluripotent stem
cells, those that can do anything and regenerate themselves and also
have the advantage of not creating teratomas or tumors, are going to be
the germ cell pluripotent stem cells. It is important for us to look at
it.
Another quote: It won't involve cloned embryos. The only way a stem
cell therapy from an embryonic stem cell can work for you is in one of
two ways: you either clone yourself, and you will still have some
problems with rejection, or you will get from multiple, multiple lines
a close match.
I wanted to ask the leader yesterday--his biggest problem as a heart-
lung transplant surgeon is the availability of organs, No. 1, and
rejection, No. 2. The wonderful thing about adult stem cells is there
is no rejection because you are giving yourself your own cells. The
same thing will be true of germ cell pluripotent stem cells. There will
be no rejection because you are giving identical DNA to yourself. All
the other treatments with embryonic stem cells will have rejection as a
component of their treatment. So is it a wonder that we want to
research the miracles of life and look at this? No. It is great
research that should be going forward.
But it is not true that there is not embryonic stem cell research
going on in this country outside of the Government and around the
world. The question is, Are we going to use taxpayer money to do
additional research?

The other question that I raised is, Where is the money up to now
going? The people who are investing outside of Government grants, where
is the money going in terms of research? It is not going into embryonic
stem cell research. It is going into every other type of research where
they can actually see treatments.

[[Page S7668]]

Senator Hatch talked about heart disease. We now know that if you
have had an infarct and you get a bypass and you are injected with your
own stem cells, a good portion of your scar goes away and the
generation of new blood vessels around the heart is accelerated and
accentuated to the degree of about 70 percent more than your body would
naturally do, if you are injected with your own stem cells at the time
you get your bypass. We are curing heart failure with adult stem cells
today. We are curing new vessels in the heart.
There is recent research in the last 6 months where we are treating
lung disease--pulmonary fibrosis. Charlie Norwood, a Congressman from
Georgia, has had pulmonary fibrosis and has had a lung transplant. In 5
years, somebody with pulmonary fibrosis will be cured with their own
stem cells--not with embryonic stem cells, with their own stem cells--
and they won't have a problem with rejection. Yet Charlie has to take
drugs to keep from rejecting the lung transplant that he has.
Over time, we will recognize the value of what is really happening
today in terms of treatments. We don't want the false promise. There is
no question some great things will come out of embryonic stem cells. I
don't deny that. But if we could do it a different way, if we could do
it in a way where we didn't approach the ethical question, almost
everybody would agree, let's do that. What I am saying is that is
coming today.
Other quotes: Researchers have been prohibited from doing research on
embryos. That is not true. That is not true. There is research ongoing
today, with $41 million of your money last year on embryos. We haven't
prohibited the research. We have said it is going to be limited. This
bill, H.R. 810, says: There is no limit. Whether you agree with it or
not, your money is going to be used to go in this direction.
I have not approached the ethical issues on pro-life--I am pro-life,
but I am not claiming that as a defense on this issue. I am claiming
that the smart science will avoid it and look at where the benefits
are. There is no question.
I wish to quote from Lord Winston, the most prominent fetal embryonic
stem cell researcher in England: ``I view the current wave of optimism
about embryonic stem cells with growing suspicion.''
He says we have overpromised. He is right. It is going to be decades
before a response comes from embryonic stem cells. There is not one
viable treatment with embryonic stem cells in an animal model today,
let alone a human model. There are hundreds in animal models and there
are 72 in humans. To me, this is an easy question which doesn't have
anything to do with ethics. Put the money where the results are. The
results are here. I will promise you, germ cell pluripotent stem cells
will be the end-all for our ethical question. It is just a shame that
the politics isn't up with the science.
With that, Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority still
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the minority is in control of the next 30
minutes.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.
I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill that will expand the number of
stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research
ensuring that scientists at NIH and laboratories around the country
have access to new, uncontaminated stem cell lines. America's best
scientific minds have told us that harnessing the power of these cells
could one day lead to a cure for a number of diseases that afflict
families all across our country.
Nearly every family in America has experienced the tragedy of
watching a loved one suffer through a deadly or debilitating illness.
Diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's take a terrible toll on
families' lives and livelihoods. While we have made great strides in
biomedical research in recent years, we still do not have all the keys
to unlock the secrets of disease.
Today the Senate has the opportunity to reach across partisan lines
and touch the millions of individuals and families who suffer the
ravages of diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. We are not
researchers, but today we can give our best researchers the material
they need to understand these diseases. We are not doctors, but today
we can give our best doctors the weapons to fight back for their dying
patients. And we are not patients--at least not yet--but today we can
give patients hope for not just relief but a cure.
The University of Wisconsin at Madison was the first to isolate the
human embryonic stem cells that have the ability to develop into
virtually any cell type in the human body. They have stated
unequivocally that they need H.R. 810 in order to continue their
groundbreaking work. Without H.R. 810, they fear America will fall
behind the rest of the world in medical and biotechnical research.
We all understand that this research is not without controversy. I
respect the concerns that some have about the use of embryonic stem
cells. We must closely monitor this research to ensure that it is done
ethically, and our passage today of S. 3504 and S. 2754 demonstrates
the unanimous bipartisan commitment to do just that.
We must step carefully, but we also must step forward, and that is
what H.R. 810 is all about, opening new cell lines so we can move
forward toward new understanding, new hope, and new cures.
Last year, the House took that step forward decisively and in a
bipartisan manner, and so this year it is our turn. It would be
unconscionable for our Government to turn its back to the discoveries
that expanding stem cell research promises. Now more than ever it is
important to grasp this opportunity in an ethical manner by making sure
that potentially lifesaving research does not slow or stall.
We may not be in the laboratories where scientists are working around
the clock to develop new vaccines, treatments, and cures. We may not be
in the hospitals diagnosing and caring for the sick and the infirm. But
today the Senate will openly decide to stand with the scientists,
doctors, and patients. I urge my colleagues to look past the politics
of this debate and embrace a promise of progress.
With that I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I, too, Mr. President, come to the floor today with tremendous
respect for the sensitivity of this very critical issue that we in the
Senate and in the Congress have worked so diligently to ensure--that we
not only respect the sensitive nature but that we also look toward the
possibilities of what we can do for the constituents we represent.
I am very pleased that the Senate is debating stem cell research, and
particularly H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and I
thank the majority leader, Senator Frist, for scheduling a vote on this
very important bill today.
I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion bill, S. 471, because
it offers new hope for patients, for grandmothers and grandfathers,
children, daughters, mothers, fathers, and for their families who love
them so dearly.
Four years ago I watched my mother give her utmost of devotion to the
man she had loved--and still loves--and shared her life with for more
than 52 years. She had pledged to care for him and to honor his life
until he departed this world, even if he no longer remembered her name
or could recognize her face. My sweet father suffered from Alzheimer's
disease. My sisters and my brother had been by his side helplessly for
years watching as, first, he lost the

[[Page S7669]]

most precious of all things, his memory, his ability to see his family
and to remember the cherished moments that we had spent as family, and
then, unfortunately, also, the dignity of life, in his ability to care
for himself. My mother's commitment to my father during his long
illness remains a tremendous source of inspiration to me and to the
rest of our family.
Unfortunately, my family's experience with the ravages of Alzheimer's
is not unique. Millions of victims and their families are suffering
from debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease,
diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord
injuries. Fortunately, we have within our power the potential to
relieve their suffering and the possibility of cure.
I believe embryonic stem cell research conducted ethically and under
Government supervision holds the potential to offer lifesaving
treatments for many diseases that have frustrated the medical community
for ages. I also believe that whenever we have the power to heal the
sick we have the responsibility to do so. It is a commandment as old as
the Scriptures themselves.
In 2001, President Bush made the decision to use Federal dollars to
fund embryonic stem cell research. By allowing embryonic stem cell
research to move forward, the President signaled that he believed this
was both a morally acceptable and potentially lifesaving form of
research. Since the President's decision, we have discovered that in
order for embryonic stem cell research to reach its fullest potential
and for science to be accurate, it is essential to expand the number of
stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. H.R.
810 will allow Federal funding for research on an expanded number of
embryonic stem cell lines according to strict ethical requirements. The
bill would restrict Federal funding to only those stem cells from
embryos that would otherwise be discarded. In addition, the bill
requires that any individuals wanting to donate embryos do so with
written consent and not receive any financial inducement.
Also, the bill does nothing to change the current law banning the use
of Federal money to destroy human embryos. H.R. 810 gives us the
opportunity to expand lifesaving research with proper ethical
safeguards. Furthermore, it will be a step forward in helping us to
fulfill our moral obligation to heal the sick. And in the end, that
obligation is one that we must keep.
I thank the Chair. I yield my time back to Senator Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 20 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr.
Carper.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague for yielding. I am moved by the
comments of Senator Lincoln, and I suspect we could go throughout the
Senate Chamber from desk to desk, from Member to Member, and each of us
could tell a personal story from our own family as moving as I found
her description of the life of her father.
In my own family, my grandfather, a wonderful role model as a butcher
from West Virginia, had Parkinson's disease. He got up every morning
and drove through the mountain roads to the butcher shop to cut meat.
Every day I would watch him leave the House, his hands shaking, fingers
shaking, wondering if he was going to chop one off, and he never did in
all the years that he ran that butcher shop.
I think of the time, looking at Senator Harkin and myself and some
others in the Chamber who served in the House, we served with Mo Udall.
I remember riding back and forth on the subway between the House
buildings, the Rayburn Building, riding over to the Senate Chamber with
Mo Udall and watching his body slowly deteriorate. I think of Ford
King, my brother in law, now deceased, who was controlled by ALS over a
decade or so ago and watching his life slowly fade away as ALS took its
toll on him. I think of Alzheimer's and my own mom who passed away last
year, her mom who was a victim of Alzheimer's, and the millions of
others who die from that disease in our country.
I think of my own healthy sons, thank God, 16 and 18 years of age,
and I think of their friends having to prick their bodies or their
fingers several times a day, as much as 10 times a day, to take insulin
shots and know that is the way they are going to have to live for the
rest of their life.
Today is a day of tremendous opportunity. It is an opportunity to
push for the kind of medical research that will make a difference in
the lives of the people--not the people I just mentioned,
unfortunately, for the most part, but in the lives of their children
and their grandchildren. It is an opportunity to help find treatment
for diseases such as the ones I mentioned, Parkinson's disease and
juvenile diabetes and autoimmune disorders and heart disease and even,
if we are lucky, cancer.

We know that stem cells hold great promise. Already stem cells have
been used to help paralyzed rats regain the ability to move. Stem cells
have been converted into motor neurons which could help treat spinal
cord injuries or Lou Gehrig's disease--ALS.
Stem cells have also been coaxed into becoming brain cells to one day
help patients with Parkinson's disease, such as my own grandfather,
such as our old colleague, Mo Udall.
Today, though, is about more than just curing diseases. It is also
about keeping America's research centers competitive and relevant. Stem
cell research is likely to be an important area of science and medicine
for a long time to come. Instead of treading water, as we have done
under President Bush's stem cell policy, America should be leading the
way and making other countries play catchup, instead of us playing
catchup to them.
We have done this in the past. The United States has always been a
valuable contributor to the prevention and treatment of illness. We
have developed vaccines and antibiotics that have saved literally
millions of lives. We have made tremendous advances in the areas of
biotechnology and pharmaceutical research.
Now we have an opportunity to make a national commitment to expand
the frontiers of medical research once again.
If we focus our resources and attention today to find cures, we will
save lives, and we will save money in the long run.
H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which is before us
today, was introduced in the House of Representatives by my own
Congressman, Mike Castle. Here in the Senate, it has been shepherded by
two of our finest colleagues, Senator Specter and Tom Harkin of Iowa.
This bill would greatly expand our ability to take the next steps in
stem cell research by expanding the number of stem lines eligible for
Federal funding. It would also strengthen the ethical rules that govern
stem cell research.
Under the administration's current policy, the number of stem cell
lines available for federally funded research has continued to shrink.
There are now, I am told, only 22 lines available. What is more, many
of those current lines are contaminated or have reached the end of
their useful life.
The Castle bill would allow new lines to be derived from excess in
vitro fertilization embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. The
choice seems clear, at least to me and I know to a lot of people in my
State. Rather than allow these embryos to be discarded and thrown away,
with the consent of the couple who want to donate those embryos, with
their permission, we can use those embryos to further lifesaving
research.
These new stem cell lines will dramatically expand our ability to
study and find treatments for a wide range of illnesses. The benefits
will come not only from having more stem cell lines but from having
better lines. By expanding our research policy, we can create stem cell
lines that help us study specific diseases or create specific
treatments.
I urge all our colleagues to support H.R. 810. I know there are a
couple on the brink, who are undecided. They know who they are. I
encourage them to listen to the folks from their own

[[Page S7670]]

States and their own families whose lives could have been enhanced,
been lengthened--or in the future will be. Let's vote today to expand
stem cell research so we, our children, our grandchildren, and a whole
lot of people beyond them can benefit in the future.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the Senator
from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his long leadership on this and other
issues of importance to research and to people with disabilities.
For each of us, and for millions of Americans, this is a very
personal issue. It is impossible to separate it from our own
experiences. I have heard colleagues on the floor talking about
grandparents and other members of their family and the experiences they
have had. I will never forget, personally, almost 2 years ago standing
in an amphitheater in Denver, talking to many people--many of them in
wheelchairs, many who had lost loved ones to disease, many who knew a
cure would never come in time for them--who held out hope,
nevertheless, that stem cell research might save a loved one, might
save someone else in similar circumstances.
What they wanted, above all, was leadership. They wanted someone back
in Washington to fight for them. I promised them that I would do all
that I could, and I will never forget the look of yearning and hope in
their eyes, the pleading, if you will, that people would come to a
place of common sense. They placed enormous hope in all of us in the
Congress.
When I think about them and I think about people all over the country
who are so personally invested in this issue, I am deeply troubled to
see that today we find ourselves in a place of division, where we could
have been united. We are divided principally by the promise of
President Bush to veto a bipartisan bill that funds stem cell research.
In more than 5 years, President Bush has not vetoed a single bill--
not one. He signed 1,129 bills into law, without raising his pen to
veto one--not a bill that overspent, not a bill that moved in any other
direction that he disagreed with. Now he wants to use the first veto of
his Presidency to stomp on the hopes of millions of Americans suffering
from devastating illnesses.
A veto now would send a profound message to all Americans that, on
crucial issues, our differences are greater than our shared
convictions. It would also tell the world that America no longer wants
to be the country that leads the world in scientific knowledge and
discovery.
The bipartisan legislation before Congress shows that Congress has
found a way to take the politics out of the debate on stem cell
research. It is time that the White House does the same.
Our current policy is eroding America's national advantage on stem
cell research. We are tying our scientists' hands. We are holding back
our doctors. We need a policy that is not driven by a narrow view but,
rather a broader, consensus-driven approach to life and to science
itself. We need a Federal policy that builds on the advances being made
in our States, in our universities, in our private foundations, and
research centers. I believe that Senate passage of H.R. 810, with
vetoproof majorities, can put us on that path.
What a tragedy it would be if the first veto of the Bush Presidency
were used as a political wedge. This is something that Washington and
the rest of America overwhelmingly supports, regardless of political
party. It is a promise that offers hope to millions and could put
America on the path to leading the world in the discovery of cures.
This is not a wedge issue. This is about common sense and about
people's lives.
For all of us, the issue of stem cell research is personal, as I
mentioned. Yes, it does raise profound moral questions and nobody
should skip by those questions. I am not seeking to. But I do believe
that any legitimate examination of conscience and any legitimate
examination of the moral questions about life that are at stake can be
resolved in a way that respects life and that properly puts morality on
the side of the decision we are making.
When it comes to stem cell research--and all scientific research--we
ought to demand no less than that kind of effort. I acknowledge, yes,
there are those moral and ethical issues. But I believe the legislation
that was passed by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support
does provide strong ethical guidelines, strong ethical safeguards, and
it limits what this research would do in a way that does respect those
moral questions that are at issue.
First of all, federally funded research with respect to embryos would
only go to, or be limited to, those that are donated by in vitro
fertilization clinics, so you don't create some new business or create
some disrespectful effort that is outside the effort of reproduction
and of life itself.
Second, they would only be permissible when created specifically for
fertility treatment--which is going to occur anyway, which does occur
anyway--and which is in keeping with our efforts to respect life.

In addition, we live in a situation today where those embryos that
are created in the context of in vitro fertilization are either going
to be used for the purpose of creating life or those numbers that are
in excess are going to be discarded. That is the fact. That is what is
going to happen. So this legislation limits the use of those embryos
only that are donated by treatment-seeking individuals who provided
written and informed consent and who were not offered financial
inducements in order to do so.
As the Los Angeles Times editorialized 2 years ago:

The moral decision is between putting those few so-called
embryos in the trash or using them to possibly bring back
lost memory, keep people out of wheelchairs or free them from
the life of insulin injections. It is not a simple decision,
but it is also not a close call.

Growing numbers of conservatives, from John McCain, Bill Frist, and
Orrin Hatch to Nancy Reagan, have looked carefully at the scientific
facts and searched their own consciences and arrived at the same
conclusion: Opposing stem cell research, with the restrictions and the
appropriate ethical guidelines that have been put in place, is the
opposite of a pro-life policy. In the Senate and across the country,
Americans are approaching an ethical consensus that bans human cloning
while protecting stem cell research.
The stakes could not be higher. More than 100 million Americans
suffer from illnesses that one day might be cured with stem cell
therapy. Stem cells could replace damaged heart cells or cells
destroyed by cancer. They could offer a new lease on life to those with
a diagnosis that once came as a death sentence. Research has the
potential to slow the loss of a grandmother's memory, calm the hand of
an uncle with Parkinson's, save a child from a lifetime of daily
insulin shots or permanently lift a best friend or a colleague from a
wheelchair.
There is a young woman on the floor of the Senate who shares this
hope. Her name is Beth Kolbe. She is a summer intern in my office, and
she has followed the stem cell research debate very closely over the
years and especially this week. Beth has spent the last 2 days watching
the debate on the Senate floor, and her presence now is a silent,
powerful reminder of what is at stake.
At the age of 14, Beth was in a car accident and suffered a terrible
spinal cord injury. In that instant, she was paralyzed from the chest
down. After two neck surgeries, 2 weeks in intensive care, 2 months as
an inpatient in a rehab hospital and 2 years as an outpatient in
physical therapy, she is now living a very full life. She just told me
that she is in the Paralympics as a swimmer, and she lives her life and
loves her life as a junior at Harvard, studying biology and health
care, navigating the campus in her wheelchair. But she told me also
that it would be a lie to say that there are not challenges that she
would like to have overcome.
She wants more, not just for her but for others. Here is what she
said:

Since that day 6 years ago, my family and I have been
following stem cell research because it can help so many
people. I'm just one of the millions who can be helped. As a
person in the disability community, I've met so many people
whose main goal is just to get better, and stem cell research
is their one opportunity to find a cure. I hope to be

[[Page S7671]]

a face that the Senators can see, so that they can see what
they are voting for.

Beth is here because she wants to see the Senate vote for hope. Some
of the most pioneering treatments and miraculous cures could be at our
fingertips, right around the next corner, but because of politics they
could remain beyond reach. Every day we wait, more than 3,000 Americans
die from diseases that might someday be treatable because of the
discoveries made through stem cell research.
Americans have been presented with a false choice between the
sanctity of human life and the scientific knowledge that can save it.
The President's veto rests on the false assumption that we have to
choose between our dreams and our principles. I believe we can have
both and we can protect both.
We can support our scientists, help the sick, and ensure that our
legal and ethical boundaries continue to reflect our unshakable sense
of human dignity and the value of human life.
If we get votes from 72 out of 100 Senators--then we can send the
President a vetoproof message. Stop tying our scientists' hands, put
down your veto pen, stop being part of the problem and become a part of
the solution.
The American people believe in stem cell research for many of the
same reasons as a remarkable woman I met at a town hall meeting on stem
cell research.
She stood up in the back of the room. I will never forget it. Her
body was shaking. She was petrified, but her body was also shaking
because of the disease she had. She pleaded, with tears, for her
government to embrace stem cell research.
It was the moral clarity of her message that will stay with me
forever. Many Americans know a woman like her--maybe it's a grandparent
with Alzheimer's or a friend in a wheelchair. ``It's too late for me,''
she said, ``but we need to do this for those who still have hope.''
It's too late for my and Tom Harkin's friend, Christopher Reeve, who
passed away in 2004. But it's not too late for this President to change
his mind before tying the hands of doctors, scientists, and ethicists
with a preemptive veto. Chris would agree that it's not too late to
give millions of Americans what they want most of all, which is hope.
And in closing, I want to share one more story. It's from Lauren
Stanford of Plymouth, MA. She is 14 years old and has suffered from
juvenile diabetes for 9 years. She and her mother, Moira McCarthy, came
down to Washington, DC each year as citizen lobbyists in support of
stem cell research and finding a cure for diabetes.
I want to read you a few passages from an essay she wrote as follows:

For as long as I can remember, I've had to take a lot of
leaps if faith. I've 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've had to smile at the world and say I really don't mind
wearing the insulin pump that's now connected to my body 24
hours a day, seven days a week.
Yes, in my nine years of life with Type 1 diabetes, I've
learned to accept a lot of it is and the way it things as
``just the way it is and the way it has to be.''
But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's
decision on Stem Cell research in the summer of 2001--and his
vows now to veto the bill--I just could not accept it.
You see the one thing that has helped me accept all I've
had to accept these years is the presence of hope.
When I feel like I might just scream if I have to live
another day fighting this endless disease, I think about all
the researchers out there working to help me be cured. Now,
it might seem corny to think of a teenage girl dreaming about
researchers in labs, but that's what kids who have incurable
diseases do.
Stem cell research could mean I can go to college without a
machine attached to my belly keeping me alive. It could mean
I can have children just like anyone else; not with teams of
doctors working with me daily just to make it happen. . . .
It might mean my children won't even know what diabetes was.
President Bush talks about protecting the innocent. I
wonder, what about me? I am truly innocent in this situation.
I did nothing to bring my diabetes on. . . . 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--and to give me back a life where I don't have to accept
a constant, almost insane level of hourly medical
intervention as ``normal?'' How could my nation do this to
me?

Her hopes are here today, and I hope the Senate will do the right
thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. I am very grateful the Senate is
considering the issue of stem cell research today. This debate marks
the culmination of years of work by many of my colleagues and certainly
by myself, and a host of dedicated advocates.
I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this
issue, as well as Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Kennedy. The work the
six of us have done since the House considered embryonic stem cell
research last May has helped keep the issue alive in the Senate.
I also would also like to recognize Senator Frist, who helped
negotiate the package of bills before us. His willingness to take up
this important, yet divisive issue is very much appreciated.
While all three bills are important to the advancement of ethical
stem cell research, there is one that stands apart from the others.
That is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act Simply, this
bill would allow federal dollars to support research on stem cells
derived from human embryos.
The tension surrounding this issue, I believe, pits the benefits that
all can see and the potential that may be derived against the ethical
uncertainties or the religious convictions our colleagues have. I think
it is very important to respect both perspectives--and I certainly do.
But I believe their reservations are misplaced when a full
understanding is made of this very important area of research.
I think it is also important to point out as a show of respect for
the differences of opinion that everyone in the Senate supports the
bill's intent of furthering medical research--research that could
possibly lead to a cure for a number of chronic diseases and
debilitating health conditions.
The promise of embryonic stem cell research is very real. But I think
we must emphasis and admit it is but a promise. It has yet to be fully
realized because of the current restrictions which we have placed on
it. While I appreciate the President allowing research to move forward
on existing stem cell lines, over time these lines have become degraded
and we are in desperate need of new, uncontaminated lines.
Stem cell science has the potential to cure dreadful illnesses such
as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many
cancers. But we can't expect scientists to make progress in developing
treatments if we limit them to yesterday's science.
I believe the Federal Government has a vital but a moral role to play
in the development of stem cell science to ensure that the appropriate
ethical guidelines are followed. To leave this to the private sector,
with insufficient funding and no moral boundaries--we don't know where
we will windup. But I do know the Federal Government can guide it in
the right direction. I believe we will run into very serious problems
if we do not as a Federal Government show up to work on this issue.
The real issue that is troubling to so many of us in this Chamber is
questions of morality. I am pro life and throughout my political career
I have supported policies that respect the sanctity of all human
beings. I realize that many pro-life advocates oppose embryonic stem
cell research on the ground that it destroys a human life. But as I
have consulted with scientists and reflected upon my own conscience, I
have come to a different conclusion. I feel that embryonic stem cell
research is a pro-life policy. The key question that looms over this
debate is, When does life begin? For me it begins with mother, with the
implantation of an embryo. I believe the Scriptures provide ample
support showing that flesh and spirit become one with the mother. This
is one of womankind's supernal gifts. I find these verses in the Old
and the New Testaments--in Jeremiah, the Psalmist, Job, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, and in the letters of Paul. All of these things lead me to
feel comfortable with an ethical conclusion that life begins when flesh
and spirit are united and not before.
The embryos created as part of the in vitro fertilization process
were intended to provide infertile couples the

[[Page S7672]]

gift of life. Those embryos that go unused in fertility treatments
should still have the opportunity to give the gift of life either by
later implantation or to those living with debilitating diseases
through this dramatic medical research.
Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF embryo is a group
of cells growing in a petri dish. But if those cells are left there for
thousands of years, they have no possibility of developing into
anything. They remain a group of cells, the dust of the Earth, one of
the building blocks leading to life. It is the act of implantation
within the mother that gives them life. So instead of storing or
discarding unused embryos, we have the opportunity to allow them to be
used to derive stem cell lines to advance much needed medical research.
I believe it would be a tremendous loss to science and to all
humanity if we choose to hold back the key to unlocking the mysteries
that have long puzzled scientists and physicians. That is why it is so
important that my colleagues cast a vote in favor of H.R. 810, a very
pro-life vote.
Some of the bill's opponents may claim that you can equally support
stem cell research by voting for Senator Santorum's bill which
authorizes a number of research alternatives. I support Senator
Santorum's bill and plan to vote for it today, but it is by no means a
substitute for H.R. 810.
Alternative forms of stem cell research are in their very early
stages--just like embryonic stem cell research. Considering the
enormous medical benefits that may come from these emerging fields of
science, we cannot afford to promote some methods while restricting
others.
After years of reflecting on this issue, it has become increasingly
clear to me that being pro life requires protecting both the sanctity
and the quality of life. By allowing research on stem cell lines
derived from unused IVF embryos, we could forge a path that would one
day lead to cures of some of mankind's most dreadful medical maladies.
If only one life-improving application of stem cell science comes
from this vote--from my vote--then I believe I have done my job and
done it correctly, for on this issue I choose to err on the side of
hope, healing, and health.
I encourage all of my colleagues--even those who have some ethical
reservations or religious feelings on this issue--to do the same.
I heard on the radio last night a radio commentator describing
embryonic stem cell research as a conflict between science and
religion. I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict on
this issue. I believe one of the great gifts of the United States--the
best example of the United States to the world--is our pluralism,
religious pluralism. It is something we see an absence of, tragically,
in too many places of the world. You see blood running in the gutters
of the Middle East as we speak because of sectarian views which are
held to the point of murdering those with divergent views. Therefore, I
do not believe we serve the public well by taking the narrowest
theological position and trying to impose it on public policy. We
should be open enough to include other considerations of ethical ideas,
scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope.
For me, as I consider issues of life and death, I often turn to the
Good Book to try to discern wisdom that I do not have myself. What I
find in the earliest pages of the Torah--or the Old Testament--is this
statement. And I quote:

The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became
a living soul.

I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. But as I use my
agency to interpret this early description of the sanctity of mankind's
life, what I read is that we are made of dust. We ourselves are
dust. Unto dust we will return.

Then you come to the conjunction in this verse, the conjunction
``and.'' ``And breathed with his nostrils the breath of life.'' Then
you come to another conjunction, ``and man became a living soul.''
I believe that pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks
of life. Clearly they are. Even if you leave them in a petri dish for
an eternity, they will remain cells, the dust of the Earth. I believe
we are missing the understanding of the importance of the spirit, the
breath of life--the spirit of mankind--as the essential ingredient as
to when life begins.
I do not find that religion and science are in conflict in the Senate
today. I believe they are in harmony. I believe we should have a broad
enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism.
I urge President Bush not to veto H.R. 810. I believe it offers hope.
It offers promise. We can't overpromise. But it opens the key to the
future, to unlocking mysteries of science, to improve the quality of
life now. What could be more pro life than that?
Finally, my position is formed by my family history. My mother's name
was Jessica Udall. I watched my grandmother, Lela Lee Udall, die of
Parkinson's. I watched my uncle, Addison Udall, die of Parkinson's. I
watched my cousin, former Democratic Presidential candidate and Arizona
Congressman Morris K. Udall, die of Parkinson's. To watch people die of
such a malady is to instill in one's heart a desire to err on the side
of health, hope, and healing, to find the cure if a cure can be found.
We will all die but no one should have to die as they died.
I appeal to my friend President Bush in the memory of my Udall
ancestry, please, do not veto this bill. Do not deny them, people such
as the Udalls, the hope that can come from this research. I believe
this is an important debate. If this bill is vetoed, another election
will occur, another chapter of American democracy will be opened, and
ultimately the will of the American people will be reflected in our
policy. I believe the sooner, the better. So, to my pro-life friend,
President Bush, I urge in the name of life to let this bill become law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority still
controls 1 minute 45 seconds.
Mr. SMITH. I yield back the remainder of that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I will soon yield 7 minutes each to Senators Feingold and
Schumer, in that order.
First, I had a meeting I was supposed to go to at noon. I am sorry I
missed the meeting; people are waiting for me. I am not sorry that I
was here to hear the profound statement made by my friend Senator
Smith. It was one of the more touching, more profound, and more
insightful statements made during these 2 days of debate. I thank the
Senator for that.
I yield 7 minutes to Senator Feingold, and at the end of 7 minutes,
to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we debate this important legislation
regarding stem cell research, we are reminded of the millions of
patients and families across America who await treatment and cures for
our most deadly and tragic diseases. As of Friday afternoon, over
92,000 Americans were on waiting lists for organ transplant. Seventeen
of these people will die every day waiting for a vital organ.
Scientists believe that over half of Americans over 85 may suffer from
Alzheimer's disease, and at least half a million Americans currently
have Parkinson's disease. As we all know, these kinds of serious
diagnoses affect not only the patient, but that patient's family,
friends, and community. Illness is a burden we all share.
Fortunately, over the past century, science has turned many of our
worst medical fears into manageable chronic conditions, sometimes into
mere nuisances, and, in some instances, has erased them entirely.
Today we stand at the threshold of a new era of scientific
achievement. Stem cell research has vast potential for curing diseases
and saving lives. We must recognize the enormous potential of this
research for discovering new cures and therapies for disease such as
diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of
patients and their families across the Nation

[[Page S7673]]

cannot afford to wait any longer for enactment of this urgently needed
legislation.
I am a strong supporter and proud cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act. I have heard from many of my constituents in Wisconsin
in support of this legislation, and I am glad that the Senate is
addressing this today and responding to the requests of millions across
the country. As the Senator from Oregon eloquently said a few minutes
ago, for many people this is a deeply personal issue. When an
individual or loved one suffers from an incurable disease or medical
condition, it can be devastating. Everyone knows someone who has
suffered from diabetes, Alzheimer's Parkinson's, or another
debilitating disease, and we all know the physical and emotional pain
inflicted as a result. It is vitally important that we move this
legislation into law as expeditiously as possible and provide the
resources that scientists need to develop treatments and cures for
these diseases.
Researchers can unlock enormous potential in stem cell research if
Congress will only give them the key. At the University of Wisconsin in
1998, Dr. James Thomson became the first scientist to break into this
new frontier by isolating human embryonic stem cells. Since then,
researchers at the university have been able to coax embryonic stem
cells to develop into mature blood cells, which could provide
treatments and cures for people with a range of currently incurable
diseases. By further examining the potential of stem cells, scientists
at the University of Wisconsin have also successfully developed neural
cells, and they have even transferred these cells successfully into
mice, where the cells continued to thrive. The possibilities here are
clear: If technology such as this is able to expand, those with
neurological disorders and bleak prognoses may now have hope.
Despite its incredible promise, this research has unfortunately been
limited by the President since 2001. It is time for Congress to take
the necessary action to provide more stem cell lines to scientists so
that this research can go forward, without the Federal Government
standing in the way.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federally funded
research to be conducted on stem cell lines derived from excess embryos
created for in vitro fertilization, IVF, that are no longer needed and
are donated by couples for research. It is estimated that there are
more than 400,000 embryos that were created for fertility treatments
and are likely to be destroyed.
There is much work that needs to be done to further understand the
role that embryonic stem cells can play in providing answers to some of
the most troubling medical diseases and conditions that affect so many
Americans. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will help our
Nation's researchers get closer to unlocking what this research holds
by increasing the quantity and quality of stem cell lines available for
research.
Embryonic stem cell research is very important to me and to
Wisconsin. I am proud that the University of Wisconsin has played a
prominent role in stem cell research in this country. I know that my
constituents, and Americans across the country, are eagerly awaiting
the benefits that this research will provide.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this incredibly
important science which would expand our research horizons and bring
hope to so many people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Any one of us who has met people
who have petitioned us for this act has to be moved. I have looked into
the eyes of a mother who brought her beautiful 4-year-old daughter to
my office and said, Senator, please allow this research to go forward
because I am worried my daughter will be blind at the age of 20 without
it.
I have met families whose patriarch is suffering from ALS, Lou
Gehrig's disease. Again, they have pleaded with us, allow the research
to go forward so maybe that person or his children, who might get the
disease, will be able to be cured.
I have met with so many people my age whose parents are suffering
from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Again, they plead with us, allow stem
cell research to move forward so that maybe my parent or other parents
such as mine could be cured.
Americans struggle with diseases every day. The confounding and
amazing thing is, when scientists are on the edge of a breakthrough,
the President stops them. Scientists are on the cusp of making
incredible progress through stem cell research, a process that has the
potential to cure diseases as widespread as diabetes and heart disease,
but progress came to a grinding halt in 2001 when President Bush
limited federally funded stem cell research to only 19 sources. With
that Executive Order, President Bush shut the door on hope for millions
of American families. With that one action, the President not only
stopped current research in its tracks, he sent a message to future
scientists that they should not pursue this line of work. As they see a
limited funding stream for the work they do, fewer and fewer graduates
are specializing in this kind of work. We need the best minds there.
Substantively, there is no doubt this is the right thing to do. But I
put it in a broader context. There is a group of people in America of
deep faith. I respect that faith. I have been in enough inner-city
Black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses
of worship, and small Jewish synagogues, to understand that faith is a
gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they
want that faith to dictate what our Government does. That, in a word,
is un-American. It is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers put down
their plows and took up muskets to fight.
If you do not like stem cell research, don't use it for yourself or
your family, but don't tell millions of Americans who may not share
your faith that they cannot use it, as well.
We have seen this repeatedly with Schiavo, or the required teaching
of creationism in the schools, and now with stem cell research.
Unfortunately, the President and too many in this Chamber and too many
in the other Chamber have gone along and said that faith, wonderful and
noble as it is, should determine what our Government does.
This administration is not pursuing what most Americans want, but
following the dictates of the narrow few. Fortunately, we live in a
democracy. In a democracy these issues are debated.
I assure everyone in this Chamber, this issue will be debated and
debated strongly in November. Those who have stood in the way of
scientific progress and research, those who have told that wonderful
mother that her child cannot get the research she needs so she might
not be blind, will be held accountable. This will be one of the largest
issues that will face us in November, and it should. That is what
democracy is all about. All of those, including the President, who have
tried to hide their actions with false promises or bills that
accomplish nothing, will be held accountable.
Thank God we have a democracy. Thank God that a narrow band of
people, few in number, deep in conviction, cannot dictate what our
Government does. The fact that H.R. 810 has come to the Senate, the
fact that it will get a large majority of votes here as it did in the
House, and the fact that the President and some of his allies in this
Chamber and others have stood in the way of saving lives and of
scientific progress because they believe their faith should dictate
what the rest of us do--again, they will be held accountable for that.
I hope this measure passes. It would be a miracle, a miracle that
could save lives if it got a veto-proof majority in this Senate. I
doubt that will happen. But one can always hope, because the hopes, the
futures, of millions of Americans, born and unborn, rest on us pursuing
this research, doing what science tells us it needs to do to enhance
and preserve life, and not be blocked by a small group that wishes to
impose its views on everyone else.
I yield the floor.

____________________