[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.

                          ____________________