[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7674-S7692]
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--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls the next 30 minutes.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I would like to begin this discussion, talking about
the three pieces of legislation that are before us, to talk about the
one I believe is the least controversial of all; and that is the issue
of fetus farming. It is a piece of legislation that I introduced,
thanks to the great help of my staff, Heather MacLean, who has worked
diligently on both pieces of legislation that are on the floor today
that I happen to be the sponsor of, the alternatives bill as well as
the fetus farming bill.
This legislation comes as a result of a recommendation from the
President's Council on Bioethics. That council, as you know, is not
made up of people who share the President's viewpoint on the issue of
stem cell research. In fact, it is a rather diverse group. But they
unanimously agreed with what they see out in the scientific world with
respect to research being done--where animals are being implanted with
embryos grown to a certain gestational age and then aborted for
purposes of research--that this should not be allowed in humans; that
we should not be developing embryos, implanting them in women, and then
having those women abort the fetus for the purposes of doing research.
So the bill I have introduced follows on with the unanimous
recommendation of the President's Council on Bioethics. Again, it is a
diverse group. And they said: We should prohibit the transfer of a
human embryo produced ex vivo--that is, outside of the mother's womb--
to a woman's uterus for any purpose other than to attempt to produce a
live-born child.
That is what the first piece of legislation does, what is referred to
as the fetus farming bill. I am hopeful we can have a broad consensus,
hopefully a unanimous vote, on the floor of the Senate in favor of this
legislation. The House will hopefully pass that later today and the
President will move forward and sign it.
The other issues I want to talk about get into a lot more detail with
respect to how we deal with these very difficult moral questions. I
have heard some say on the floor of the Senate there is no moral
question here. In fact, I heard the senior Senator from New York
calling those who oppose this H.R. 810--which calls for the destruction
of human embryos for purposes of deriving embryonic stem cells--he
called people who oppose H.R. 810 theocrats.
I do not agree with the Senator from New York on a lot of things. I
am sure the Senator from New York is motivated by his faith to do a lot
of things in his life. I am sure there are things on the floor of the
Senate for which the Senator from New York is motivated by his faith
tradition and uses it as a tool which has provided him a moral
framework for this world. But I would never call him a theocrat for
taking that element of his faith, which he happens to believe is
valuable, and applying it to a fact of circumstances before him in the
Senate. So I would hope we would tone down that type of rhetoric. No
one is advocating theocracy here.
But to suggest there are not moral questions at stake, I think is
blatantly dishonest. There was a doctor that was on a C-SPAN program
this morning, a doctor from Johns Hopkins, who was in favor of H.R.
810, who got up and said it very clearly, if you believe that killing a
5-day-old embryo is the taking of a human life, then I can understand,
she said, you having problems with H.R. 810. If you do not, then I can
understand why you do not have a problem with H.R. 810.
Now, to suggest that someone who happens to believe that a 5-day-old
embryo, that is genetically human, that if implanted in a woman would
have as good a chance as any other embryo in a woman to develop into
any one of us--that we believe that killing that embryo is the taking
of a human life--I am not too sure that goes into the bounds of
imposing a theocracy on America.
I think that is, yes, to some degree, a moral question but I would
argue, to some degree, very much a scientific question as to whether
that is actually human and is it alive. And the answer is, yes, it is
genetically human. It is like every one of us. And it is alive. If it
were dead, no one would be implanting it, no one would be killing it.
So it is human and it is alive.
You can say it is not human life. I can say this piece of paper is
not a piece of paper, but that does not make it what it is not. It is
human, and it is alive. Under H.R. 810, we say that the Federal
Government is going to fund research dependent on the destruction, the
killing of that embryo. I think it needs to be made clear there is
nothing in the legislation--in fact, there is no bill I am aware of
that has been introduced--that says any individual without Government
dollars cannot take, cannot buy or get donated a fertilized embryo, an
embryo, a 5-day-old embryo from an in vitro fertilization clinic and do
research on it. There is no law prohibiting it. There is no law
prohibiting the killing of those embryos.
All of us who have concerns about H.R. 810 have concerns because this
is Federal funding for research dependent on the destruction of human
life. I happen to believe that is morally objectionable. I also think
it is scientifically objectionable too.
Having said that, I have one final point I would make. I do not think
this position is necessarily well out of the mainstream. There was a
poll taken recently. In the poll, this question was asked: Stem cells
are the basic cells from which all person's tissues and organs develop.
Congress is considering the question of Federal funding for experiments
using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be
destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do
you support or oppose using Federal tax dollars for such experiments?
Thirty-eight percent support; almost 48 percent oppose.
I do not think those people would be called theocrats. They are not
theocrats. These are honest, hard-working Americans who see human life
and say: We should treat it with dignity and not do research.
Now, there are obviously a sizeable number on the other side. And,
obviously, the majority of the Senate is going to support H.R. 810. I
respect people who differ with me. I am not going to call them names. I
am not going to label them something that sounds un-American. What I
will say is I disagree with them and will try to do so respectfully. I
will try to do so from the basis of someone who is a very strong
supporter of stem cell research. In fact, I would put my record up
against just about anybody in the Senate with respect to appropriating,
asking for, and getting appropriated dollars designated to do stem cell
research.
I have been working for 6 years, particularly with the Pittsburgh
Tissue Engineering Institute and a whole host of companies that have
developed in and around the biotech quarter in Pittsburgh that have
shown great promise. Some of the research you have heard about with
respect to alternatives to embryonic stem cell research with these
pluripotent cells--many of these companies, many of these alternatives
have come out of Pittsburgh, come out of the work that has advanced as
a result of some of the Federal help that we have given to the McGowan
Institute and to the Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Institute.
In fact, we have put together such a robust program with respect to
tissue engineering and regenerative medicine using stem cells that we
have partnered with the Army. President Bush, earlier this year, went
down to Fort Sam Houston, TX, to look at some of the work that is being
done with our soldiers who have been wounded and being able to
regenerate skin or parts of bodies. In fact, there is one study
underway right now to regenerate an ear, actually grow back an ear of
someone who lost their ear in the Iraq war.
[[Page S7675]]
All of that came from the support the Congress has shown, thanks to
the leadership of Senator Specter and myself in this collaboration--the
Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Institute, the McGowan Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research,
and on and on. This collaboration is based on the promise of stem cell
research, to help our wounded soldiers. They are making dramatic and
wonderful progress. So there is, as many have said, a tremendous
opportunity for a lot of powerful things to help cure people with
respect to stem cells--these adult stem cells.
But I have not foreclosed, in any respect, the possibility of other
types of stem cells being used, if they can be derived in an ethical
fashion; ``ethical,'' meaning we do not sacrifice life in order to do
research to find out more.
So what I have pursued--and what I think this alternative bill I have
introduced, working with Senator Specter on it--is an attempt to find
this middle ground. Some have suggested--I know Senator Harkin has
repeatedly suggested--this bill does not accomplish anything, the
alternatives bill I have introduced does not do anything. I would
strongly disagree with that.
The alternative bill--let me give you an example. I have been working
with Senator Dodd over the past several months--actually, over a year
now--in developing a bill to provide direction to the National
Institutes of Health with respect to autism research. It is a vitally
important bill for the autism community. It is one that the entire
community across the Nation has mobilized around, called the Combat
Autism bill. We have worked meticulously on the language to make sure
Congress provides direction to the NIH to ensure proper research is
being done in accordance with the sensitivities of the community.
This bill, in many respects, is no different. What we are doing--as
we are doing in the Combat Autism bill, as we did by setting up centers
of excellence within the NIH, congressional-sponsored coordinators such
as diabetes coordinators--all of these things NIH could have done.
Could NIH have put up, structured a diabetes coordinator? Sure. Could
they have set up a cancer institute? Sure. Could they have done all
these thing that have been congressionally mandated to do? Yes, they
could have. But Congress thought it was important enough that we put it
in statute. And we direct the funding so we can get a focus on what we
believe as Congress--and representing the people's belief--is important
for the future of medicine.
So in this case, yes, we are directing the National Institutes of
Health shall invest money--not they ``may; but they ``shall'' invest
money--in developing alternatives to the destruction of the human
embryo for the creation of pluripotent cells. In fact, there are 16
different ideas, peer-reviewed studies showing alternative sources of
pluripotent stem cells that have been published already.
What we are saying to the National Institutes of Health is: Look at
these particular areas and others. You shall do research in this area.
You shall look for alternatives for the development of these
pluripotent cells. It is a directive. That is different. That is
meaningful. It is important. It is not: Oh, they can do it already, so
this is no big deal. This is a big deal. This is an important step
forward in getting the NIH focused on an area of research which is
ethical, moral, and potentially curative for an unknown number of
diseases.
There is work being done, I can tell you, because of the work we have
done, and Senator Specter and I have done, in Pittsburgh with a company
called Stemnion which I am very proud of. They are taking cells from
the lining of the placenta--I was at their lab not too long ago. They
had a placenta there, and they had a technician peeling off this
sheathe from the lining of the inside of the placenta.
It is a three-cell layer sheet that is opaque; you can see through it
almost. But it is a three-cell layer which is put into a solution. They
retrieve the middle layer of the cell. They have found that this middle
layer of cell can, in fact, differentiate into various types of body
tissue, which is what we are looking for with respect to embryonic stem
cells. They have also found that it doesn't cause tumors, which is one
of the problems with embryonic stem cells. They are not just looking at
that, they are also looking at--many of these researchers who are doing
research on adult stem cells, cord blood, or placenta cells, or
whatever--whether they can use these cells not just for direct
treatment but to create a broader based treatment--something that is
not just a treatment for the particular baby who came with that
placenta but whether there is a broader application with these cells.
Can they do things that many believe embryonic stem cells can do--
provide some sort of cellular solution that can be replicated in large
doses, instead of just individual treatments, which can be expensive
and not necessarily as useful or helpful? So there is the potential for
broad-based solutions out of these pluripotent cells, something which
those who argue for H.R. 810 say really isn't available.
The fact is, that it is an objective. We don't know if it is
available, but, again, we don't know if embryonic stem cells will
result in cures because they have not to date. Senators Brownback,
Coburn, Frist, and many others have talked about all of the different
therapies being used today to treat people through adult stem cell
research. In fact, I mentioned one, which is the soldiers, in treating
wound care. There are so many others. I was at another institution in
Pittsburgh where they were showing how they were treating--I know this
was talked about on the floor--congestive heart failure with adult stem
cells and injecting them into the heart to try to regenerate the heart.
So there are all sorts of opportunities with these cells. We should
pursue that.
Actually, what my bill does is focus on creating embryonic-like
cells. What my bill does is provide an alternative path to get to where
those who want to see embryonic stem cell research move forward want to
go. We try to get them there with an ethical way of doing it.
I am hopeful--and I have not heard anybody get up and say they would
oppose this legislation--that this legislation will pass with a very
large number because I think it deserves passage. It does more than
nothing. It does something, and it does something very important.
Also, I believe it is important that we stand firm and say that those
who may be against H.R. 810 have the opportunity to stand firm and say
that we are pro research, pro science, pro improving the quality of
health care in this country, but we need, as public officials, to be
the governor for science.
I know there have been attempts in the past--I don't think H.R. 810
does it because it is a limited use of human embryos, but there have
been attempts in the past to sort of throw the gates open and allow
Federal funding for any type of research in this area. I think we have
an obligation, as the voice of the people, to limit, at least with
Federal dollars, where science goes with taxpayer dollars. This is a
scientific society that, if you can do it, they want to do it. In my
mind, far too many scientists don't feel any check by the moral
implications of creating a cloned individual, which we have seen in
some places around the world. There have been attempts in private labs
in this country and around the world, and there still are attempts to
clone individuals. We need to speak clearly into this moment. I think
the passage of this alternative bill does that. It says we can be pro
science and do so in an ethical fashion.
I guess I will conclude my remarks by saying that this is an
important moment for us in this country. This is about the value of
human life. I know people will dismiss that, saying they would be
discarded anyway. All I can suggest is that every life, whether it is
in a suspended state in an IVF clinic or standing on the floor of the
Senate attempting to defend and protect those suspended lives, has
meaning. Every life deserves protection under our Constitution. Our
Constitution protects persons. It is a very interesting word. They use
the term ``persons.'' So we have had a debate in this country for half
a century or more--actually since its founding--as to what a person is
under the Constitution. We are going to say, with respect to embryos at
IVF clinics, that they are not people. We are going to say that this 5-
day-old embryo created by a couple who wanted life--think about that.
Every one of
[[Page S7676]]
these embryos was created because a couple wanted desperately to create
human life, and what we are going to say is that life that was created
is not a person, doesn't really exist from the standpoint of the
Constitution. I think that is sort of hard for my mind to square--that
we create human life and then later we say it is not human life, it is
not a person, it is not entitled to any constitutional protections.
Some people have drawn lines and said it is not implanted and
therefore it is not human life. When the egg is fertilized, it takes a
while for that embryo to implant in any normal pregnancy. In the
interim, is it not human life? What is it? These are questions that I
know are very difficult to grapple with. It is very easy--and this is
the caution--it is very easy, because that little embryo doesn't have a
pair of eyes, a color of hair, or a name, to dismiss this entity as
insignificant, particularly when we see some utilization, some
usefulness to us in its existence. This utilitarian view that, well, we
don't really know what these are--at least we make the claim that we
don't really know what they are, so we sort of claim that there is a
cloudiness to what this is, and it then allows us to destroy that life
and use it for our purposes.
Let's be very clear about that. That is what we are doing. We are
using it for our purposes, to benefit us. We are using a human life to
help those of us who are alive, without the permission of that silent
embryo. You can say, well, H.R. 810 is sort of a rare circumstance. It
is just these small groups of embryos that are unwanted. I have been on
the floor of the Senate debating issues of life for 12 years now. It
seems to me that every year I come up here we tend to debate a
different issue, and if we had been debating it 10 years prior, we
never would have taken that position; we would have found it morally
offensive to have argued what we argued--in this case 10 years ago. But
10 years from now, if we allow this to happen, what will be the next
argument of what we must do because of the potential benefit for us?
What must we do next?
One of the principal reasons I am an avid supporter of the fetal
farming bill is a great fear that 10 years from now, we will be back
here arguing the bill again. We may find that the embryonic stem cell
research that is done in the public sector--and it is being done now in
the private sector, and certainly there is international support for it
in the public sector--just isn't the right thing, that they don't work
quite as well as expected. But if you grow that embryo to a little
later stage and these cells settle down and are not as hyperactive as
these embryonic stem cells are, which have the potential of creating
tumors, if you wait until they are a month or 2 months old, now you
have the right time to be able to harvest these tissues for--you name
it. I will not say that is highly likely--I don't know, I am not a
scientist--but I don't think that is without question. Then what would
we say? If we can maybe just put the embryos in artificial wombs for a
while and let them develop for a little bit or maybe implant them into
a woman who volunteers, with no moral objection, to do so. You can say,
that is repugnant. It is today.
I remember when I stood on the floor and debated the partial-birth
abortion bill--how many repugnant things I had to explain regarding the
killing of a child. We debated that, and it failed many times on the
floor of the Senate, the banning of that procedure. No, these things do
not happen in one great leap; they happen with just little steps,
little defensible steps, little utilitarian steps, until the next time
and the next time.
This is an important moment when we will say no to that and we will
do what I believe is important to stand up for that value. At the same
time, we can support a measure that is pro science. At the same time,
we can support a measure that says we need to move forward, we need
cures, we need scientific experimentation, we need to develop this
incredibly rich field of regenerative medicine and stem cell research.
It is an incredibly rich field, a promising field. We need to do it at
a pace and in a way that we can be proud of over time and in a way that
respects the dignity of the human person. But this is an incredibly
promising field. No one on either side of this issue will deny that. It
is an incredibly promising field, one we must pursue.
So that is why I introduced the alternative bill. That is why I
strongly support it, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to
support it. I would encourage the House to pass it, and then we will be
enthusiastic supporters of Senator Specter's and Senator Harkin's
appropriations bill, to get as much money as the NIH can responsibly
use to develop this field fully. It is an incredibly promising field
that we must pursue, and we can do it. We can do it, America, ethically
and morally, in a way that is consistent with the proud traditions of
America. Science in an ethical and moral fashion: What a nice blend. We
accomplished that with the alternative stem cell bill, and I urge the
Senate's adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters I have received
regarding this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Stem Cell
Center,
Portland, OR, July 17, 2006.
Dear Senator: I am a Professor in the Departments of
Molecular and Medical Genetics and of Pediatrics and the
current Director of the Oregon Stem Cell Center at Oregon
Health & Science University in Portland Oregon. I am also on
the Board of Directors of the International Society for Stem
Cell Research. Last month I participated in a press
conference at the Capital in support of the Alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754,
sponsored by Senators Santorum and Specter. I am writing to
affirm the solid scientific foundations for this approach and
to urge you to vote in favor of this very important
legislation.
Let me begin by stating clearly that I do not think that
adult stem cells have all the properties of pluripotent
embryonic stem cells (ESC) and could be used to replace or
substitute for them in therapeutic or scientific
investigations. ESC indeed hold tremendous--albeit at this
point mostly unrealized--potential for significant
improvements of human health. My objection to using human
embryonic stem cells is the fact that their procurement
involves the destruction of early human life, generated
either by in vitro fertilization or by cloning. Exploitation
and destruction of human embryos is morally unacceptable to
me and to millions of others in the United States and around
the world.
Fortunately, science strongly suggests that there is a
solution to this particular moral quandary. All cells of the
human body share the exact same DNA sequence, regardless of
whether they are adult skin cells or embryos. The fate and
nature of a cell (embryo vs. other cell type) is not
determined by its DNA sequence but by which genes are active
or silenced. Silent genes can be activated and active genes
can be silenced through skilled laboratory manipulation. This
is why it is possible to use the nucleus of an adult cell to
make an embryo, as was done with Dolly the sheep. The
contents of the egg are able to ``flip genetic switches''.
Recently, multiple labs in the United States and from around
the world have published or reported experiments in which
adult cells were converted, not to embryos, but directly to
pluripotent ``embryonic-like'' cells. The resulting cells
were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells
derived from embryos. The techniques used have included
altered nuclear transfer (ANT), cell fusion and chemical
reprogramming. The results were obtained by top scientists in
the field and published in the best journals.
To date the direct conversion of adult cells to pluripotent
stem cells without any embryo destruction has only been
achieved in animals, but it is highly likely that this can be
done with human cells as well. In addition to being ethically
and morally unimpeachable the alternative methods also
promise a major clinical/medical advantage: pluripotent cells
generated by these techniques will be tissue-matched to the
patient. In contrast to embryonic stem cells derived from
``discarded'' embryos, immune suppression would not be needed
to use these cells in transplantation.
Thus, compelling scientific and ethical arguments exist for
non-embryo destructive alternative methods. S. 2754, the
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act,
represents an important tool to advance the development of
these techniques to the benefit of all.
Sincerely,
Markus Grompe, M.D.,
Professor.
____
July 17, 2006.
Dear Senator: I am a physician and a Consulting Professor
in the Neuroscience Institute at Stanford where for many
years I have taught courses in biomedical ethics. I have also
served on the President's Council on Bioethics since its
inception in January 2002.
In May 2005, the Council issued a White Paper entitled
``Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.'' This
report outlined four proposals for obtaining pluripotent stem
cells (cells with the same
[[Page S7677]]
properties and potentials as embryonic stem cells) using
techniques that do not involve the destruction of human
embryos. As the author of one of these proposals, Altered
Nuclear Transfer, I am writing to inform you of encouraging
progress in establishing both the scientific feasibility and
the moral acceptability of this proposal. In what follows, I
am of course speaking for myself, not for the Council as a
whole or for any other institution.
Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) is a broad concept with a
range of possible approaches. ANT draws on the basic
technique of nuclear transfer (popularly known as
`therapeutic cloning') but with a pre-emptive alteration such
that pluripotent stem cells are produced without the creation
and destruction of human embryos. Unlike the use of embryos
produced by in vitro fertilization, ANT would allow the
production of pluripotent stem cell lines of specific genetic
types. This would enable standardized scientific studies of
genetic diseases controlled testing for drug development, and
possibly patient-specific immune-compatible cell therapies.
In the year since the publication of the Council report,
major advances in this project have been documented in peer-
reviewed research articles published in leading scientific
journals.
In January 2006, the journal Nature reported research by
MIT stem cell biologists Rudolf Jaenisch and Alexander
Meissner demonstrating, in mouse studies, scientific proof-
of-principle for Altered Nuclear Transfer. The authors
described this technique as ``simple and straightforward,''
and, in testimony to a U.S. Senate subcommittee on stem cell
research, Dr. Jaenisch stated: ``Because the ANT product
lacks essential properties of the fertilized embryo, it is
not justified to call it an `embryo.' ''
One month later, research by developmental biologist
Michael Roberts of the University of Missouri published in
the journal Science, suggested that the same ANT approach
might be accomplished more directly and by an even simpler
technique.
In March 2006, at a conference of scientists, moral
philosophers and religious leaders organized by The
Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, there
was unanimous agreement that if further refinement of these
techniques is successful with non-human primates, cautious
extension of these approaches to studies with human cells
would be morally acceptable.
This conclusion has received further support from research
reported by Hans Schoeler, Chair of the Department of Cell
and Developmental Biology at the Max Planck Institute in
Germany. Using the same basic alterations, he was able to
establish pluripotent stem cells from these non-embryonic
laboratory constructs at a rate of efficiency 50% higher than
current embryo-destructive techniques (that use IVF embryos).
This suggests that ANT may have both scientific and moral
advantages.
In the attached letter, Dr. Schoeler explains:
``Biologically (and morally), I would not consider such a . .
. laboratory product to be a living being, but more rightly
would consider it a single-lineage tissue culture. ``He
continues, ``Although these studies have been conducted using
mice, it is reasonable to expect that the mammalian pattern
of embryogenesis is conserved to the degree that a similar
result would be obtained with human cells. These research
results suggest that Altered Nuclear Transfer may be able to
produce human pluripotent stem cells (the functional
equivalent of embryonic stem cells) in a manner that is
simpler and more efficient than current methods. Moreover, by
doing so without creating a human embryo, such a project may
resolve our current impasse over embryonic stem cell research
and allow social consensus in support of this important new
field of biomedical science.''
Altered Nuclear Transfer is just one of several promising
approaches that may allow a resolution of our current
conflict over federal funding of stem cell research. There is
also encouraging progress in `direct reprogramming', another
proposal discussed in the Council report. If we can learn the
specific chemical factors in an egg that are necessary for
reprogramming, we may be able to combine these factors with
the nucleus of any adult body cell and produce a patient-
specific, genetically matched pluripotent stem cell line.
Furthermore, over a dozen types of cells from tissues as
diverse as bone marrow, brain, fat, testis, and even placenta
appear to share some of the properties of pluripotent cells.
It is too early to claim these cells are the functional
equivalent of embryonic stem cells, but thorough exploration
of their potentials is obviously worthy of directed federal
support.
Our current conflict over the moral status of the human
embryo reflects deep differences in our basic convictions and
is unlikely to be resolved through deliberation or debate.
Likewise, a purely political solution will leave our country
bitterly divided, eroding the social support and sense of
noble purpose that is essential for the public funding of
biomedical science. The President's Council on Bioethics
Alternative Sources report challenges our nation to seek a
solution that sustains the important human values being
promoted by both sides of this difficult debate. These
projects are feasible using current technologies, and the
scientific information gained in their investigation would
have broad value even beyond the immediate goals of stem cell
research.
Senate bill 2754, The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell
Therapies Enhancement Act of 2006, would provide crucial
support for these projects. In reaching beyond the moral
controversies that divide our nation, Senators Santorum and
Specter have offered us a way forward with stem cell
research, ``one small island of unity within a sea of
controversy.''
Sincerely,
William B. Hurlbut, M.D.
____
National Right to Life
Committee, Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 13, 2006.
Dear Senator: With the Senate scheduled to vote on H.R. 810
on July 18, we write to express the strong opposition of the
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to this legislation,
which would mandate federal funding of research that requires
the killing of human embryos. NRLC will include the roll call
on passage of H.R. 810 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes
for the l09th Congress.
Each human being begins as a human embryo, male or female.
The government should not fund research that requires the
killing of living members of the species Homo sapiens. H.R.
810 would require federal funding of research projects on
stem cells taken from human embryos who are alive today, and
who would be killed by the very act of removing their stem
cells for the research--a practice very different from that
of the human being who dies by accident and whose organs are
then donated to others.
Stem cells can be obtained without killing human embryos,
from umbilical cord blood and from many types of ``adult''
(non-embryonic) tissue. Already, humans with at least 72
different diseases and conditions have received therapeutic
benefit from treatment with such ``adult'' stem cells. In
contrast, embryonic stem cells have not been tested in humans
for any purpose because of the dangers demonstrated in animal
studies, including frequent formation of tumors.
Those who favor federal funding of research that kills
human embryos sometimes claim that these embryos ``will be
discarded anyway,'' but this need not be so. Many human
embryos have been adopted while they were still embryos, or
simply donated by their biological parents to other infertile
couples. Today they are children indistinguishable from any
others.
Prior to the vote on H.R. 810, the Senate will vote on S.
3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, and S. 2754, the
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
We encourage you to support both S. 3504 and S. 2754.
S. 3504 would make it a federal offense for a researcher to
use tissue from a human baby who has been gestated in a
woman's womb, or an animal womb, for the purpose of providing
such tissue. Some researchers have already conducted such
``fetus farming'' experiments with animals--for example, by
gestating cloned calves to four months and then aborting them
to obtain certain tissues for transplantation. This research
is obviously being pursued because of its potential
application in humans.
S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies
Enhancement Act, would require the National Institutes of
Health to support research to try to find methods of creating
pluripotent stem ce11s (which are cells that can be turned
into many sorts of body tissue) without creating or harming
human embryos. The bill does not endorse any particular
method, and does not allow funding of any research that would
create or harm human embryos.
For additional information, please contact the NRLC Federal
Legislation Department at 202-626-8820 or L[email protected].
Additional resources are available at the NRLC Human Embryos
webpage at www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/index.html and at
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
Sincerely,
David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
NRLC Executive Director;
Douglas Johnson,
Legislative Director.
____
Secretariat for
Pro-Life Activities,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2006.
Dear Senator: In accordance with a unanimous consent
agreement approved on June 29, the Senate may soon vote on
three bills relating to bioethics and stem cell research:
H.R. 810, S. 2754 and S. 3504. On behalf of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops I am writing to comment on
each proposal.
h.r. 810, ``stem cell research enhancement act''
This bill violates a decades-long policy against forcing
taxpayers to support the destruction of early human life.
Federal funds would promote research using ``new'' embryonic
stem cell lines, encouraging researchers to destroy countless
human embryos to provide more cell lines and qualify for
federal grants. However, no alleged future ``promise'' can
justify promoting the destruction of innocent human life here
and now, whatever its age or condition.
The argument that ``excess'' embryos may be discarded by
clients anyway is morally deficient. Such arguments have been
rejected by our government in all other contexts, as when
harmful experiments have been proposed on death-row prisoners
or on unborn children intended for abortion. The fact that
others may do harm to these nascent lives gives Congress no
right to join in the killing, much less to make everyone else
complicit in it through their tax dollars.
While these moral considerations are paramount, it is also
worth noting that the factual assumptions behind the
embryonic stem
[[Page S7678]]
cell campaign are questionable. Embryonic stem cell research
is not showing the remarkable ``promise'' claimed by
supporters, but lags far behind adult stem cells and other
approaches that are providing real treatments for dozens of
conditions. Experts now predict that treatments may emerge in
``decades'' or not at all. Other experts admit that use of
so-called ``spare'' embryos is only a transitional step in
any case, that creating human embryos (by cloning or by in
vitro fertilization) solely for destructive research will be
the next essential step. We also know that only 3% of frozen
embryos in fertility clinics are designated by their parents
for use in research--ensuring that attempts to move toward
large-scale research or treatments will require creating and
destroying new human lives on a massive scale.
In the name of sound ethics and responsible science,
Congress should reject H.R. 810.
s. 2754, ``alternative pluripotent stem cell therapies enhancement
act''
Even supporters of destructive embryo research have said
that ``the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining
following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no
less morally problematic alternatives are available for
advancing the research'' (National Bioethics Advisory
Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Sept.
1999, Vol. I, p. 53). Congress has a responsibility to
explore how such research may be advanced without creating
moral problems.
S. 2754 serves this important goal, by funding efforts to
derive and study cells which have the capabilities of
embryonic stem cells but are not obtained from a human
embryo. For example, many studies suggest that stem cells
from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood already have the
versatility once thought to exist only in embryonic cells, or
may acquire this versatility by various forms of
``reprogramming.'' Pluripotent stem cells may or may not have
advantages over other stem cells for some forms of research--
and such advantages, if any, are most likely not in the area
of providing direct treatments for patients. But the effort
to explore all feasible avenues of research that do not
attack human life is worth pursuing.
This bill does not fund research using human embryos, and
references a careful definition of ``human embryo'' in the
Labor/HHS appropriations bill that has served the cause of
ethical research very well since 1996. In the case of any
technique whose nature is uncertain, the bill provides for
additional basic and animal research, to make certain that
the technique does not create or harm embryos before it can
be applied to humans. In short, it defines a clear and
responsible policy that should be supported by defenders of
the sanctity of human life, as well as by those tempted to
support stem cell research that destroys life.
S. 3504, ``fetus farming prohibition act''
This bill amends current federal law against abuses in the
area of fetal tissue research, to prevent the most egregious
abuse of all: the use of human fetal tissue (such as fetal
stem cells) obtained by growing human embryos in a human or
animal uterus in order to provide such tissue.
Because no member of Congress has voiced support for such
atrocities, the only argument against this bill may be that
it is not needed because no one wants to do such a thing. I
wish this were true. But in fact, most animal studies cited
as ``proof of principle'' for so-called therapeutic cloning
have required exactly this--placing cloned animal embryos in
a womb and growing them to the fetal stage to obtain usable
stem cells. Some researchers call this the new ``paradigm''
for human treatments from cloning. And while the
biotechnology industry insists it has no interest in
maintaining cloned human embryos past 14 days, it has
supported state laws such as one enacted in New Jersey which
allow such ``fetus farming'' into the ninth month of
pregnancy to harvest body parts. (See ``Research Cloning and
`Fetus Farming' '' at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/
cloning/farmfact31805.htm.) Now is the time to enact a
national policy against such grotesque abuse of women and
children, by approving S. 3504.
In short, the Senate has an opportunity to approve two
bills that respect both science and ethics--and to reject
misguided legislation that ignores ethical demands in its
pursuit or an ever more speculative and elusive ``progress.''
Technical progress that makes humans themselves into mere raw
material for research is in fact a regress in our humanity.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 810, and to
approve the other two bills proposed as part of this
agreement.
Sincerely,
Cardinal William H. Keeler,
Archbishop of Baltimore, Chairman, Committee for Pro-Life
Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
____
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern
Baptist Convention,
Nashville, TN, July 17, 2006.
Hon. Rick Santorum,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Santorum: The U.S. Senate will vote this week
on three crucial bills dealing with the sanctity of human
life. Two bills promote ethical means of research, while the
third promotes the unethical destruction of human embryos. We
support passage of S. 3504, The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
of 2006, and S. 2754, The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell
Therapies Enhancement Act. We oppose in strongest possible
terms passage of H.R. 810, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act of 2005.
The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006 (S. 3504) would
make it a federal offense for a researcher to use tissue from
a human baby who has been gestated in a woman's or an
animal's womb for the purpose of providing such tissue. This
respectable bill would prevent the manufacture and ultimate
abortion of human fetuses for research, a practice that would
create life for the sole purpose of destroying it.
The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement
Act (S. 2754) would provide new federal funding for research
on alternative means for producing pluripotent stem cells
without creating or harming human embryos. This is an ethical
alternative to the third bill, H.R. 810, which would instead
provide federal tax dollars for stem cell research on embryos
created at in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 810)
would overturn President Bush's longstanding policy that bars
federal funding of research that involves killing additional
human embryos to obtain stem cells. Researchers who take stem
cells from embryos created by IVF destroy humans who might
otherwise be given the opportunity of birth, like the 100
``snowflake'' babies who have been adopted as embryos from
IVF clinics in the United States. Frozen embryos are clearly
not ``unwanted'' as many of the bill's supporters claim, and
must not be seen as expendable resources for the sake of so-
called ``more valuable lives.'' Proponents of H.R. 810 claim
that embryonic stem cell research could lead to the discovery
of cures for diseases. However, to date it has been a
fruitless pursuit yielding not even a single treatment for a
disease. Research on non-embryonic stem cells, on the other
hand, has produced treatments for 70 ailments, often with
dramatic results.
We must seek to protect human life at all stages and
promote only ethical stem cell research. The votes on these
three bills directly affect whether or not human life will be
protected from conception to birth in the United States. Your
assistance in assuring passage of S. 3504 and S. 2754 and
defeat of H.R. 810 will be greatly appreciated.
In His Service,
Dr. Richard Land.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the next 30 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield
3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of millions of
Americans and their families holding out hope that the Senate will do
the right thing today, which is to support embryonic stem cell research
so that scientists have the resources they need to potentially save
millions of lives.
I voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act when I was in the
House, and I strongly support it.
My support for this promising research is painfully personal. When I
visit my mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, and see her vacant
stare, in which she doesn't even recognize her own family, I just
cannot comprehend how anyone in this body can vote against this bill
and deny families their last hope for a cure from the loneliness and
confusion caused by this horrible disease.
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into virtually any cell
in the body and thus have the potential to cure people like my mother
and many others. That is why this research is so vitally important.
Millions of Americans just like my family are waiting in hope that we
will do the right thing. Those with loved ones suffering from
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or juvenile diabetes wait in hope that their
prayers will be answered and cures will be found in their lifetime.
Across America, families in which a child or a parent is paralyzed from
a traumatic accident hold out hope that we will do the right thing and
give their loved ones back the life they knew before their injury.
President Bush and other opponents of this legislation know all too
well the overwhelming public support for this promising research, but
they still can't bring themselves to stand up for the people's
interests over the special interests, stand up for sound science over
ideology. Instead, they say one thing and do another.
You can't say you support cures, then turn around and oppose the most
promising research. You can't say you support research and turn around
and oppose the vital funding that will make breakthroughs possible.
For those who insist on playing politics with people's lives, make no
mistake about it: The American people are
[[Page S7679]]
watching, and they will not take kindly to seeing their last flicker of
hope being extinguished.
The only thing more callous than no hope is false hope.
To those who say they are for research but vote against this
legislation, they must answer to the mother who must care for her child
who can't walk because of a spinal cord injury, to the wife who must
help her ailing husband battling Parkinson's disease, to the father
forced to watch his daughter inject herself with countless insulin
needles for the rest of her life.
By saying one thing and doing another on this issue, you are creating
false hope and putting these and millions of other families on yet
another roller coaster of despair. I know this is true because my
sister and I and our children deal with it when we look into the eyes
of my mother who no longer recognizes our faces. My mother and her
terrible suffering brought me to this fight, but my children and the
hope for a cure for future generations inspires me to keep fighting.
We have an obligation to stand up and do what is right today in the
Senate. American families and future generations simply cannot afford
for us to fail them now.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
California, Mrs. Feinstein.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. In
just a short hour or so, the Senate will finally vote on passage of
this important stem cell act. This is a long time coming.
I believe and hope that we are going to have a very strong vote in
favor of this critical scientific research. I also hope that President
Bush will reverse his earlier veto threat and sign this bill that holds
such promise for so many Americans suffering from catastrophic illness.
This issue, and this debate, is really about hope. It is about giving
hope of a scientific breakthrough to millions of Americans suffering
from chronic, debilitating, and devastating disease.
We can't stand here on the Senate floor and pretend that we know
which scientific advances will cure diabetes, ALS, or cancer.
Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have done just that. They have
insisted that adult stem cells and cord blood cells are being
successfully used to treat at least 65 illnesses. They argue that there
is no reason to move forward with this bill, no reason to make new
lines of stem cells available. However, adult stem cells present
serious limitations and embryonic stem cell research offers unique
promise.
Embryonic cells derived from embryos are pluripotent, meaning they
can become any type of cell. Adult stem cells cannot, and, therefore,
their application is limited. These embryonic cells are easy to grow,
isolate, and study. Adult stem cells are harder to grow in a lab. These
embryonic cells can divide. They can renew themselves for long periods.
Adult stem cells, on the other hand, exist only in small amounts. All
these properties make these stem cells an excellent target for
scientific exploration.
Now, there have been heartrending stories of people suffering from
diseases such as leukemia and other blood disorders who experience
relief from adult stem cells or cord blood cells, and that is just
great. This progress is encouraging and it should move forward. But
these advances in treatments have not addressed the needs of patients
suffering from other diseases.
In juvenile diabetes, for example, scientists have discovered that
adult stem cells in the pancreas do not play an effective role in
insulin production. To cure the disease, doctors will need insulin-
producing cells to inject into their diabetic patients. This is done
now on a limited basis, but there aren't enough donor cells available.
Stem cells could change this. They could provide an unlimited amount of
cells that are compatible with the patient, making anti-rejection drugs
simply unnecessary. Of course, if we don't let our scientists try, we
will never know.
Dr. Douglas Kerr of Johns Hopkins--and I used this yesterday on the
floor--headed a team that used embryonic stem cells to treat 15 rats
that had been paralyzed by an aggressive infection that had destroyed
their cord nerve cells. Eleven of these rats experienced significant
recovery. They regained enough strength to bear weight and take steps
on their previously paralyzed hind quarters.
A few years ago, no one thought this could be done. Dr. Kerr explains
that this is, in essence, a cookbook recipe to restore lost nerve
function, and that this procedure could some day be used to repair
damage from ALS, multiple sclerosis, or spinal cord injuries.
He says:
With small adjustments keyed to differences in nervous
system targets, the approach may also apply to patients with
Parkinson's or Huntington's disease.
The NIH Director, Dr. Zerhouni, called this a remarkable advance that
can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great
promise. What an advance this would be. Can you imagine if you could
regenerate the spinal cord, once again, and if paraplegics and
quadriplegics could again function? That is what this bright frontier
is all about. That is what is so very important.
All of this takes time. Scientists first isolated human embryonic
stem cells only 8 years ago, and in that time they have learned a
substantial amount about how these cells work and how they could one
day be used in treatment.
But there is also a lot we don't know. Some have suggested because
there have been no miraculous cures in this 8-year period, there will
never be useful treatments that come from this technology. But none of
the great feats of scientific inquiry have been simple. That is for
sure. Scientific progress takes time and investment. Our researchers
today have made discoveries, many in mice, that could prove just as
revolutionary as the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s. These
preliminary discoveries will amount to nothing unless researchers have
access to Federal funding and viable stem cell lines to move forward.
In the last 2 days we have heard a great deal about the hope that the
passage of Castle-DeGette would bring to patients and their families.
I would like to say a final word about hope. I simply cannot believe
that President Bush would select this legislation as his first veto as
President of the United States. I know that he has issued a veto
threat, but think about it. Think about the millions of people. Think
about the fact that if you are really pro-life, these embryos--which
will never become human life, which are discarded, which will not be
used, which are the product of in vitro fertilization--these embryos
are never going to be babies, as the opposition would have us believe.
Think of the lives that these embryos might save some day. People
paralyzed, people with juvenile diabetes, young people with Parkinson's
disease who can't move and who have trouble speaking--think about what
this can mean in terms of being for life.
That is why I think if the President thinks about this, we all have
the hope on this side of the question that he will not veto this
legislation.
The President himself recognized the promise of stem cell research
back in 2001 when he attempted to find a middle ground. But 5 years
later, it is apparent, there is no middle ground. We need embryonic
stem cell research, and this is the way to do it. I am hopeful that
this body will vote aye.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and
also the next speaker, Senator Kennedy, for their great leadership over
all of these years to give hope to so many Americans. I yield 10
minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to extend, as I think all of us in
this body want to, appreciation to the Senator from Iowa, as well as
the Senator from California and the Senator from Pennsylvania, for
their long, continuing, and ongoing leadership in such an important
area for families in this country.
This afternoon, the debate on stem cell research will draw to a
close. For Senators, life will go on. Next week, the Senate will deal
with other issues and other questions. But millions of Americans don't
have that luxury. For them, the struggle against disease isn't
something they think about for a few brief days. It is something they
confront every day of their lives.
A child coping with endless injections of insulin and constant
worries
[[Page S7680]]
about blood sugar cannot simply turn away from this debate. Someone
watching helplessly as a parent or a spouse succumbs to the tremors of
Parkinson's disease cannot simply move on to other concerns.
For us, a vote on stem cell research may take only a few moments in a
busy day. But for millions of Americans, the consequences of our vote
may last a lifetime.
Should this lifesaving legislation pass through Congress, President
Bush has said he will veto it. The President may believe that ends the
debate, but it does not. This debate will continue as long as lives are
diminished and cut short by diseases and injuries that stem cells might
cure. This debate will go on as long as there are those of us who
believe that rather than discard unwanted embryos, we should embrace
them to bring fuller lives to millions of people.
For their sake our battle continues--tomorrow, next week, next month,
and in the days ahead. To those who suffer and cling to hope, we
promise that we will never give up. The promise of a better day that
embryonic stem cell research brings cannot be denied forever.
I want to take a moment to address some of the arguments our
opponents on this issue have made during this debate. Dr. Thomas
Murray, one of the Nation's leading scholars in bioethics, has a simple
saying: ``Good ethics starts with good facts.'' It is like John Adams,
who said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Sadly, on this most important
ethical issue we have heard some very questionable allegations.
We have heard that adult stem cells have conquered disease after
disease and therefore our legislation is not needed, but the facts tell
a different story. The Nation's leading scientific society, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently published
an extensive study that disputes these claims. Contrary to the
allegation of opponents of our bill, adult stem cells have not treated
Parkinson's disease, cancer, lymphoma, brain tumors, multiple
sclerosis, arthritis, lupus, sickle cell anemia, heart damage, spinal
cord injuries, and many other conditions.
The Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation was so concerned about
the misleading claims that adult stem cells are curing cancer that they
sent Congress a letter setting the record straight. Their letter states
that the studies used to support these claims are ``not extensive and
by no means prove that adult stem cells are effective in treating these
cancers.''
In fact, out of the hundreds of diseases and injuries that our
legislation might address, only nine have shown promise for treatment
with adult stem cells. Let's hope that in time this situation changes.
If adult stem cells can cure cancer or Parkinson's disease or spinal
injury in the future, we will all--all rejoice.
But we must not foreclose the chance of progress with embryonic stem
cells while this possibility is tested. No matter how deeply held the
convictions are of those who oppose our legislation, they cannot erase
the facts. The objective evidence has convinced the Nation's leading
medical experts that embryonic stem cell research has unique potential
and unparalleled promise.
Our opponents have also said that because there have as yet been no
cures from embryonic stem cells, we should continue to restrict the
research. Is it truly a surprise that a discovery made only a few years
ago has yet to move to the clinic, especially when NIH has been
prohibited from funding the most promising areas of research?
Knowledge about the function of DNA is the foundation of modern
medical science. It underlies the development of every major new drug
and medical treatment today. In 1973, scientists discovered how to
splice pieces of DNA together, the fundamental breakthrough that led to
the biotechnology wonders of today. But there were no clinical trials
or new cures based on that historic discovery for years that followed.
Human embryonic stem cells were discovered in 1998. Of course, they
have not led to a range of new cures in the brief time since then, just
as discovering how to splice DNA did not lead to immediate clinical
breakthroughs. But it would be just as foolish to keep restricting stem
cell research today as it would have been to stop basic DNA research in
the 1970s because it did not produce instant cures.
The ethical debate surrounding stem cell research is not unique. Such
debates have accompanied many breakthroughs and new therapies. It is
essential for researchers to be bound by strict ethical guidelines,
especially in the early days of a new science as we seek to understand
its potential. Such controversy also accompanied other lifesaving and
beneficial medical developments, such as DNA research and in vitro
fertilization. But now, DNA research has saved lives and is alleviating
suffering. And IVF has brought the joy of parenthood to couples across
America. Would any of us turn back the clock and shun the new medicines
that DNA research has brought? Would any of us deny the joy of children
to those able to conceive only through IVF? Of course not.
In a few short minutes, the Senate will decide whether to open the
extraordinary promise of stem cell research to millions of Americans
who look to it with hope for new cures and a better day.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator has 2 minutes 45
seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Two years ago I held a forum on stem cell research. One
of the participants was Moira McCarthy Stanford from Plymouth, MA,
whose 14-year-old daughter was suffering from juvenile diabetes. I
received this letter from her:
For as long as I can remember, I've had to take a lot of
leaps of 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 just smile and say I'm fine when a high blood
sugar or low blood sugar forced me to the sidelines in a big
soccer game; or into the base lodge on a perfect ski day; or
out of the pool during a swim meet.
But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's
decision on Stem Cell research in the summer of 2001, I just
could not accept it. You see the one thing that has helped me
accept all I've had to accept these years is the presence of
hope. Hope keeps me going.
That night, President Bush talked about protecting the
innocent. I wondered then: what about me? I am truly innocent
in this situation. I did nothing to bring my diabetes on;
there is nothing I can do to make it any better. All I can do
is hope for a research breakthrough and keep living the
difficult, demanding life of a child with diabetes until that
breakthrough comes. How, I asked my parents, is it more
important to throw discarded embryos into the trash than it
is to let them be used to hopefully save my life.
I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of
passing H.R. 810. I can dream again--dream of that great time
when I write a thank you letter to the Senate, the House and
everyone who helped me become just another girl; a girl who
dreamed and hoped and one day, got just what she wanted: her
health and future. That's all I'm really asking for.
Mr. President, in a few moments we will have the opportunity to
answer her. I hope the answer will be in the affirmative.
I yield whatever time remains.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
offer my perspectives on the issue currently being debated by the
Senate, stem cell research. The debate over this issue in the Senate is
long overdue. The promise this research holds for finding treatments or
cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, Lou
Gehrig's disease and cancer is immeasurable.
It has been 5 years since the President announced his
administration's restrictive policy on stem cell research, a policy
that limited the number of stem cell lines available for use with
Federal funding. All of these lines are contaminated by the use of
mouse feeder cells and will likely never meet the standards required
for human treatment. The United States leads the world in the medical
expertise that can find cures and treatments for these scourges. But it
has become abundantly clear that the President's restrictive policy is
hindering scientific progress toward the discovery in the United States
of possible cures and treatments for many fatal diseases that affect
millions of Americans, and millions more around the world.
More than a year ago, our colleagues in the House passed legislation
that would reverse the President's limiting policy. Since then, as we
have all waited for the Senate to act, many more who suffer from
catastrophic illness and could have been helped by research
[[Page S7681]]
of this kind have passed away. Many of us are grieving the loss of Dana
Reeve, a vocal advocate for stem cell research, who lost her battle
with cancer last March. She and her husband, Christopher Reeve, had
become two of the public faces in the struggle for advancement of stem
cell research.
The Senate will vote on three stem cell bills today. However, H.R.
810 is the only bill that will give real reason for hope to millions of
Americans and their families. Take the case of a woman from my State of
Vermont who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999. Forced to
give up her career as a musician because she could no longer use her
hands to play the piano, she began working as a clerk in a gift store,
only to have to give up that job because she had trouble handling money
and sometimes broke the items in the store. Her plea to me--and really
to all of us--is deeply moving. Listen to her appeal: ``If there is any
chance stem cell research might help MS, it must be done. There is
nothing else for MS patients to look forward to . . .''
I would like to address two of the arguments that opponents of this
stem cell research offer against the passage of H.R. 810. They contend
that there is no need for public funding of this research because
private funds are available in some situations. While there are private
dollars being used for embryonic stem cell research, public funds are
needed to spur on this research, to lead this research effort to the
cutting edge of progress, and to harness the work of our National
Institutes of Health. Public funding is also needed to keep the United
States competitive with other countries in this arena.
At the University of Vermont, for example, researchers are using bone
marrow stem cells to repair damaged tissues in various organs. This
work could be expanded with the infusion of Federal research dollars.
A second misdirected argument is that this embryonic stem cell
research is not needed because alternatives to embryonic research hold
more promise than the current method. Some argue that embryonic stem
cell research is not needed because it has not yielded any results.
However, none of the proposed alternatives has proven successful for
deriving human stem cells, and there is no guarantee that any of them
ever will. While it is true that embryonic stem cell research has not
yet led to human therapies, it is important to remember that this field
is only in its infancy. This is because President Bush's restrictions
have prevented federally funded investigators from fully exploring the
potential of this research.
The President has indicated his intent to veto H.R. 810 should the
Senate pass this bill. I join my colleagues in urging him not to use
the first veto of his administration to block funding for this
research. H.R. 810 is a bill that has garnered support across the faith
community and across political lines. I respect those who raise
concerns grounded in what they believe are moral and ethical issues
surrounding this issue. I would assure them that this bill contains
provisions that will ensure donor consent for the use of the embryos
for medical research. The bill also maintains that research on these
stem cells will be conducted in an ethical manner.
Those who oppose stem cell research seemingly ignore the fact that
embryos used for this research will be otherwise discarded. Women at
fertility clinics are given an option of what to do with unused
fertilized embryos. At the discretion of the donor, embryos can be
preserved, donated for medical research, or discarded. In the United
States, there are more than 400,000 frozen embryos which are stored for
infertile couples, and many ultimately will be thrown away. The options
of discarding these embryos or allowing them to be used for lifesaving
research would seem to offer a clear choice to those on both sides of
this debate.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 471 and I urge the Senate to pass
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act so we can begin realizing the
promise of this research.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, of the three bills being discussed, only
one, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Act, contains language which
would lead to substantive expansion of stem cell research. The
legislation would authorize Federal funding for research on stem cells
derived from donated embryos. These embryos will likely be destroyed if
they are not donated for research. The bill also would institute strong
ethical guidelines for this research.
We must pass this legislation so that researchers are able to move
forward on ethical, Federally funded research projects that develop
better treatments for those suffering from diseases. Human embryonic
stem cells have such great potential because they have the unique
ability to develop into almost any type of cell or tissue in the body.
Stem cell research holds great promise to develop possible cures or
improved treatments for a wide range of diseases, such as diabetes,
cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, autism, heart disease, spinal
cord injuries, and many other afflictions. We cannot afford to limit
research that could help improve the lives of so many who currently
suffer from diseases which we have limited ability to prevent, treat,
or cure.
If we fail to enact H.R. 810, our researchers are likely to fall
further behind the work being done in other countries. Australia,
Canada, Finland, France, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom have provided substantial governmental support for stem cell
research.
The President's restrictions on stem cell research prevent Federal
funds from being used for research on newer, more promising stem cell
lines. In addition, embryonic stem cell lines now eligible for Federal
funding are not genetically diverse enough to realize the full
therapeutic potential of this research. The President's stem cell
policy prevents researchers from moving ahead on an area of research
that is very promising. We need to pass this legislation to help move
research forward that could alleviate the pain and suffering of
individuals.
The other two bills being debated do not provide much help. I agree
with the American Diabetes Association that neither S. 2754 nor S. 3504
``would have any real impact on the search for a cure and better
treatments with diabetes.'' These two bills are no substitute for H.R.
810. I am hopeful that we will be able to pass H.R. 810 and ensure that
it is enacted. I am a proud cosponsor of S. 471, the Senate companion
legislation to H.R. 810, which was introduced by my colleagues, Senator
Specter and Senator Harkin. We have a responsibility to do all that we
can to support this promising research that has the potential to
improve the lives of individuals suffering from diseases.
On June 21, 2005, I met a young constituent, Dayna Akiu, at a hearing
on juvenile diabetes in our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee. Dayna shared with me her success at overcoming the problems
associated with diabetes, which meant a lot to her as an active soccer
player. Dayna wanted me to also know that children have a very
difficult time managing their diabetes. For example, checking blood
sugar and taking insulin shots is hard to do for anyone suffering from
diabetes, especially for children. Stem cell research has the potential
to make life better for Dayna and countless others. Every time I meet
with constituents advocating for increased stem cell research, I am
reminded of the great possibility of improving their lives through this
innovative medical research. We must allow this research to move ahead
to improve the lives of Americans of every age across this country.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the question
currently before the Senate regarding whether to allow Federal funding
for embryonic stem cell research.
It is clear from the last 2 days of debate in the Senate that people
on both sides of this issue have very strong feelings about their
positions, and rightly so. This is an extremely important issue that
raises a whole host of questions to which there are no easy answers.
On one hand, we must consider the fundamental question of how to
treat potential human life. On the other, we must consider the vast
potential of a scientific field that could greatly improve millions of
actual human lives and save millions more. When the stakes are this
high, we are obligated to have an honest, open, and thorough debate.
In keeping with the gravity of these questions and the potential
ramifications of how we answer them, I believe
[[Page S7682]]
that both the Government and the scientific community should address
them responsibly.
Like millions of other American families, my family has been touched
by the ache of loss brought about by Alzheimer's disease. My father
died of complications only a few years ago. At the end of his life, I
wanted nothing more than to be able to help ease his suffering. Now, as
I reflect on that difficult time, I think of the families that are
currently enduring the same pain mine did, and I want to help them.
I trust the vast majority of the scientific community that believes
embryonic stem cell research may hold the key to the cures these
families are seeking. I also believe that our Government can work to
promote this science responsibly by paving the way for treatments that
will save millions of lives without destroying others.
Toward that end, I believe the legislation passed by the House
represents a measured, responsible step toward tapping into the vast
potential that embryonic stem cell research has with respect to finding
cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and a wide range of other
devastating diseases.
In millions of cases, H.R. 810 could mean the difference between a
normal life and one of pain and suffering. In millions of other cases,
it could mean the difference between life and death. By authorizing
Federal funding only for research on embryonic stem cells that will
never become human life and that are donated willingly, it achieves its
objectives without destroying the potential for life.
To be sure, support from private funds for this research has been
welcome. But it is not enough. I have heard from scores of scientists
in my home State of Colorado--working in university labs as we speak,
trying to find cures for our most devastating diseases--who tell me
that the Federal funding H.R. 810 would authorize would boost their
capabilities exponentially.
In addition to the practical impact on American laboratories,
however, there is something else to consider. I can think of no other
Nation that should lead this research with strict guidelines than the
United States. Throughout our Nation's history, America has been the
leader in making monumental scientific strides--on everything from cars
to computers to medicine--that have made life easier and better for
people in our country and all over the world. In a field with such
great promise, I believe we owe it to our history and to our position
in the world community to once again be the leader.
I want to be clear that I also believe we should promote research on
adult umbilical cord stem cells, as well as alternative methods of
creating embryonic stem cells. In addition, we should do everything in
our power to prevent unethical and repulsive practices from pervading
this kind of research. For that reason, I strongly support the other
two proposals that are currently before the Senate, S. 2754 and S.
3504.
As I make these remarks today, I think once again of my father. I
also think of other fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters across this
great Nation who live every day with debilitating conditions that stem
cell research could help cure. Suffering that could be stopped. Lives
that could be saved. Families that could stay together.
We have an opportunity to make great strides on these fronts today
and to do so responsibly. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today we must reach across the aisle and
make a strong bipartisan statement supporting embryonic stem cell
research and challenge our scientists to use embryonic stem cells to
see if the promise of treatments and cures can be made a reality for
the many around our country and around the world who look to this
research for hope.
The Web site of the National Institutes of Health says it most
clearly. That Web site states embryonic ``stem cells have potential in
many different areas of health and medical research. To start with
studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into
the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some
of the most serious medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects
are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. . . .
Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of
replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions
and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal
cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and
rheumatoid arthritis.''
Scientists believe that Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and spinal
cord injuries are some of the areas that could be helped through
embryonic stem cell research. I see no reason embryonic stem cell
research should be treated any differently than other research.
Some say embryonic stem cell research has not helped to date. Some
point out that there has not been much success in stem cell research
since it began in 1998. This kind of research has been only done for
less than 10 years. That is a nanosecond when it comes to scientific
research. In comparison, Congress passed the National Cancer Act in
1971. This was legislation to make ``the conquest of cancer a national
crusade.'' That legislation greatly accelerated the pace of cancer
research and its translation into treatment. However it was not until
2005, when cancer deaths in the United States declined for the first
time since 1930, when the United States started tracking cancer deaths.
In the intervening years treatments evolved to help people fight cancer
and live longer and better with the disease.
Those opposed to this research say that supporters of embryonic stem
cell research have overpromised the benefits of the research. Without
expanding the research beyond the bounds of current policy, people will
never know what might have been.
California, New Jersey, Illinois, and a few other States have stepped
up to help fund research, but they should not be expected to carry this
burden alone. H.R. 810 will give clear the way for researchers to use
Federal funding to access other cell lines than the 22 currently
approved lines and provide access to other critical tools needed so
research in this promising new area can be accelerated to the benefit
of all. I urge support for H.R. 810.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this long overdue
legislation to expand stem cell research.
When this issue first came up with President Bush in 2001, he had a
choice between helping scientists conduct lifesaving research or
putting politics before science. To the detriment of the millions of
Americans suffering from diseases and conditions for which there is no
cure, the President chose politics and decided that Federal funds could
only be used for research on existing stem cell lines.
At the time, there were 78 existing stem cell lines--only 22 of which
were usable. Scientists agreed that this was nowhere near enough to
fulfill the promise that stem cell research provides. To make matters
worse, scientists at the University of California San Diego and the
Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla conducted an
extensive study showing that even those lines are contaminated by mouse
feeder cells--and unsuitable for human therapies. So the President's
policy--painted as a compromise at the time--left scientists with
little to no chance to advance their research.
At least 10 countries have made significant financial commitments to
stem cell research. Our commitment is less than one quarter of
Australia's. Our country's failure to lead on this is having
significant consequences. Here is one example:
After the President's announcement in 2001, Roger Pedersen, one of
the world's leading stem cell researchers, announced that he was
leaving his faculty position at the University of California San
Francisco for one at the University of Cambridge. He saw a promising
future for stem cell research in the United Kingdom, yet saw none in
the United States.
We need to change this.
I am proud to say that California recognized that our Federal policy
was unacceptable. The State has enacted the Nation's first law to
permit research involving human embryonic and adult stem cells while
facilitating the voluntary donation of embryos for stem cell research.
Now how did this happen in California? It started with one man and one
family.
Roman Reed was 19 years old when he broke his neck in a college
football game and became paralyzed. Roman's
[[Page S7683]]
parents led a campaign in 2002 to pass legislation to invest in spinal
cord injury research.
Then, in November 2004, Californians passed Proposition 71, which
provides $3 billion in State funding over 10 years for embryonic stem
cell research. Unfortunately for Roman and his family, legal challenges
have stalled these funds, and with them, stalled their hope for a
brighter future.
More States are considering their own initiatives, but these State
efforts simply can't supplant the resources and expertise that would
result from research supported by this administration and the National
Institute of Health.
Today, after years of struggling to pass this legislation, we have an
opportunity to offer hope to thousands of Americans and put America
back on the cutting edge of science. We know we can make a difference
when we give our scientists the tools and support to do their work.
Because of our national commitment to scientific achievement and
through NIH-supported research, death rates for heart disease and
sudden infant death syndrome have been nearly cut in half in the past
several years. The number of AIDS-related deaths fell 70 percent
between 1995 and 2001. HIV/AIDS has become a disease that more people
live with and fewer die from. And as a result of critical research at
the National Cancer Institute at NIH, the survival rate for children
with cancer rose by 80 percent in the 1990s.
The current Federal policy has been a roadblock to progress. This
bill will put us back on the right track. Some in this body have been
telling the American public that stem cell research is morally wrong.
But we have taken every step to address their concerns in this bill.
This legislation would only allow Federal funding of research on stem
cell lines derived from excess fertilized embryos that were never
actually used in couples' in vitro fertilization processes. Right now,
these embryos are being discarded, and we are losing hundreds or even
thousands of valuable new stem cell lines.
I believe it is wrong to have those embryonic stem cell lines go to
waste when we could instead offer hope to Americans suffering from
devastating medical conditions. We have a moral imperative to try to
relieve their pain.
That is why we have seen a broad coalition of people across political
lines that support this research. One example is former First Lady
Nancy Reagan. She took a stand that was based on compassion and not
politics. For many years, she cared for President Reagan. She inspired
millions of Americans with her quiet courage and dignity. She knows
that this research holds the best hope for the 4.5 million people who,
like her late husband, suffer from Alzheimer's. She knows that
supporting stem cell research would save many lives.
Our beloved Christopher Reeve--who we all know was paralyzed from a
riding accident--supported and actively campaigned for this research
because he knew that those 250,000 to 400,000 people with spinal cord
injuries potentially could be treated.
How many of us have ever seen a colleague, friend, or family member
suffering from a terrible disease like Parkinson's? Where the sufferers
and their families struggle with debilitating physical deterioration,
ever-changing medications with terrible side effects and the knowledge
that the patient's condition will continue to decline--often fatally?
How many of us have met with constituents and patient advocate
groups--like the ALS Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research
Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society--that share their stories
of courage and great hope for the passage of this legislation? Stem
cell research has the potential for finding cures to diseases like
Parkinson's, ALS, diabetes, and cancer, and has the great potential to
reduce suffering. We should fulfill that potential and pass this
important legislation now.
I hope that Senators support H.R. 810 because we can change the
current policy and open the door to major advances in medical science
through stem cell research.
President Bush has said that he will veto this legislation if it
reaches his desk. I ask him to reconsider this unwise decision. The
lives of millions of Americans are in his hands.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as the Senate debates stem cell research,
I wanted to indicate that I will be supporting all three measures
before the Senate. I will support these measures because I have great
faith that some day this promising research will lead to cures for some
of our most devastating diseases.
This is not a decision I came to hastily. I have thought long and
hard about stem cell research. Hundreds of North Dakota families have
told me this research is the key to helping their loved ones lead
healthy lives. I have also heard from North Dakotans who have very
strong religious objections to stem cell research. I respect their
views. But, in the end, I believe we should put an appropriate ethical
framework in place to give hope of a cure to those who suffer from
disease. That is why I am supporting stem cell research.
In 2001, a group of U.S. Senators, including me, called on President
Bush to allow Federal funding of stem cell research. The President
agreed and created the current policy of allowing research but only on
those lines developed by August 9, 2001. This arbitrary date has
limited the ability of scientists to fully realize the potential of
stem cell research. In fact, there are only 22 lines available today,
and all are contaminated. I think it is right to expand the available
lines. And it is imperative that we create a strong framework to ensure
this research is done in the most ethical way.
It has been over a year since the House of Representatives took
action on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and passed
it with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. This bill expands Federal
research while strengthening the ethical guidelines associated with it.
To be clear, this bill would only allow research on stem cells taken
from excess embryos used in fertility treatments. Fertility clinics
help couples have a baby, but sometimes this therapy produces extra
embryos, which can be disposed of, donated to other couples, or used
for research. A 2003 study estimated that 400,000 excess embryos are
currently stored in these clinics and more than 11,000 of those have
been designated for research. This bill simply allows researchers
access to those embryos.
H.R. 810 also requires that these embryos would never be implanted
into a woman and that the individual has given written consent for the
donation. Under the current policy, there are no such guidelines. I
believe these requirements are essential to ensuring the strongest
ethical behavior.
Before I close, I would like to share the stories of two young girls
that I have had the pleasure of meeting. Their stories--as well as the
thousands of others like them--have deeply impacted my decision to
support H.R. 810. Ashley Dahlen and Camille Johnson are both teenagers
suffering with juvenile diabetes. And I truly mean suffering. They each
have scars on their fingertips from where they have to check their
blood sugars constantly, even while they are sleeping. They have to
stay home from school when their sugars are too high. Both have had
extremely close calls and have been hospitalized. Without a cure, both
will end up on dialysis and will suffer other complications, possibly
even heart failure.
These young girls and their families support stem cell research. They
want to grow up, get married, and have children of their own. They
continue to hope that one day, stem cell research will provide them a
cure to this most awful disease. I share their hope and faith in stem
cell research. Today, I am voting to pass this hope along to the
millions of children and families suffering from diseases that could be
cured using stem cell research.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, the Senate is debating H.R. 810, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would allow the Federal
Government to provide additional funding for embryonic stem cell
research. I have received numerous heartfelt letters from constituents
outlining their concerns with embryonic stem cell research. These are
concerns which I simply cannot overlook or dismiss.
I know the suffering and worry that families go through when a loved
one desperately needs treatment for a serious progressive illness.
Easing the pain
[[Page S7684]]
and suffering of our loved ones, our daughters, sons, parents, and
grandparents, should be at the hallmark of a caring society. The
potential of finding cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's,
cancer, and diabetes must not be ignored.
I understand the promise for embryonic stem cell research to yield
treatments and therapies for numerous diseases; however, we must not
overlook the ethical concerns associated with such research. I am a
great supporter and will continue to be a proponent of fully funding
the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health
for research into cures for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, to
name a few, which is why I also support H.R. 810. However, the moral
implications of embryonic stem cell research must not be discounted.
We are not just debating whether the scientific and medical
communities should continue the exploration of embryonic stem cells
their impact on medical conditions. If Federal funds begin to flow
without also addressing moral issues such as human cloning, how long
will it be before an ethical crisis of our own making erupts? This is
why the Congress should also debate a framework to ensure that
practices such as reproductive cloning do not take place. The Senate
has taken up three bills, none of which provides guidance about stem
cell research's future development. None of these bills addresses the
need to examine the possibility that embryonic stem cell research might
lead to potential immoral outcomes, such as the cloning of human beings
for illegitimate purposes. We must not dismiss these ethical and moral
undertones. A comprehensive approach must be devised to protect science
and medicine against misuse and public backlash. While I will support
H.R. 810 in order to help provide hope to those who suffer from
diseases, the Congress must take a hard look into ensuring scientific
integrity as this medical research proceeds.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the stem cell
bills currently being considered by the Senate. Frankly, this debate
has been too long in coming and I commend my friends, Majority Leader
Frist and Minority Leader Reid, on coming to an agreement and bringing
this debate to the floor.
This is as real as it gets. This is about life over death and hope
over despair. This is about encouraging astounding scientific advances
that can relieve the suffering of millions of our fellow citizens, or
accepting a shriveling stasis that, in fact, sounds a retreat as we
watch the rest of the world march past us.
We have before us three stem cell bills, but only one, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, deals with embryonic stem cells.
Let me say that with a big ``E.'' These embryonic stem cells actually
hold the greatest promise for those afflicted with currently incurable
diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart failure, and spinal cord injury.
These stem cells are pluripotent--that is they can differentiate into
any and all tissues.
There is still much to know about what causes appropriate
differentiation of embryonic stem cells, but if we conduct research to
answer these questions, we will have the scientific power to replace
dead neural tissue and muscle and cancerous white blood cells, with
fresh new ones.
The potential is breathtaking. What this means is that an individual
with quadriplegia could walk again. The elderly affected by Alzheimer's
can be brought back from a hellish twilight and rejoin their families.
Childhood leukemia could be banished to the realm of distant memory.
And Americans everywhere will have a second chance at running with
strong loud hearts.
The science on embryonic stem cells is new and complicated, which is
why we need our Nation's brightest minds working on this. Yet in 2001,
President Bush issued an executive order which effectively banned
federally funded embryonic stem cell research. This has stifled our
Nation's attempts to lead the world in harnessing the potential and
miracles of embryonic stem cells. The President reasoned, like many who
oppose this bill, that the process of embryonic stem cell extraction
amounts to abortion because these cells have to be taken from
microscopic embryos that do not survive the process.
What the President did not mention is that the embryos under
discussion number in the tens of thousands. They are the unused embryos
from in-vitro fertilization, are frozen in fertility clinics, are
unique, and will be thrown away.
I repeat: Thrown away. The chance to offer new life to millions of
Americans suffering from debilitating by disease or injury will be
discarded as medical waste.
Given these facts, the choice seems clear. The Senate must choose to
advance the scope of our scientific knowledge and expand the horizons
of our medical technologies.
The House has already done this. Last year, by a vote of 238 to 194,
the House passed H.R. 810, introduced by Representative Michael Castle,
which authorized federally funded research on embryonic stem cell lines
derived from surplus embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics,
provided that donors give consent and that they are not paid for the
embryos.
The Senate today has the opportunity to join the House and we must do
so by a resounding majority to convince the President that a veto of
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is contrary to what Americans
want.
More than 65% of Americans support federal funding of embryonic stem
cell research across all party lines.
Finally, I do support the other two pills being considered alongside
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. But a vote for them without a
vote for H.R. 810 is the height of cynicism.
Let us be clear, alternatives to embryonic stem cells, such as
umbilical cord and adult bone marrow stem cells, are inferior
alternatives. They do not have the same regenerative potential and
Congress has already authorized money that is currently being used for
research in this area.
Today we stand at destiny's doorstep with the chance to have it swing
wide and open into a new age of scientific and medical understanding.
We must not hesitate.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passage of H.R. 810 and I call on
President Bush to sign it into law and not veto the hopes and dreams of
millions of Americans for whom astounding new cures may lie just over
the threshold of our present knowledge.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has until 3:15. I think
it is about 8 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Eight minutes? Then I yield myself 8 minutes, I guess.
First of all, Mr. President, I thank all the Senators who came here
to speak in support of H.R. 810, Republicans, Democrats, liberals,
conservatives, moderates. I think it has been a very good debate.
When I started the debate, I talked about hope. Senator Feinstein
spoke about that. Senator Kennedy just spoke eloquently about hope. I
think that is where we should close the debate, on hope, because H.R.
810 offers real hope. It offers real hope to people who are suffering
from Alzheimer's, from ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's, spinal
cord injuries, juvenile diabetes. It offers hope to their loved ones
and their families.
Senator Kennedy just read the statement by Lauren Stanford about her
hope, her hope that she can one day be whole again. To repeat for
emphasis sake what Senator Kennedy just said, Lauren Stanford--she is
innocent, as she said. She did nothing to bring on her diabetes. As she
said, all I have is hope.
I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of
passing H.R. 810. I can dream again.
The one thing that has helped me accept what I have had to
all these years is the presence of hope. Hope keeps me going.
That is Lauren Stanford. ``Hope keeps me going.''
H.R. 810 basically opens the door and lets in the sunshine. It opens
the door for more responsible research, research done with good peer
review, research done with good oversight, and, I might add, research
done with strong ethical guidelines that we have in H.R. 810.
I remind my colleagues and all who are watching, the ethical
guidelines in H.R. 810 are stronger than what exists
[[Page S7685]]
right now--stronger than what exists right now.
The American people get it. They understand this. We know in a recent
poll that asked, ``Do you support embryonic stem cell research?'' that
72 percent said ``Yes.'' That is almost three out of four. Most of
these American people who support stem cell research don't have MDs.
They don't have a Ph.D. But they know one thing: virtually every
reputable biomedical scientist, almost all Nobel Prize winners, say
that embryonic stem cell research holds enormous potential to cure
diseases and injuries. They know that.
That is why 591 groups, disease advocacy groups, patient groups,
scientific groups, research institutions, religious groups--591
American organizations support H.R. 810. That is why over 80 Nobel
Prize winners have written to us asking us to pass H.R. 810. The
American people get it. They know what is at stake.
As I said, it has been a good debate. I thank Senator Frist, our
majority leader, for engineering this debate and making it possible for
us to have an up-or-down vote on H.R. 810. But I must say, in the last
couple of days, what has saddened me is that so much time has been
spent talking about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cell
research is the way to go. Frankly, the vast majority of American
people could care less. They could care less. They want cures. They
want cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and juvenile diabetes and
spinal cord injuries. They want their loved ones to have a better life,
a fuller life, a pain-free life--less suffering.
If adult stem cells get us there, fine. If embryonic stem cell
research gets us there, fine. We should not shut the door; we want to
open the doors. We have done 30 years of work on adult stem cell
research and not one of these illnesses has yet been cured or even
remotely cured by adult stem cells. We have only had embryonic stem
cells for 8 years, but we ought to open the doors.
It is a false dichotomy to say that it is either adult stem cells or
embryonic stem cells. As Senator Smith of Oregon said today so
eloquently, the people of America want these embryos that are left over
from IVF clinics not to be discarded but to give the gift of life to
those who suffer.
Last night when I left the floor of the Senate, I met a young man out
here, the first time I ever met him. His name is Jeff McGaffrey. He is
sitting here on the floor of the Senate today. I didn't know this: he
is an intern on the HELP Committee. He was appointed to the U.S. Air
Force Academy in Missouri, and during his first year there he suffered
an accident and now doesn't have the use of his legs. He is paralyzed
from the waist down.
I want to read this. This is a letter from Jeff McGaffrey.
Honest to God, not a day goes by, not an hour goes by when
I don't think about my days at the academy, about the life I
led as an officer in the Armed Forces, leading soldiers in
service to our nation. In spite of this chair that I am
confined to, I still regard myself as an officer, a soldier
on the frontlines of a different type of battlefield; a
battle not against a country or an army, but against disease
and injury.
I continue to cherish the hope for a cure, until the day
comes, if God-willing, I can walk away from this chair and
back into the camaraderie and respect of the men and women
who proudly serve our country in the Armed Forces.
I ask that you please keep my hope alive, and not just my
hope but the hopes of millions of people, including our
soldiers and veterans who proudly served our country and who
currently suffer from disease and injury.
Keeping this hope alive is made possible by moving forward with stem
cell research, especially H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act. We know not where embryonic stem research might lead, but we know
there is only one way to find out, by allowing NIH funding for our best
and brightest scientists to explore the full therapeutic potential of
embryonic stem cells.
I ask unanimous consent that Jeff McGaffrey's letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Senator Harkin: My name is Jeff McCaffrey, and I had
the wonderful privilege of meeting you last night at the end
of the stem cell debate. As you could tell, I was confined to
a wheelchair. I currently suffer from paralysis due to a
spinal cord injury. I am a resident of the great state of
Missouri, currently interning for the Senate HELP Committee
through Chairman Enzi working on the health policy team. I'm
also a student at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
I have not always been a student at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City, nor have I always been confined to a
wheelchair. I was appointed to the U.S. Air Force Academy
following high school. It was an honor that I continue to be
proud of. Unfortunately I suffered a spinal cord injury while
I was there. I believe one of the greatest honors and
responsibilities that an individual can have is being an
officer in the armed forces, leading soldiers in service to
our nation. This was, and still is, my goal, my ambition, one
in which I would dedicate my life to.
Honest to God, not a day goes by, not an hour goes by when
I don't think about my days at the academy, about the life I
would have lead as an officer in the armed forces, leading
soldiers in service to our nation. In spite of this chair
that I am confined to, I still regard myself as an officer, a
soldier on the frontlines of a different type of battlefield;
a battle not against a country or army, but against disease
and injury.
I continue to cherish the hope for a cure, until the day
comes, if God-willing, I can walk away from this chair and
back into the camaraderie and respect of the men and women
who proudly serve our country in the armed forces.
I ask that you please keep my hope alive, and not just my
hope, but the hope of millions of people, including our
soldiers and veterans who proudly served our country and who
currently suffer from disease and injury. Keeping this hope
alive is made possible by moving forward with stem cell
research, especially H.R. 810, The Stem-Cell Research
Enhancement Act. We know not where embryonic stem cell
research might lead, but we know there is only one way to
find out, by allowing NIH funding for our best and brightest
scientists to explore the full therapeutic potential of
embryonic stem cells.
Whether cures are found, whether my dream becomes a reality
or not, I hope my service, in whatever capacity it might be,
can lay the foundation for a better world, which is exactly
what the brave men and women who serve our country do
everyday.
Respectfully,
Jeff McCaffrey
Former U.S. Air Force Cadet.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I close with this thought. So many people
are suffering in our country. They have hope.
My nephew Kelly was injured 27 years ago serving his country--just
like Jeff McGaffrey--on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. He was
sucked down by a jet engine and broke his neck. He has been paralyzed
for 27 years. He keeps his hope alive. He has followed this debate. He
has followed years of research. Kelly McGuade is a smart young man. He
has followed it, and he knows that the one thing which gives him the
best hope is embryonic stem cell research.
Are we today going to dash their hopes? Are we going to shut the
door, pull the curtain down, and say, I am sorry? What all the major
scientists with the best minds say is the best potential--are we going
to close the curtain and shut the door?
I say open the door. Bring in the sunshine. Let our scientists move
ahead with the strong ethical guidelines, with good peer review and
with good oversight to give hope to my nephew, to Jeff, and to millions
of Americans.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, embryonic stem cell research has
enormous promise for lifesaving treatments that may help cure juvenile
diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal injury, and other debilitating diseases.
That is why I will vote today for the House-passed legislation that
allows Federal funding of research on stem cells derived from excess
embryos at fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded.
President Bush has already said that Federal funds may be used in
some cases for research on some stem cell lines derived from fertilized
eggs. This bill will increase the number of stem cell lines available
for research.
With the help of fertility clinics, some perspective parents use
fertilized eggs to help them have children. The excess eggs that these
parents don't use often are thrown away. I support using some of these
fertilized eggs under carefully controlled conditions with the consent
of the donors for potentially lifesaving research.
I will also vote for two other bills this afternoon. The first bill
encourages stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of
embryos, and the second bill bans fetal farming--the practice of
creating fetuses solely for research purposes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote in support of all three bills
under
[[Page S7686]]
consideration today, which together provide a framework for addressing
the issue of stem cell research. This research holds the potential to
unlock cures that could defeat deadly diseases and relieve tremendous
human suffering. At the same time, one type of stem cell research,
involving embryonic stem cells, has also raised serious ethical and
moral concerns, both inside and outside the medical community. I
believe the framework provided by the three bills before us today
offers a way forward.
S. 2754 offers increased Federal funding and support for adult stem
cell research and other types of stem cell research that do not involve
the use of human embryos. Scientists believe this research holds
tremendous potential, and I share their hope. Countless numbers are
affected by the many diseases that this type of research may offer
future cures.
In promoting stem cell research, one of the lines that must not be
crossed is the intentional creation of human embryos for purposes of
research rather than reproduction. A second bill before us, S. 3504,
draws a line that says we in the United States will not abandon our
values in pursuit of scientific progress. This bill bans the practice
of what has been referred to as ``fetal farming.'' It makes it a
Federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an
embryo that was created for research purposes. This bill also makes it
a Federal crime to attempt to use or obtain cells from a human fetus
that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal. These provisions
close important gaps in our existing laws, and I urge my fellow
Senators to join me in supporting this bill.
It is important that we act now to address these issues because
research involving embryonic stem cells is also proceeding outside the
United States. Unfortunately, the intense focus on ethical and moral
concerns that has driven the debate in America, as reflected in the
President's Commission on Bioethics, is not always present in private
industry and the scientific community in other parts of the world. I am
concerned about the path that some of this unregulated research leads
us down. Of particular concern is the potential for experimentation
into human cloning. Our involvement through this legislation is another
protection against sanctioning such practice within our own borders. I
am concerned that ongoing research elsewhere may result in the routine
acceptance of deeply troubling practices, in particular the intentional
creation of human embryos for purposes of research rather than
reproduction.
However, it doesn't have to be this way. The United States offers a
climate for scientific and medical research because of the quality of
our educational institutions, the strength of our economy, and the
scope of our comprehensive legal and regulatory system for protection
of intellectual property rights. The final bill before us, H.R. 810,
will allow us to attract scientists to perform highly regulated
embryonic stem cell research that will otherwise take place in an
unregulated environment somewhere else. This bill authorizes Federal
support for embryonic stem cell research but limits that support to
scientists who use embryos originally created for reproductive
purposes, and now frozen or slated for destruction by in vitro
fertilization clinics. H.R. 810 requires that prior to even considering
whether to donate unused embryos for research, the patient who is the
source of the embryos must be consulted, and a determination must be
made that these embryos would otherwise be discarded and would never be
implanted in the patient or another woman. This provision ensures that
patients with excess embryos will first consider the possibility of
embryo adoption, and only if this option is rejected will the patient
then be consulted concerning the possibility of embryo donation. A
patient donating embryos that would otherwise remain frozen or be
destroyed must give written informed consent, and H.R. 810 makes it
illegal for anyone to offer any sort of financial or other inducement
in exchange for this consent.
All of these carefully drawn rules contained in H.R. 810 do not exist
in the status quo, and this sort of embryonic stem cell research
remains largely unregulated in the private sector and in many parts of
the scientific community overseas. Federal oversight that will come
with approving this bill will allow us to ensure that this research
does not expand into ethically objectionable ground in balancing the
promise on the foreseeable horizon of stem cell research with the
protection of human life. It should be clearly noted that this type of
research will proceed with or without Federal approval, so I believe
that it is best carried out under strict Federal guidelines and
oversight. It is my hope that by offering limited Federal support in
the context of the framework provided by the three bills before us
today, we can realize the benefits of stem cell research while also
drawing clear lines that reflect our refusal to sacrifice our ethical
and moral values for the sake of scientific progress.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, stem cell research has brought to the
forefront the longstanding debate between bioethics and advancements in
medical science. Stem cell research evokes hope in scientific progress
while at the same time reminding us of its ethical hazards.
Unquestionably, this is one of the most difficult public policy issues
the Senate has discussed in many years.
I wish to make it very clear that I do not oppose stem cell research.
I support and encourage research that uses cells derived from adult
tissues and umbilical-cord blood and hope that an alternative source of
embryonic stem cells, one that does not destroy embryos, can be found.
I believe that it is possible to advance scientific research without
violating ethical principles. It is my intention to support the
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754,
which will support the use and further development of techniques for
producing pluripotent cells like those derived from embryos but without
harming or destroying human life.
After much reflection on this issue, I have determined that I
personally cannot support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act. Taking stem cells from an embryo kills that embryo, and destroying
human life is never justified even if it is done in order to benefit
others. Obtaining good for oneself at the cost of another is contrary
to my deepest held moral beliefs.
I do not believe the American public should have to fund research
that many find morally objectionable. The future of this research does
not require a policy of Federal funding. There is no ban on private
funding of embryonic stem cell research, and there are other resources
available to fund this type of research. The State of California has
even chosen to use State taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell
research.
It is also my intent to support S. 3504, the Fetus Farming
Prohibition bill. This bill would make it illegal to perform research
on embryos from ``fetal farms,'' where human embryos could be gestated
in a nonhuman uterus or from human pregnancies created specifically for
the purpose of research.
Although it is often portrayed as such, the debate over embryonic
stem cell research is not easily reduced to simple positions in support
or opposition. Good people can and do disagree on this very complex
issue. It is my belief that by pursuing the appropriate scientific
techniques we can alleviate human suffering and also preserve the
sanctity of human life, and it is for these reasons that I cast my vote
today.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to address some of the comments
made by my colleagues, Senators Brownback and Coburn, during the debate
regarding H.R. 810.
Senator Coburn stated that ``every disease Senator Harkin listed--
every disease save ALS--has an adult stem cell or cord blood stem cell
cure that has already been proven in humans, without using embryonic
stem cells.'' Senator Harkin listed the following diseases and
injuries: cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, birth defects, and severe burns. My
response to Senator Coburn is where are these cures of which he speaks?
Cardiovascular disease remains the No. 1 killer of Americans.
Autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and lupus confound family
members of Senators in this Chamber. Nancy Reagan would likely have
heard of a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Christopher Reeve recently
passed away and
[[Page S7687]]
his spinal cord injury was not healed by adult or cord blood stem
cells. To say that ``proven cures'' exist is to defy the experience and
insult the intelligence of millions of Americans.
Senator Coburn stated that we are telling the American people that
there are ``no cures other than fetal stem cell research . . . the fact
is there is not one cure in this country today from embryonic stem
cells.'' First, I have always supported all forms of medical research.
My goal is to attain cures and treatments for diseases by whatever
technology works. If there were restrictions on adult stem cells, I
would be the first to introduce legislation to eliminate those
restrictions. The fact is, there are no restrictions on Federal funding
for adult stem cell research, and there are severe limitations on
Federal funding for embryonic stem cells.
Now, to the point on there being no cures from embryonic stem cells:
That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Human embryonic stem cells were
discovered in 1998. Since that time, there have been severe limitations
on the funding for basic research into how to make proper use of these
incredible cells. Perhaps, if we had not had any restrictions, there
would now be cures available. When I say that ``embryonic stem cells
hold great promise for treating, curing and improving our understanding
of diseases'' like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, and heart disease, I am quoting Dr. Elias Zerhouni,
President Bush's appointee as head of the National Institutes of
Health, NIH. When I say that ``human stem cell research represents one
of the most exciting opportunities in biomedical research,'' I am
quoting Dr. David Schwartz, the Director of the National Institute on
Environmental Health Sciences and 18 other Directors of the NIH. These
are the leaders of the biomedical research enterprise in the United
States and the world.
Senator Coburn stated, that ``as a matter of fact, [these stem cell
lines] are not contaminated.'' I can only respond by telling you that
Dr. James Battey, the Chairman of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force--and the
man in charge of keeping track of the 21 approved lines--says ``All of
the 21 human embryonic stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding
have been exposed to mouse cells.'' It is unlikely these cells will
ever be useful for the clinical applications and cures that everyone
wants.
Senator Coburn stated that ``there is no limitation in this country
at all on private research.'' I do not agree with that statement.
Privately funded research in the United States counts on scientists and
doctors trained by the NIH. The chokehold on Federal funding has kept
young scientists from entering the field of stem cell research and
limited the number and quality of scientists who can do the work that
private investors would like to see done. In addition, when it comes to
the basic research that is a necessary first step in curing diseases,
private funds are no match for the almost $30 billion investment we
make at the NIH.
Senator Brownback notes that this is a question of when life begins.
I say this is a question of when life ends. These embryos are already
slated to be thrown away. The decision the Senate faces is do we throw
these cells away or do we use them to treat diseases that affect over
100 million Americans. This is most definitely a question of when life
ends.
Senator Brownback has introduced into the record a list of 72 Current
Human Clinical Applications Using Adult Stem Cells. That list includes
lupus, multiple sclerosis, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. I
was surprised to find Hodgkin's lymphoma on this list as I have some
personal experience with that disease. My physician, Dr. John Glick, a
recognized expert in the field of Hodgkin's lymphoma, stated that he
had never heard of such a treatment or cure. I wish that I had known
that a ``cure'' existed for this disease when I was undergoing
chemotherapy, as I would have liked to have avoided some of the
unpleasant side effects. I state this to illustrate the point that the
diseases on that list are diseases for which adult stem cell therapies
have been attempted. In most cases, it just means that doctors tried a
bone marrow transplant. There is no doubt that bone marrow transplants
are a miraculous treatment, however, they have only been proven to be
helpful in blood diseases and enhancing immune systems. The great
promise of embryonic stem cells is to expand the group of diseases that
can be cured to include motor-neuron, cancer, and cardiovascular
diseases. This is the great potential that makes patients, like me so
excited.
My goal is to enable our scientists and doctors to discover cures
that will end the suffering of millions of Americans. Passing H.R. 810
will enable scientists to include stem cell research in their search
for cures.
Mr. STEVENS. I support passage of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2005.
Research using embryonic stem cells will likely play an important
role in developing treatments and cures for conditions such as
diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, and other
devastating diseases.
With the appropriate safeguards in place over the use of stem cell
tissues, the potential improvements to our quality of life and our
standards of care should be pursued.
It is clear from my conversations with scientists representing many
disciplines that the stem cell lines permitted under the
administration's policy allowing Federal funding from embryonic stem
cell research on those cell lines in existence on August 9, 2001, are
no longer adequate to allow them to pursue the breakthroughs in
treatments and cures which stem cell research promises.
This bill does not allow embryos to be created for use in research;
rather, it allows scientists to use embryos that already exist in
storage at fertility clinics that would otherwise be destroyed.
It does not make sense to me to discard embryos that might otherwise
be used to find a cure for cancer, diabetes, or Alzheimer's because it
is ``taking a life.'' These embryos are slated for destruction in any
case. None of the bills before us today would prohibit the destruction
of unwanted embryos created in fertility clinics but then unused.
I hope that my colleagues would prefer to have this research
conducted in our country where appropriate safeguards to prevent
cloning of human beings may be put into place. If Federal funds cannot
be used for this research in our own country, scientists will find ways
to conduct this research in other countries where such safeguards may
not be in place, and where Americans might not reap the benefits of the
research.
We must provide the means for science to move forward to cure and
treat diseases that plague our people. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 810.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, earlier this year I came to the Senate
floor in opposition to human cloning and in support of new stem cell
alternatives that could allow us to get exactly the stem cells we want
to relieve human suffering without creating, destroying, or cloning a
human embryo. I said during that speech that it appears that the very
advances of science that have caused the ethical dilemmas in this area
of stem cell research may now be providing a solution.
The alternatives bill, S. 2754, seeks a genuine way forward that all
Americans can wholeheartedly endorse.
One year ago, the President's Council on Bioethics issued a report
entitled ``Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.'' This
report outlined four proposals for obtaining pluripotent stem cells--
those with the same properties and potentials as embryonic stem cells--
using techniques that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.
In the year since that report, major advances in each of these
approaches have been documented in peer-reviewed research articles
published in leading scientific journals.
Two of these ``alternative methods'' offer the possibility of
obtaining superior stem cells with potential scientific and medical
advantages over those that could be obtained by destroying embryos.
Altered nuclear transfer and direct reprogramming would permit the
production of pluripotent stem cell lines of specific genetic types.
This would allow standardized scientific studies of genetic diseases
and possibly patient-specific or immune-compatible cell therapies.
[[Page S7688]]
So it is important to recognize that this alternatives bill, S. 2754,
could encourage advances in stem cell biology unlike any current law or
pending legislative approach. And it could do so in a way that would
sustain moral and social consensus for full Federal funding of this
research. I note that the bill will pass with an overwhelming vote--
exactly the kind of consensus which I hoped for.
For all of these reasons, I will vote enthusiastically for the
alternatives bill. I will oppose H.R. 810, which uses tax dollars to
fund research that requires the destruction of human life at its
earliest stages. The Federal Government has never funded such research
before, and that is not a line I wish to cross--especially since, as
the alternatives bill shows, it is possible to fund every type of stem
cell research without cloning or destroying human embryos. In fact, the
stem cells which the alternatives can provide are superior--because
they are ``patient specific'' genetically--to the stem cells which
science can get from destroying embryos.
I should add that the promise of the alternatives is speculative, but
so is the promise of the research which would destroy human life. All
of this research has potential, it is all speculative, and it all
involves essentially the same science. My sense is that either all of
it or none of it will prove to be possible and that the right balance
is therefore to seek the win-win solution that gives us the best chance
to relieve human suffering while protecting human life.
We are entering a promising new era in biomedical technology, but as
our power over human life increases, so does the seriousness of the
moral issues. We should all want to advance biomedical science while
sustaining fundamental principles for the protection of human life.
This is why I am also voting in favor of the prohibition against fetus
farms.
Biomedical science should be a matter of unity in our national
identity: No one should enter the hospital with moral qualms about the
research on which their therapies had been developed or resentful that
positive possibilities for the best therapies were not explored.
The differences within our Nation can be a source of strength as we
seek to open a way forward for biomedical science. The alternatives
offer us just such a path to progress.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15
minutes. Am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for those of us who are fortunate to
represent our States in the Senate, it is a high honor and a privilege,
but we tend to not understand sometimes the eyes that are watching what
we do. Today, the eyes of millions of people are watching us to see
what is going to happen in the Senate as it relates to H.R. 810. Many
of these people, who are afflicted with dread diseases, having had
perhaps serious accidents, are personally concerned about what we do
here today. But in addition to those people who are personally
concerned as a result of the maladies that afflict them, there are
millions of us--fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles,
neighbors, friends, brothers, sisters--who are all also watching and
hoping that their loved ones someday will be better.
What is hope? What do you say about hope? If you had to put the words
in a dictionary for hope, what would you say? I looked in the
dictionary under ``hope.'' There is a very simple definition: to
cherish the desire with anticipation. That is what this is all about:
people who cherish, desire, and anticipate that we will do something to
make their lives better.
Shortly here in the Senate we are going to vote on a measure that
will allow those people to have hope. It is called the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, a piece of legislation that keeps hope alive
for millions and millions of people in America--hope for a 17-year-old,
almost 18-year-old, Molly Miller. I have followed her disease since she
was a little girl. She is a twin. The sister Jacki and herself as twins
tended to go every place together. One is sick, one isn't. One feels
the pain personally, one feels the pain emotionally.
This legislation gives hope to Molly and Jacki Miller of Las Vegas, a
pair, a team, twins, who suffer from juvenile diabetes.
What is a twin? I guess the best way to describe a twin is when I was
flying to Las Vegas on a very crowded airplane, I was in one seat and
there were two little girls in the middle seat and the window seat. I
began to sit down. I looked at the girls. They looked alike. I said,
Are you sisters? One girl looked at me very directly and said to me,
No, we are twins.
Jacki and Molly have suffered and suffered together because they are
more than sisters, they are twins.
This legislation will give hope to a man by the name of Robert
Alfertelle of Boulder City, NV. He is confined to a wheelchair because
of Parkinson's disease.
We all know friends and neighbors who have diseases who have hope of
being cured as a result of what we are doing here on the Senate floor
today. These diseases can be cured. We are told they can be cured.
You have heard the recitation of these difficult diseases that people
have with the hope that they can be cured if we do the right thing here
today. For too long these good people have been denied hope because we
in the Senate haven't acted. The House passed this bill 14 months ago.
Unfortunately, until today it has been stalled here in the Senate.
The Americans who would benefit from cures offered by stem cell
research have been forced to wait. They have waited through weeks
dedicated to issues such as the definition of marriage. They waited
through weeks of ideological debate dedicated to the well-off,
connected few. In fact, we spent weeks here on issues that would affect
less than .02 percent of Americans to repeal the estate tax. We spent
time here on flag burning. We have waited through a health care week
that had nothing to do with getting America help. We have all waited
too long--so long in fact that on May 1 former First Lady Nancy Reagan
was so baffled and disappointed by the continued delays in the Senate
she wrote a letter, which I quote:
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 very hard to understand.
I too am disappointed that we have had to wait 14 months for this
vote. I am grateful the wait is over. I believe that because of the
persistence of Democrats in the Senate, we will thankfully finally vote
on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810. This legislation
provides a rare opportunity for this Congress--some say this ``do-
nothing Congress''--to consider legislation about curing disease and
saving lives, not partisan politics.
This body needs to pass this legislation because the President's
current stem cell policy is hindering promising medical research that
could lead to treatment and cure for diseases and conditions. Under the
President's stem cell policy, Federal research funds can be used on
only a small number of chronic stem cell lines, most of which
are contaminated, and that were created before August 9, 5 years ago.
Under this policy, only 21 stem cells qualify, many of which are
contaminated and are certainly inferior to new and more promising stem
cell lines. I have heard people come to this floor and say why should
the Federal Government get involved? We are spending $3 billion a week
in Iraq. I think we can get involved. We have gotten involved in a lot
of things dealing with medical research, as well we should.
We have worked for years spending Federal taxpayer dollars on doing
something about AIDS research. Last week it was announced that instead
of having to take as many as 36 pills a day, there is now one pill for
people who are HIV infected--one pill that does the same as 36 pills
did, and in fact probably better. People have had to get up in the
middle of the night to take medications.
All of that research is funded by the Federal Government. New drugs
for epilepsy were started by Tony Coelho who was a whip in the House,
and who was an epileptic. He led the charge. We spent lots of Federal
dollars on epilepsy, and we have made great progress.
Gene therapy involved the fragile X syndrome. We spent millions of
Federal
[[Page S7689]]
dollars on stroke prevention, screening for Downs syndrome. We have
spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on cancer research,
on digestive bowel disease, lupus, and diabetes.
These are dollars well spent. We have made progress. But the most
eminent scientists in the world tell us that they need this legislation
passed. Our Government is needlessly impeding the work of our Nation's
top scientists who cannot use Federal funds on research, on new and
more promising stem cell research that does not pose the risk of
contamination that the eligible stem lines do.
This legislation would solve this problem by expanding the number of
human embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research
to include new stem cell lines that would be derived from any of the
more than 400,000 surplus embryos from fertility clinics that will
never be used to create a pregnancy and would otherwise be thrown in
the trash.
Just as important, this legislation would ensure that stem cell
research is conducted under ethical guidelines that are more strict
than the President's current policy.
In short, this legislation would allow our Government to do
everything it can under strict ethical guidelines and oversight to
develop treatments for a wide range of diseases and conditions.
That is why this legislation is supported by 41 Nobel laureates,
virtually every major medical, scientific, and professional
association, major research universities, and patient advocacy
organizations.
Before we vote on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, the Senate
will first consider two other measures. Neither one of these measures
is a substitute for H.R. 810. The only reason they are here is to
provide political cover for the political opponents of this
legislation. The opposition knows that their opposition to stem cell
research is outside the American mainstream, so they want to give
themselves political cover by voting for two meaningless bills. It is
playbook straight from the Republican Orwellian world of politics.
Neither one of these bills would do any harm but neither would have any
impact at all. There is nothing included in S. 2754 which cannot
already be accomplished without this legislation. The National
Institutes of Health Director has told the Judiciary Committee this
exact thing. It doesn't do anything that can't be done now.
The second bill, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, bans activity
that no scientist is currently doing or wants to do. I will vote for
both of them. They are meaningless.
While I support all three of these bills, there is only one that
matters, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which will
clear the way for research that can lead the way for treatments and
cures for a wide range of diseases and conditions.
Don't take just my word for it. Hundreds of patient advocacy groups,
health organizations, research universities, scientific societies,
religious groups, and other interested organizations, representing
millions and millions of patients, scientists, health care providers
and advocates, wrote the following in a letter to the Senate:
Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810
will move stem cell research forward in our country . . . The
other two bills . . . are not substitutes for a yes vote on
H.R. 810.
I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter, dated July 14,
2006, signed by almost 600 organizations, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2006.
Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups,
health organizations, research universities, scientific
societies, religious groups and other interested institutions
and associations, representing millions of patients,
scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you
with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of
H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.
Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810
will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is
the bill which holds promise for expanding medical
breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and
the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are not
substitutes for a yes vote on H.R. 810,
H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote
in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support
of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial
progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810
immediately.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, America needs a new direction not only in
what is going on in Iraq but what is going on with medical research. We
will take a step in that direction by passing H.R. 810.
A vote against H.R. 810, regardless of how Members vote on the other
two measures, is a vote against research and cures. A vote for it is a
vote for millions of Americans who are looking to us right new for
help. A vote for H.R. 810 is a vote to keep hope alive. Let's keep hope
alive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand I have 15 minutes under my
control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes on my time to Senator
Dodd, who has been unable to come to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I thank the majority leader immensely for his generosity. I
know we are about to close out this debate, and I am appreciative of
him allowing me this time to express my strong support for this
legislation. I commend the majority leader, along with my colleagues
from Pennsylvania and Iowa, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, and
others who have championed this issue. I commend the other body for
passing this legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, over
a year ago and by a fairly substantial majority vote.
My hope is that my colleagues, in a significant vote, will endorse
and support what has already been done in the House. Then we can
finally deliver on promising stem cell research that may one day
provide relief to the more than 100 million Americans suffering from
Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, ALS, cancer, and many other
devastating conditions for which there is still no cure.
This is controversial, there is no question about it. But as the
distinguished minority leader, the Democratic leader, pointed out, we
are talking about embryos that would otherwise be discarded but can now
be used to one day make a difference in the lives of literally millions
and millions of Americans.
I am the godfather of a child with juvenile diabetes. I cannot begin
to state how my friend's family in Connecticut feels about legislation.
I don't know what their politics are on this. I know they are a family
with deep values and a deep sense of support for their church. They are
also a family whose child's life could be made profoundly different if
it were possible to examine embryonic stem cells thoroughly so that one
day we can find a cure for juvenile diabetes. But, obviously there are
others diseases, including Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, and other
devastating conditions we can make a difference on. With the passage of
this bill, we can say to these children and these families we can make
a difference.
I emphasize, again, these 400,000 embryos would otherwise be
discarded. Strict ethical requirements apply to the use of these
embryos. In fact, I believe these ethical requirements are one of the
most essential provisions of the bill. Since the HELP Committee first
began consideration of the President's policy on embryonic stem cell
research in 2001, I have maintained that the pursuit of scientific
research that may benefit millions of Americans and their families was
as important as ensuring that science did not outpace ethics.
Under this legislation, the only embryonic stem cells that can be
used for federally-funded research are those that were derived through
embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that were created for
fertility treatment purposes and were donated for research with the
written, informed consent of the individuals seeking that treatment.
Any financial or other inducements to make this donation are
prohibited. Their embryos will never be implanted in a woman and would
otherwise have
[[Page S7690]]
been discarded. The ethical requirements contained in this bill are
stronger than current law. In fact, it's possible that some of the
twenty-one stem cell lines currently approved for federally-funded
research, the so-called ``NIH-approved lines,'' may not meet the strict
ethical criteria contained in this bill.
I have heard some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation argue
that this legislation allows, even encourages, taxpayer-funded
destruction of human embryos. That is totally false. An amendment is
attached to every annual Labor-HHS appropriations bill prohibiting any
Federal funds from being used to destroy human embryos. This amendment,
referred to as the ``Dickey amendment,'' is not affected by this
legislation. Federal funds can be used to study stem cell lines that
were derived from human embryos that meet the ethical requirements I
just laid out, but the derivation process itself cannot be funded using
Federal dollars.
I have also heard some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation
argue that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary given the
advances in adult stem cell research. Let me quickly say, with respect
to adult stem cells, I am strongly supportive of moving aggressively in
that area. I am a strong supporter. In fact, I authored the legislation
which is now law advancing bone marrow and cord blood stem cell
collection for use in adult stem cell transplantation. For both of my
young daughters, we took the umbilical cord blood from the children at
birth and it is being stored. My hope is that stem cells from cord
blood will prove to be tremendously valuable to coming generations of
Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding
for this important law--which passed unanimously in the Senate--in the
upcoming Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
The fact remains that there will always be limits to the use of adult
stem cells when compared with embryonic stem cells and that is why the
legislation before us is so important. Our Nation's best scientists,
including many Nobel Laureates, believe that embryonic stem cell
research has a unique potential to ease human suffering and that is
because embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, can become any
cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells can become heart cells, lung
cells, brain cells, among others, and that property--called
pluripotency--is unique to their embryonic state.
Let us not lose this opportunity. I urge the President to reconsider,
to listen to the majority leader, listen to Senator Specter, Senator
Harkin, and others who have spent countless hours examining this issue
and see if he would not be willing to change his mind on this issue to
avoid a Presidential veto. My hope is we will get strong bipartisan
support on this bill.
I intend to support the Fetal Farming Prohibition Act and the other
legislation being offered. I think those bills are unnecessary, but
nonetheless I will be glad to support them. But let's also pass the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act by a strong vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, last year I made a commitment to try to
bring H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to the floor.
This week, I followed through on that promise. Over the last 2 days, we
have discussed science, we have discussed ethics and how those two
issues, science and ethics, interplay.
That is important because stem cell research will be the first of
many major moral and ethical challenges to biomedical research that
this Senate has the responsibility to address in the 21st century. We
will face similar discussions again and again as biomedical science
rapidly advances, especially as we learn more and more about molecular
and cellular developmental biology. It is our responsibility as
legislators, as representatives of the American people, to determine
the proper role for our Federal Government, both in financial support,
as well as in ethical oversight, in this evolving, new, exciting
research and to build around it appropriate ethical safeguards and
appropriate ethical framework.
As legislators, as representatives, we must participate in defining
this research, surrounding the culture of life. If we don't do so, the
research itself will begin to define us and who we are.
Biomedical research holds great promise, but it is a promise that
must be harnessed within these moral and ethical safeguards. The
secret, the heart of human dignity, is living within limits--ethical
limits and moral limits--limits that do not hamper human scientific
advances but, rather, allow us to preserve and promote them. That is
why it is important and appropriate that we can consider all three of
the bills that have been debated over the last 2 days. In the Fetus
Farming Prohibition Act and the Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, we
realize the potential of research practices that may actually bridge
moral and ethical differences, while the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act seeks, by other means, to expand the number of embryonic stem cell
lines available for federally funded research.
Over the last 2 days, we have engaged in a robust debate, a full
debate, highlighting the ethical dilemmas presented by research about
those very early beginnings of life, as well as the potential, the hope
for this research.
I close by making a final comment on what I believe is this inherent
need for policy surrounding science and add a cautionary note in this
discussion. I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because
of these remarkable, exciting, rapidly accelerating advances in
developmental biology. New doors of exploration have been exploding and
opened by things such as the Human Genome Project, by our new knowledge
of molecular genetics, molecular sequencing, cellular mechanisms. Some
have called the 21st century--we are in the early years of the 21st
century--the century of the cells, a century that will explode with
regenerative medicine, the ability to replace cells that had been
damaged by disease or ill health.
As a heart surgeon, I can't help but to dream of no longer having to
cut out a diseased heart, a heart that is failing, and replace it with
a donated heart because advances in cell therapy, advances in
regenerative medicine will allow us to repair tissues or regenerate
that new cardiac tissue, healthy tissue, without any surgery at all.
Ten years from now, today's hope can be that reality. In 15 years,
whole organ-heart transplantation could--we do not want to overstate
but could be relegated to the history books. That is why it is so
important to bring this debate to this Senate, to allow science to
advance, to promote science with strong ethical oversight.
In the last century, we faced a whole range of ethical
considerations; in my own field of heart transplantation, decisions
about how you define brain death. The discussion went on for years and
years, actually two decades, into the late 1960s, ethical discussions
about to whom you decide to give that healthy heart, when you have so
many people who are dying--ethical decisions that have to be made every
day.
We have had controversies over blood transfusions, genetic therapy,
we even faced controversy over the treatment and diagnosis of HIV/AIDS.
But as we have seen over the course of today's and yesterday's debate,
the future will bring even more profound ethical questions. They will
continue to come with increasing frequency as we continue to unlock
those mysteries of health and disease.
How we in humanity handle this gathering, this increasing control
over cellular and molecular science, as well as developmental biology,
will reflect who we are as a people and where we are going. We can't
hide from, as representatives of the American people, nor should we,
the questions that this new knowledge presents. Our votes today are a
mere step, a first step toward beginning to answer them.
Throughout today's debate, I have heard a number of my colleagues,
myself included, talk about the potential for healing, that inherent
hope offered by adult stem cells as well as embryonic stem cells, but
it is important that advocates not oversell the potential for medical
treatment. As a physician, I understand the importance of promoting
hope and of giving hope, but it is irresponsible to give false hope.
This evolving science is relatively new, and even our basic research
has to be done before we can truly give that hope to become reality,
and even then we may encounter failure.
All of these are difficult issues on which people of very good faith
can
[[Page S7691]]
reasonably disagree. However, I hope that all can agree this debate and
the approach we took in this debate by considering three bills as a
package, each bill to be voted upon separately, is a fair way, is a
thoughtful way, to begin to address the future of stem cell research.
The bills are important steps in defining science policy and
advancing the practice and science of medicine. To get this far, we had
to set aside our differences. I am hopeful that at the end of the day
we will have made important strides forward in promoting biomedical
advancement in a responsible and in an ethical manner. I expect the
outcome of these votes will demonstrate there is some consensus among
Members, even on this very divisive issue.
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader
for yielding me the time.
As we prepare for the vote, it is my view that it is a clear-cut
question to use embryos to save lives because otherwise they will be
destroyed. There are some 400,000 frozen embryos, and the choice is
discarding them or using them to save lives.
Embryonic stem cells have the flexibility for the potential to cure
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease and cancer.
I have a constituent, Jim Cordy, in Pittsburgh, PA, who suffers from
Parkinson's. Every time I see Jim Cordy, he displays an hour glass. He
inverts it, and as the sand passes from one part of the hour glass to
the lower, Jim Cordy makes the dramatic point that is the way his life
is slipping away in the absence of utilizing all means possible to cure
Parkinson's. The number one possibility is embryonic stem cell
research.
Senator Brownback and I had a debate where he challenged me on when
life began, and I retorted--suffering from Hodgkin's cancer myself--the
question on my mind was when life ended. Life will never begin for
these embryos because there are 400,000 frozen embryos in the US.
Notwithstanding millions of dollars appropriated to encourage adoption,
only 128 have been adopted. So those lives will not begin, but many
other lives will end if we do not use all the scientific resources
available.
In bygone years, Galileo was prosecuted when he insisted the world
was round. Columbus was discouraged from seeking America because the
world was flat and it was impossible to find a new continent. Boniface
VIII stopped the use of cadavers, indispensable for medical research.
And the Scottish Turks prohibited anesthesia for women in childbirth
because it was God's will that women should suffer.
A century from now people will look back in amazement that we could
even have this debate where the issues are so clear-cut. I urge my
colleagues to support S. 2754, which I cosponsored with Senator
Santorum, which is long run----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Which promotes stem cell research without destroying the
embryo. But the real core issue is the third vote on H.R. 810 which
will allow Federal funding, which is now in the range, at NIH, of $30
billion a year, which can save so many lives.
I thank the majority leader and thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in just a few moments we will be voting on
three bills. The first bill we will be voting on is the Fetus Farming
Prohibition Act. The second bill we will be voting on is the
alternative means, the alternative ways of deriving stem cells. And the
third is the House bill in support of research which is derived from
blastocysts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for the
yeas and nays on all three bills en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the
three bills.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second and
third votes be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:45
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to three consecutive votes.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bills.
The bills were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and were
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, S. 3504, having been read the third
time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The bill (S. 3504) was passed, as follows:
S. 3504
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fetus Farming Prohibition
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF
TISSUE FROM FETUSES GESTATED FOR RESEARCH
PURPOSES.
Section 498B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
289g-2) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Solicitation or Acceptance of Tissue From Fetuses
Gestated for Research Purposes.--It shall be unlawful for any
person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce
to--
``(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a
donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy
was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
``(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells
obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in
the uterus of a nonhuman animal.'';
(3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), as so redesignated,
by striking ``(a) or (b)'' and inserting ``(a), (b), or
(c)''; and
(4) in paragraph (1) of subsection (e), as so redesignated,
by striking ``section 498A(f)'' and inserting ``section
498A(g)''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, S. 2754, having been read the third
time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
[[Page S7692]]
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The bill (S. 2754) was passed, as follows:
S. 2754
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem
Cell Therapies Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) intensify research that may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions; and
(2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines,
including from postnatal sources, without creating human
embryos for research purposes or discarding, destroying, or
knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus.
SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
498C the following:
``SEC. 409J. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL
RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the
Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied
research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation,
production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic
stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the
cell types of the developing body and may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after
consultation with the Director, shall issue final guidelines
to implement subsection (a), that--
``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required
for additional research, which shall include a determination
of the extent to which specific techniques may require
additional basic or animal research to ensure that any
research involving human cells using these techniques would
clearly be consistent with the standards established under
this section;
``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for
near-term clinical benefit; and
``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account
techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics
and any other appropriate techniques and research.
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of
each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing
the activities carried out under this section during the
fiscal year, including a description of the research
conducted under this section.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation
regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by
somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not
specifically authorized by this section.
``(e) Definition.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `human embryo'
shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable
appropriations Act.
``(2) Applicable act.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to
the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or
supported under this section, the Act making appropriations
for the Department of Health and Human Services for such
fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does
not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act
for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the
applicable appropriations Act.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2009, to carry out this section.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill (H.R. 810) having been read the third
time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--37
Allard
Allen
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Martinez
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
The bill (H.R. 810) was passed.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, plans tonight are that we will get consent
on moving to the Water Resources Development Act. Senator Inhofe is
available to start that bill.
I congratulate and thank all of our colleagues for the very good
debate that we have had over the last 2 days on a very tough issue, a
difficult issue. Members have had the opportunity to express themselves
with good debate on science and on the ethics. I thank them for that
collegial approach.
____________________