[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S26]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STEM CELL RESEARCH
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I strongly support legislation introduced
earlier today which would permit Federal funding to be used for
embryonic stem cell research. That is a subject which has been at the
top of my agenda since November of 1998 when stem cells were first
exposed. Within 10 days, in December 1998, the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education held the
first hearing to explore the potential of embryonic stem cell research.
In the intervening years the subcommittee has held some 19 hearings
exploring this issue in some great detail.
The Specter-Harkin bill was passed last year, vetoed by the
President, and the bill is back before the Congress this year where it
may be possible to override a Presidential veto. That depends upon how
much public support there is--really, how much public clamor there is--
for this legislation to be enacted.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to replace diseased cells.
They are a veritable fountain of youth. They have enormous potential in
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, and almost all of the
known maladies. I don't know of any malady where they are not a
potential for a cure because the cells in a person's body become
diseased, and if the embryonic stem cell can replace the diseased cell,
there is a potential for a cure.
There is opposition to this legislation on the ground that it would
destroy life. That is factually not correct because there are some
400,000 embryos created for in vitro fertilization which are going to
be destroyed. When the issue was raised about destroying a life, the
subcommittee took the lead and appropriated $2 million to facilitate
adoptions. There have only been about 100 adoptions in the past several
years, so there is no doubt that using some of these embryonic stem
cells will not destroy life because they will not be used to create
life. If there were any chance they would create life, I would not
consider utilizing them for medical research.
When the alternative is to throw them away or to use them, it seems
to me a clear choice to utilize them to save lives and fight disease.
That is the thrust of this legislation.
____________________