[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 58 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4319-S4337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

   HOPE OFFERED THROUGH PRINCIPLED AND ETHICAL STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate shall resume consideration of the following measures en bloc, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 5) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
       A bill (S. 30) to intensify research to derive human 
     pluripotent stem cell lines.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is 
now 90 minutes of debate under the control of the Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Harkin, or his designee; 45 minutes under the control of the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, and the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Isakson, and 45 minutes under the control of the Senator from Kansas, 
Mr. Brownback.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before I yield the floor to my colleague 
from Massachusetts, I just want to again bring people up to speed as to 
where we are in this debate. We will debate the two bills again today, 
S. 5 and S. 30, all day. We will have two votes later today at a time 
to be determined by the leaders but I think right prior to 6 p.m, the 
first vote occurring on S. 5, an up-or-down vote without amendments, 
and after that would be an up-or-down vote on S. 30, without 
amendments.

[[Page S4320]]

  I intend to take some time this morning, after the Senator from 
Massachusetts speaks, again to outline the differences in the two 
bills, why S. 5 is a preferable bill and why that should be the bill we 
pass and send to the President for his signature and to point out that 
S. 5 is truly the compromise bill.
  I want everyone to know that. There was some talk that S. 30 should 
be the compromise. Let me point out for clarity that last year we 
passed the stem cell research bill. There was another bill offered on 
the floor at the same time called the Specter-Santorum bill. That bill 
was supported by the Bush administration. Both bills passed, but the 
Specter-Santorum bill never made it through the House, and therefore 
the President was given the stem cell research bill. He vetoed it. He 
exercised the only veto of his administration to veto the stem cell 
bill.
  In order to reach out a hand of compromise to the White House, we 
then incorporated in our bill, S. 5, today, the Specter-Santorum bill 
of last year, which is part of S. 5. So it seems to me we have gone 
halfway at least in reaching out to the White House to provide a 
compromise situation. Now the White House says they want to compromise 
further. They want something else. You can keep this up until there is 
nothing left of the stem cell bill.
  I wish to make it very clear that we have compromised. We have come 
halfway. We incorporated the bill the President supported last year, so 
S. 5 really is the compromise measure we are sending to the President.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes or whatever time he requires to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I again thank my friend and colleague 
from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his steadfast leadership in this 
extraordinarily important issue. We are full of hope this afternoon 
about the votes here in the Senate. I welcome just a few moments to 
express my own views about where I think we are and what I think the 
issues really are before the Senate.
  For years, many of us have fought the same battle, the battle to give 
those suffering or injured every ethical option for new cures. For 
those speaking on the Senate floor, perhaps little changes from one 
year's debate to the next. We still speak of hope. We still speak of 
dreams denied when those hopes are dashed. We still speak of our belief 
that medical research should be valued.
  But for those who listen to our debate, a year can make all the 
difference in the world. For a young man or woman bravely serving their 
country, a year can make the difference between vigorous active service 
and life in a wheelchair or a brain injury from a war wound. For 
someone fighting the long and lonely battle against Alzheimer's 
disease, a year can make the memory of a beloved spouse or child a 
little fainter, a little more distant. For a patient battling against 
the tremors of Parkinson's disease, a year can mean more and more life 
activities fade out of reach.
  If overturning the administration's unwarranted restrictions on stem 
cell research brings just one breakthrough, just one of the many that 
our best scientists believe are possible, that breakthrough can mean 
all the difference in the world for the patients who benefit. They 
cannot wait another year, or another day, for the help stem cell 
research can bring, and we should not wait in aiding them. We must take 
action here and now to end these unnecessary and harmful restrictions 
on lifesaving research.
  Continuing the administration's restrictions means the gap between 
what scientists could do and what they are allowed to do grows even 
wider.
  Continuing the restrictions means our Nation's best scientists will 
go on having to waste precious time on pointless redtape and 
bureaucratic obstacles, time that should be spent on the search for new 
cures.
  Continuing the restrictions means having to tell the patients who are 
counting on the promise of stem cell research: Wait just a little 
longer, dream just a little less, hope just a little more faintly.
  The Senate must act, just as the House has already, to unlock the 
potential of stem cell research.
  When the Congress has approved this needed legislation, we must turn 
our attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and urge the President of the 
United States not to veto the legislation that gives so much hope to so 
many.
  Mr. President, just an extraordinary statement and comment from the 
Nation's leading scientist, Dr. Zerhouni, who is the head of the 
National Institutes of Health:

       From my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best 
     interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that 
     we find ways and the nation finds a way to allow the science 
     to go full speed across adult and embryonic stem cells 
     equally.

  This is the statement of the head of the National Institutes of 
Health, an extraordinary scientist and researcher himself. It couldn't 
be said more clearly and more compellingly.
  Finally, to remind ourselves what this really is all about--because 
it is basically about individuals--here are two extraordinary soldiers 
who served in Iraq. James Crossby, Winthrop, MA, is now in a wheelchair 
because of a damaged spinal column--others could have similar 
situations from their own States--and Sgt Jason Wittling, Marine Corps, 
injured in Karbala, again with spinal cord injuries. And that is one of 
the areas where there is such great hope.
  Finally, one of the most moving letters I have received in the time I 
have been in the Senate was on this issue, from Lauren Stanford, from 
Plymouth, MA--15 years old. She wrote just after watching the President 
of the United States speak on this issue when he set up the regime on 
which we have all commented, which limits the great possibilities we 
have talked about during the course of this debate. This is what she 
said:

       That night--

  Referring to the night the President talked--

     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--and to give 
     me back a life where I don't have to accept a constant, 
     almost insane level of hourly medical intervention as 
     ``normal''? How could my nation do this to me?

  That is the issue which Lauren Stanford has put before the Senate. 
Hopefully she will get an overwhelming, bipartisan answer this 
afternoon when the roll is called.
  I yield the remainder of my time..
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota. How much time do we have remaining on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eighty minutes.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Iowa for 
his leadership. I know he and many others in this Chamber have spent a 
great deal of time putting together a piece of legislation that is very 
important. I commend all of them.
  There are times on the floor of the Senate where we are engaged in 
certain kinds of debates that cause folks to exhibit some temper and 
some concern and anxiety and impatience. This is one of those issues, 
however, that people feel very differently about. We will have people 
come to the floor on this issue of stem cell research who feel very 
strongly on both sides.
  I respect all of those views. I respect everyone who comes to this 
floor with a position on this issue. But let me say, the position, as I 
see it, is a position that deals with life and death. This is very 
important. We deal with some issues on the floor of the Senate that are 
not so important, some that are very important. This ranks way up there 
in importance.
  This is about life or death. It is about science, and it is about 
inquiry. It is about the search for unlocking the mysteries of what 
causes some of the dreaded diseases here on Earth and how we find cures 
for these dreaded diseases.
  I chair a subcommittee that funds the science programs in our 
country,

[[Page S4321]]

especially the science programs that have to do with, for example, 
energy and other related matters. I think science is fascinating. In my 
subcommittee, we had testimony a while ago about studying termites. We 
are studying the digestive system of termites because we are trying to 
understand why it is when a termite eats wood, the termite's digestive 
system produces hydrogen. How is it that a termite eats wood and 
produces hydrogen? Again, what an interesting scientific inquiry.
  Well, we are engaged in scientific research in a whole range of 
issues. Especially important are the areas of scientific inquiry in 
this area of health. What is it that causes these terrible diseases? 
What kinds of approaches might give us a chance to cure some of these 
dreaded diseases?
  Well, one of those issues is the issue of stem cell research. The 
language almost sounds like a foreign language in some of these 
discussions: somatic cell nuclear transfer, in vitro fertilization 
clinic, stem cell research. Those are not terms people use every day in 
their discussions, and yet the method of using those terms in this 
discussion is about life or death. It is about continuing scientific 
inquiry to try to unlock the mysteries of some of the most terrible 
diseases suffered by mankind.
  We passed a piece of legislation last July that moved in this 
direction, and the President decided to veto it. Legislation that we 
hoped would perhaps give us an opportunity for treatment for things 
such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS, 
Alzheimer's, birth defects, and spinal cord injuries.
  We do not know, we cannot come to the floor of the Senate, we are not 
scientists to describe: Here is exactly what will happen as a result of 
this scientific inquiry. But we do know there are at least indications 
of great hope through this scientific inquiry. So the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act, S. 5, which we now have on the floor of the 
Senate, would allow researchers to pursue all kinds of promising stem 
cell research, including embryonic stem cell research that is federally 
funded.
  This legislation is controversial. The legislation deals, however, 
only with embryos that were created for fertility purposes in in vitro 
fertilization clinics that would otherwise be thrown away.
  Now, in vitro is a relatively new term. It has been around for about 
25 years. There are more than 1 million children walking this planet of 
ours who were born as a result of in vitro fertilization. We had 
testimony before one of my committees, the Commerce Committee, in which 
a witness said: None of them should have been born. None of these human 
beings are worthy. They should not have been born. He disagrees with in 
vitro fertilization. It is his right to do that. I do not support that.
  I think the wonder of life of having 1 million people, 1 million 
people who once were babies born to people, to couples who were not 
able to have children, is a wonderful gift. What a wonderful gift.
  In vitro has been around for a quarter of a century. Because of the 
nature of the treatment, the infertility treatment in this process, 
more embryos are created than will ever be used. Rather than throwing 
these embryos in the waste, as hospital waste, or just waste from an in 
vitro clinic, it is much more life affirming, I think, to use them to 
better understand how we might treat devastating diseases such as 
diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and more.
  I think Senator Jack Danforth, former Senator Jack Danforth, said it 
best. He is a colleague who served here with us in the Senate. He said 
this: It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are 
equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I 
am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for 
legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is 
the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
  That is from former Senator Jack Danforth. What a profound statement. 
Do you equate the cells in a petri dish with someone suffering the 
ravages of Parkinson's disease or ALS? I do not think so. But that 
suggests somehow that those who oppose this legislation make that 
equation.
  This legislation is not suggesting that anyone create an embryo for 
the purpose of research. It is saying those embryos that are about to 
be discarded, thrown away, thousands of them, because many more are 
produced than are to be used in in vitro clinics, rather than simply 
throwing them away, how about--with the consent of those from whom the 
embryos came--how about using them for a life-affirming purpose, for 
the needed research into unlocking the mysteries of these devastating 
diseases?
  There are about 400,000 embryos frozen in these clinics. It is 
estimated 8,000 to 11,000 are scheduled to be discarded. It is 
interesting to me that no one has come to the floor of the Senate--that 
I am aware of--saying: Shut down these in vitro clinics. Shut them 
down. And, by the way, if someone tries to throw away an embryo, as 
they do every day, if they try to throw one away, have someone arrest 
them because you are throwing away a human being. It is, of course, not 
a human being. It has the potential to become a human being if it is 
implanted in a woman's uterus and grown to term. But it will not be 
implanted in a uterus. In fact, it will be discarded in a wastebasket.
  The question my colleagues asks with S. 5 is: With consent, should 
that embryo, rather than simply be discarded, not be able to be used 
for this critically important research?

  There are not enough stem cell lines available. We know that. My 
colleagues have made that case. The President authorized some stem cell 
lines, but the authorized lines were never enough, and, in fact, they 
were contaminated, and it is just a plain fact that we are, at this 
point, interrupting the scientific inquiry. We are interrupting the 
opportunity to search for a cure for these diseases.
  The embryos we are discussing on the floor of the Senate are going to 
be destroyed. That is certain. These embryos are going to be destroyed. 
Could they, should they be used to search for the cure for these dread 
diseases? I believe the answer is yes.
  In my last campaign for the Senate, a curious commercial was run 
against me by my opponent. He ran a commercial which is a description 
of some who feel very strongly in opposition to this kind of 
legislation. Because I support stem cell research very strongly, my 
opponent ran a commercial of a man sitting around the fire, a kind of a 
campfire with about six or eight young children around him.
  The commercial, I suppose, was meant to be humorous but about a 
serious subject. A young child, with eyes very big reflected in the 
glow of the fire, around that fireplace, said to the camp leader: Tell 
us a story. Tell us a scary story.
  The man said: Well, there is a man named Byron--referring to me, I 
guess--a man named Byron. He has a plan. His plan is to implant into a 
mommy's uterus an egg that is fertilized, to become a fetus, so that 
they can harvest it during that pregnancy to use it for body parts 
later.
  Little children around that campfire had eyes the size of dinner 
plates, from that scary story. Of course, that was a complete 
perversion of anything that remotely related to the truth, had no 
relationship to any of these issues.
  No one is talking about implanting something in a uterus for the 
purpose of growing a fetus, for the purpose of harvesting body parts. 
That kind of unbelievable lie permeates all too often this discussion. 
That is not what this discussion is about.
  Those of us in this Chamber--and there are many of us who have sat in 
the front row of a funeral--in my case of a daughter--and asked 
ourselves: Was there anything, was there anything more we could have 
done?
  Is there anything that could have been done to prevent this disease? 
The answer, if we prevent this kind of research, the answer for 
everyone will be, yes, there is something we could have done. We could 
have continued the scientific inquiry and research, with carefully 
constructed guidelines, to see if we could unlock the mysteries of 
these diseases.
  Let me show a picture of a young girl named Camille. In fact, I just 
saw Camille last month. This young girl has been very near death. She 
suffers from juvenile diabetes, the particularly acute condition of 
juvenile diabetes. That is Camille in the middle. I saw her mother last 
week in North Dakota. Camille was in Washington, DC, about

[[Page S4322]]

a month ago with her mother. I have known Camille for a long time, this 
young girl holding the clarinet in her middle school band. She has had 
a tough life and has lived on the edge, suffering a very significant 
disease, one that has cost too many, too many Americans, and especially 
too many young Americans, their lives.
  But there are so many opportunities for research and for potential 
treatment. Let me give you a couple of examples. I was on an airplane 
one day with one of the researchers at NIH. The researchers at NIH do 
unbelievable work. He told me of the use of stem cells among a group of 
mice that had induced heart attacks, severe, debilitating heart 
attacks. They used stem cells to inject back into the heart muscle of 
those mice, and in a matter of a couple of weeks, a substantial 
percentage of those mice showed no evidence of having had a heart 
attack. A substantial portion had complete recovery.
  Let me give you a couple of other examples. Researchers at Johns 
Hopkins report paralyzed rats have partially regained the use of 
previously immobile hind legs in studies in which scientists injected 
the rodents with stem cells from mice embryos.
  As to potential to treat ALS, University of Wisconsin-Madison 
scientists have turned stem cells into nerve cells carrying messages 
between the body to the brain, offering possibilities for repairing 
damage caused by ALS.
  Embryonic stem cell researchers at UCLA, AIDS Institute, were able to 
coax human embryonic stem cells into becoming mature immune T cells. I 
am not a scientist. All I can tell you is this: When we look, when we 
search, when we inquire, when we use America's best minds and research 
using good ethical guidelines, important guidelines, valuable 
guidelines, for scientific inquiry, we then find ways to unlock these 
mysteries. It is pretty unbelievable what we have done in a relatively 
short period of time.
  We have a polio vaccine. We have cured smallpox. If you go to the 
hospital these days and take a look at the wondrous machines and the 
wonderful treatments and all of the things that we are doing, all of 
that is a matter of experimentation and developing experience from that 
experimentation.
  The fact is, embryonic stem cell research has very broad and very 
strong bipartisan support. That bipartisan support is evident in the 
Senate. We have had Senators on both sides of the political aisle stand 
up in strong support of this legislation.
  Now, let me use a chart that my colleague, Senator Kennedy, just used 
because I believe it is so important.
  Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, 
says--this is President Bush's own NIH Director: From my standpoint, it 
is clear today that American science will be better served, and the 
Nation will be better served, if we let our scientists have access to 
more stem cell lines.
  That is from the President's own appointee to head the National 
Institutes of Health.
  I know in political life, there are a lot of labels, pro-life, pro-
choice, pro-this, pro-that, anti-that. Let me observe, it is not, as 
some have suggested, a pro-life position to diminish or shut off 
critically needed research that will give people who have Parkinson's 
disease, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, cardiovascular disease, 
cancer, any number of the things that kill so many Americans, it is not 
pro-life to diminish, restrict, or shut down research that gives people 
an opportunity for hope that there might be a cure for these diseases 
through this scientific inquiry and research. I recognize this is 
controversial. I respect someone who comes to the floor and says: 
Senator Dorgan, you are wrong about this. I respect that. This is not 
an easy issue. It is difficult for a lot of Members. I have not found 
it particularly difficult for me, because I believe those of us who 
have seen the ravages--and that should be most everybody in this 
Chamber--of these diseases to our loved ones, to friends, to so many 
Americans, this country would want us to do everything possible to give 
the tools to the best scientific minds and the best people in the 
medical field possible to unlock the mysteries of these diseases and 
find the cures. That is what this debate has been long about.
  This debate, however, is even narrower than many we have had on this 
subject. This is about a single issue--can we use embryos that are 
otherwise going to be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics, 
that are otherwise simply going to become waste and destroyed, today, 
tomorrow, next week, next month, all year long, can we use, with the 
permission of the donors, those embryos for the scientific inquiry 
necessary for the extension of life and the curing of these dread 
diseases? Can we do that? The answer clearly ought to be yes, a loud, 
resounding yes coming from this Chamber.
  My colleague Senator Harkin has been at this a long time. I have 
spoken on this a good number of times on the floor of the Senate 
myself. But it is not only Senator Harkin; he is joined in a piece of 
legislation on a bipartisan basis by some very significant voices in 
the Senate, saying: Let's do this. Let's do this for this country. All 
of those who are suffering from these dread diseases deserve our help. 
They certainly don't deserve a Government that says: By the way, we 
understand your suffering, but we would prefer to choose to destroy and 
discard embryos from an in vitro fertilization clinic rather than 
extend the scientific research that might find a cure for what is 
killing you. That is not an acceptable answer from this Senate.
  I thank Senator Harkin for the time. I thank the many colleagues who 
have spoken in favor of this legislation and offer the fervent hope--
and I believe it exists--that we can pass this legislation with a very 
substantial margin within the next 24 hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for 
a very eloquent statement about what this is all about. I thank him for 
that. I thank him for his strong support of S. 5, our legislation to 
basically do what he encapsulated by saying this is about saving lives. 
That is what it is all about.
  I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be modified to 
provide that the vote on passage of S. 5 occur at 5:55 p.m., that the 
Republican leader be recognized at 5:25 p.m., with the other provisions 
remaining in order; provided further, that the additional 10 minutes be 
equally divided between Senators Harkin and Coleman, Isakson, and 
Senator Brownback, or their designees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, who has worked countless hours on 
this very important subject.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as I listened to my distinguished 
colleague from North Dakota, there is so much we agree on. What we 
agree on is we want to move science forward. We want to provide hope to 
those who are suffering from diseases and conditions with the 
possibility of stem cell research. The issue is a matter of Federal 
funding. What do we put Federal dollars into? Should there be any moral 
questions that are raised before we make that decision to put Federal 
dollars into something? That is a legitimate issue to discuss in the 
Senate. It is a reflection of the reality that in this country there is 
substantial disagreement about what is appropriate use of Federal 
dollars. This is not about shutting off research. It is not about 
stopping research. It is not about a lack of research going on. We 
still lead the world in embryonic stem cell research. With forty 
percent of all the publications that are offered in this country, 85 
percent of the dollars from what we have provided, both embryonic and 
adult stem cell research, we are leading the world. That includes both 
Federal dollars and substantial private dollars.
  When this issue arose early on, President Clinton had his own 
bioethics commission. They concluded 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.
  The reality is, we have reached a point where there are available 
alternatives, and we have an opportunity to

[[Page S4323]]

pursue them. There is a political reality as well; that is, that S. 5 
will pass. The President has said he is going to veto it because of his 
concern on Federal funding for the destruction of human embryos. As a 
result, from January 1 of this year, there is going to be no more 
research going into embryonic stem cell research tomorrow than there is 
today, unless we pass S. 30.

  S. 5 is going to be vetoed. If you care about making more than a 
political statement but actually talking to the parents of kids with 
juvenile diabetes or adults with Parkinson's, whatever, the reality is, 
if you care about more than $132 million going into human embryonic 
stem cell research, you have to support S. 30. That is the political 
reality.
  What S. 30 offers, in addition, is the opportunity to have a greater 
sense of national unity on this issue, to get beyond the culture wars, 
to get beyond the political division. That is what the research should 
be about.
  Senator Isakson has talked about dead embryo research. I hope the 
description was clear enough. There was some confusion from some of my 
colleagues on the other side of this issue. Let me explain a little 
biology 101. The issue here is, can we produce pluripotent cells--
embryonic cells are pluripotent--the capacity for the cell to give rise 
to many other different types of cells. There are adult stem cells out 
of bone marrow, out of blood type. Now we are looking at placental and 
embryonic. But there appears to be, and science will tell you, the 
ability of embryonic pluripotent cells.
  The difference here is between pluripotent and totipotent, the 
ability to form an embryo, the beginning of life. Senator Isakson has 
talked about dead embryo research where the embryos have the ability to 
form pluripotent cells, those cells that have the capacity to 
differentiate into other types of cells. That is an opportunity without 
crossing a moral line. All of America can come together and say: This 
is a good thing, putting money into stem cell research and not dividing 
the Nation.
  There is the process called alternate nuclear transfer. This is a 
process that if you look at natural fertilization, you get the sperm 
and the fertilized egg. You get an embryo. Under SCNT--that is the way 
Dolly the sheep was produced, a type of cloning--you get the egg cell. 
You take some adult genetic material with all the DNA, and you put that 
in an enucleated egg where the center is cut out. You get that 
fertilized egg and, boom, you get an embryo. Science is telling us 
today that you can, with all the natural nuclear transfer, with a range 
of things, what you can do is, you can take that egg, you can enucleate 
it, cut out the center, put in adult material. But before you transfer 
it, you turn off a little code. In the end, you don't get an embryo but 
you get this intercell mass then that has the capacity of pluripotency, 
not an embryo but the ability to differentiate cell types and all of 
the elasticity and the hope and possibility you get from embryonic stem 
cell research without crossing a moral line.
  Is that what we should be doing? This is not shutting off science. 
Some have said this is a diversion. Certainly it is not a diversion in 
the practical sense, because right now there will be, if S. 5 passes, 
no additional funding for embryonic stem cell research. But if S. 30 
passes, we can open the world to these possibilities and additional 
Federal dollars. The reality is, with S. 5 there are questions that are 
unanswered. I was just talking about those lines that are in vitro 
fertilization that some say could be thrown away. What is to stop 
people from simply producing more, knowing the research money is going 
to be there? The reality is, those cells that are in those IVF clinics 
have limited genetic lines. If you are of a certain minority or other 
groups, you are not as represented in those as you are in the 
population. But if we look at things such as alternate nuclear 
transfer, you can have an unending supply of genetic material so you 
can deal with specific gene types and deal with specific illnesses.
  S. 30 also includes a provision to set up a stem cell bank for 
amniotic and placental stem cells, the idea that we could have 100,000 
tissue samples and, by virtue of that, cover all the genetic types 
there are, which you do not get with what we have now under S. 5.
  The bottom line in all of this is, there is a debate in this country, 
but it is not over moving the science forward. The debate is not over 
whether there should be hope. There is hope. It is important to 
understand some of the realities, the reality of what we are talking 
about today. Yesterday one of my colleagues, the Senator from Iowa, was 
talking about some of the work being done with dead embryos, perhaps 
some of the work being done with alternate nuclear transfer, and saying 
this could take a decade. The reality is the work being done today in 
embryonic stem cell research at best may take decades. So the question 
then ultimately is, can we as a nation decide on a process that does 
respect a moral line, that does say: We are not going to provide 
Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo, but because we 
have the possibility, we should explore the possibility of doing 
research that provides for pluripotency without totipotency, without 
the creation of an embryo.
  We are going to have more difficult questions as we move forward. As 
we look at the issue of stem cell research, one of the realities we are 
looking at is, if they haven't developed enough, what about the idea of 
developing limbs and other things. Should we let the embryo grow 
longer? Where do you draw that line? There is a whole range of other 
issues we are going to have to be debating as we kind of move along 
this process with the great advances of scientists. For those of us who 
support S. 30, what we are saying is we have a path, we have an 
opportunity to do it with a sense of unity, with a sense of where we 
provide a moral line, a line, by the way, that has been part of our 
statutes for a long time. We don't provide Federal funding for the 
destruction of human embryos. That is what this is about. It is not 
about size. The reality about size is that you could fit some of these 
on the head of a pin. But it is about that basic moral line which has 
been part of our law for a long time.

  So this approach we have in S. 5 is an approach that is pro-science 
and pro-research and pro-hope. It is the only practical one that in the 
end, if it passes, will result in more funding for embryonic stem cell 
research tomorrow than we have today.
  My fear is what happened last year will happen this year. This body 
passed both a version of S. 5 as well as a version that provided for 
some alternatives. It was the Specter-Santorum bill. S. 30 provides for 
more than that bill. It will provide for, in fact, new dollars going to 
research that isn't funded today.
  What the House chose to say is it is all or nothing. If you don't 
pass the S. 5 version, the Castle bill, then we are not going to even 
put in any funding. We are not going to do anything. We are not going 
to allow any alternatives to be pursued. That would be a shame. As I 
used to tell our kids, it is akin to cutting off your nose to spite 
your face. That would be a shame.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--wherever they stand 
on this issue they can be comfortable supporting S. 30; they can be 
comfortable supporting a bill that provides for the moral line but at 
the same time opens up the opportunity for additional research. I urge 
its support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I wish to 
commend Senator Coleman and Senator Dorgan for the two speeches that 
have preceded my remarks because both of them eloquently expressed what 
is, in fact, the case; that is, that everybody in this Chamber, 
including the distinguished Senator from Iowa and myself, wants more 
hope for Americans who suffer. Both bills offer a path to do that. We 
may have our differences on those paths but no difference in the hope 
that it offers. I commend Senator Coleman for his very articulate 
explanation of that.
  I join with the Senator from Iowa, I think, in encouraging our 
colleagues who may be listening, we have some time this morning that 
can be filled. If we have Members who want to come to the floor and 
speak, they should contact the cloakroom and let us know, from both 
parties and from both sides of every issue, because we want to fill 
every minute.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S4324]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I concur with my friend from Georgia in 
that if people want to speak, they should come over now. We have a list 
of speakers, and I think Senator Isakson does, too, for later on in the 
day. I can only say to Senators, as the clock ticks, your time is going 
to get squeezed more and more. So that if you are scheduled to speak 
for, say, 10 minutes this afternoon, you may get squeezed to 3 minutes 
or 2 minutes or 1 minute. So if you would like to have your say about 
this embryonic stem cell bill, I would say now would be the time to 
come over. I say to all the Senators who may be in their offices right 
now, call the cloakrooms, and we will make the time available right 
now.
  Mr. President, what is the situation, might I ask, right now with the 
time existing?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa has 58 
minutes, the Senator from Georgia has 33 minutes, and the Senator from 
Kansas has 45 minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. It is my understanding, if the Senator from Iowa will 
yield, that the Senator from Kansas is in the cloakroom and about to 
take a significant portion of that. That is my understanding. That 
would be a significant portion of his time, not yours and mine.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the debate, 
and a good one, we are having on a very important topic. The 
differences in this debate remind me, though, of a proverb that says 
there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of 
death. Unfortunately, if we research on young human life, it puts that 
young human life to death and at the same time does not produce the 
results for cures that we had hoped would be taking place.
  I respect my colleagues who are on another side of this issue who 
feel as though we should research on young human life. I do not feel 
that is right or ethical. I will discuss that aspect here today with 
some of the time I have, and I also wish to discuss the exciting 
breaking developments that are taking place even today on the adult 
stem cell area that continues to produce treatments for humans.
  I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record after my statement 
an article from the Chicago Tribune online edition.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It is dated today. It is about the latest diabetes 
treatments that have been taking place. A report came out from 
Northwestern University in the Chicago area about a new diabetes 
treatment developed at Northwestern University which has allowed some 
patients to stop taking insulin for more than 2 years. They have raised 
questions about this process. It was done in Brazil rather than in the 
United States. Thirteen of the fifteen patients in this adult stem cell 
study went off insulin for at least 6 months, as they note, prompting 
cautious excitement from some researchers who have seen the results. 
Dr. Gordon C. Weir, a diabetes researcher and head of a transplantation 
program at Harvard's Medical School, Joslin Diabetes Center, said this:

       Their results look better than anything I have seen so far.

  What an exciting development in the adult stem cell research area and 
field.
  Questions have been raised about this trial and some of it taking 
place in Brazil. I have raised questions such as why is it we are 
seeing these breakthroughs taking place and we are having patients from 
the United States go to Bangkok, go to Portugal, and these treatments 
are being developed in Brazil rather than in the United States. I 
believe if we would put our funding here that we are using in the 
embryonic field, the $613 million that has produced no human treatments 
to date but has produced a lot of tumors in live animals, if we would 
put that in the adult field where we are getting results--we have 
invested in the adult field, but what if that $613 million were in the 
adult field today? Would these breakthroughs be happening here instead 
of Brazil, or by U.S. researchers in Brazil? Why aren't they being done 
in the United States? I hope my colleagues will look at that issue.
  There is another point I wish to raise with my colleagues at this 
point in time. Let's presume they are successful in embryonic stem cell 
research. Let's presume, in a decade or 20 years, they are successful 
with embryonic stem cell research. That is going to lead to the 
necessity of us moving forward with human cloning because in the 
development of this technology, embryonic stem cell technology, if you 
are using an embryo and the genetic material doesn't match up, there is 
going to be rejection by my body or by some body. That is going to 
happen. That is going to take place. So we are going to have to move 
into human cloning. We are going to have to harvest women's eggs, 
develop human clones to develop the correct type of embryonic stem 
cells to use in an individual so that there will be a genetic match. I 
think we ought to talk about that, if we continue in the progression we 
are on.
  I acknowledge that human cloning is not specifically addressed in S. 
5, the embryonic stem cell bill. However, if embryonic stem cells can 
ever overcome their tumor-forming tendency--and that is a huge if--and 
they are used in humans, human cloning will be used in order to avoid 
immune rejection problems. Therefore, as is hopefully evident, the 
issue of human cloning needs to be raised.
  To this end, I recently introduced the bipartisan Brownback-Landrieu 
Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which we introduced before the break 
with 26 other Senators who are cosponsoring this legislation.
  This legislation would reaffirm that the United States places 
tremendous value on the dignity of each and every human person: from 
the young human embryo to vulnerable women who would be coerced into 
donating their eggs, at potentially great risk to their health. The 
legislation would make clear that the cloning of human persons is not 
something we as a society will accept.
  The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act has been 
endorsed by the President of the United States. It will bring the 
United States into conformity with the United Nations, whose General 
Assembly called on all member states ``to prohibit all forms of human 
cloning.'' It did not say we can do therapeutic but not reproductive. 
It said ``all forms of human cloning'' by a strong 84-to-34 margin vote 
in the U.N.
  The problem with cloning human beings is that it violates human 
dignity on all sorts of levels. Cloning transgresses our heritage's 
most sacred values about what is good and true and beautiful. Western 
civilization indeed is built on the tenet that every human life has a 
measurable value. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to 
use any person as a means to an end. Upon this principle our laws are 
founded, and without it, laws have little basis. Human cloning--for 
whatever purpose--is wrong because it turns humans into commodities or 
spare parts.
  In recent debate, human cloning has been referred to as ``therapeutic 
cloning,'' ``research cloning'' or simply SCNT. These are presented as 
contrasts to ``reproductive cloning.'' It should be noted that 
``therapeutic,'' ``research,'' and ``reproductive'' are merely 
adjectives to describe what is done with the cloned human. SCNT, or 
somatic cell nuclear transfer, is the scientific description of the 
cloning process.
  A CRS report for Congress notes:

       A human embryo produced via cloning involves the process 
     called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the 
     nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus from 
     a mature body cell, such as a skin cell. In cloning, the 
     embryo is created without sexual reproduction: There is no 
     joining of egg and sperm.

  Stem cell pioneer James Thomson has said:

       If you create an embryo by SCNT cloning and you give it to 
     somebody who didn't know where it came from, there would be 
     no test you would do on that embryo to say where it came 
     from. It is what it is. If you try to define it away, you are 
     being disingenuous.

  With ``reproductive'' and ``therapeutic'' cloning, human beings are 
turned into commodities or spare parts to be dissected in the 
laboratory, with the claim that someday they may be

[[Page S4325]]

administered to other humans to provide a treatment. Treatments are 
certainly praiseworthy but not at the expense of the destruction of 
other members of the human family. We all want to treat people as 
people, and people should be treated as people. I want to find a cure 
for cancer. However, it is wrong to turn humans into a means to an end.
  It is also wrong to exploit women for their eggs. Here I want to 
develop this thought about what will take place if human embryonic stem 
cell research is developed, is successful. We have to develop clones 
that meet the genetic type of the individual seeking the treatment. You 
are going to have to get eggs from somewhere and you are going to have 
to get these from people--from women. Also, it is wrong to exploit 
women for their eggs, and that is the other side of the human cloning 
story. SCNT cloning, as proposed by proponents of the technique, would 
require millions of human eggs. In all likelihood, poor and 
disadvantaged women would be particularly vulnerable to exploitation 
via financial incentives for donation. This is troubling because 
retrieving such eggs violates the dignity of a woman and may cause 
serious harm to her health.
  The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is the only 
effective ban on human cloning. Any other ban is one that is allowing 
therapeutic cloning and even encouraging it but certainly not banning 
human cloning. Others would regulate what could be done with the human 
clones, normally requiring its destruction, but they do nothing to 
prevent the process of human cloning, which violates human dignity on 
many levels. We should take a stand against turning young human beings 
into commodities. We should not destroy human life for research 
purposes.
  I will not be voting for cloning today, and I will continue to look 
for an opportunity to bring this legislation forward as an amendment to 
other bills. Again, I point out to my colleagues that is the route we 
are on with this--to promote human cloning so there will be genetic 
matches in the human embryonic stem cell procedures. I do not believe 
that is the path we should follow.
  I want to address some of the thoughts several colleagues have 
brought up about what it is we are doing. Human embryos are being 
destroyed for research purposes and for stem cells. Some have referred 
to this as ``potential life,'' which strikes me as a bit like the 
debate we had on the issue of slavery, where we deemed a person three-
fifths of a person at one point in time. That is a complete legal 
fiction. You are either a person or you are not. You are either life or 
you are not life. It is not potential life. Nowhere in the scientific 
literature is there a description of potential life. The embryo is a 
species at that stage of development in the life cycle. That is the 
scientific definition and information--the embryo is a species at that 
stage of development in the life cycle. We all have a life cycle. The 
embryo is the species at that stage. That is common sense. The embryo 
stage is a development stage, but it remains human life, not potential 
human life. It is alive and it is a life.
  The embryo would continue along the life cycle continuum if we were 
not interfering in its normal development by keeping it in a freezer 
and destroying it for experiments. I think it is important that we not 
engage in wishful thinking or trying to define this away. A human 
embryo is a human life. We should not say it is a potential life. That 
is not a definition for what human life is. I noted in the debate 
earlier--I want to make this point at this time--that it appears as if 
at the current research rate it would take 100 or more human eggs per 
cloned embryo--100 you are going to have to harvest from young women to 
get this process to move forward with human cloning.
  Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time at this point. 
I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 11, 2007]

                      Hope, Risk in Diabetes Trial

                           (By Jeremy Manier)

       A new diabetes treatment developed at Northwestern 
     University has allowed some patients to stop taking insulin 
     for more than two years, but it also has spurred ethical 
     objections from researchers who say the trial put Brazilian 
     children at unnecessary risk.
       Thirteen of the 15 patients in a stem-cell study went off 
     insulin for at least six months, prompting cautious 
     excitement from some researchers who have seen the results, 
     to be published Wednesday in the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association. All of the patients had the less common 
     form of diabetes called early-onset, or Type 1 diabetes, 
     which normally requires close blood-glucose monitoring and 
     long-term use of insulin injections.
       The new approach, designed by Dr. Richard Burt of 
     Northwestern, enlists a patient's own stem cells in an effort 
     to halt the immune system's destruction of insulin-producing 
     ``beta'' cells in the pancreas--the root cause of Type 1 
     diabetes.
       Burt drafted the protocol, and doctors at the University of 
     Sao Paulo in Brazil carried it out. The patients, some as 
     young as 14, got intense drug treatment that wiped out their 
     immune systems. They then received injections of their own 
     blood stem cells in hopes of renewing the immune system 
     without the trait that makes it target beta cells.
       ``Their results look better than anything I've seen so 
     far,'' said Dr. Gordon C. Weir, a diabetes researcher and 
     head of a transplantation program at Harvard Medical School's 
     Joslin Diabetes Center.
       Though small in scale, the study is significant as the 
     first attempt to treat diabetes using a ``cell-based'' 
     therapy, researchers said. Such treatments may become more 
     common as scientists look beyond insulin and try approaches 
     using adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, which could 
     directly replace the tissue damaged in diabetes. Type 1 
     diabetes accounts for 5 to 10 percent of the 21 million 
     diabetes cases in the U.S.; the rest suffer from Type 2 
     diabetes, which is linked with obesity.
       ``These are promising results that suggest we should go 
     further,'' said Burt, a specialist in immunesuppression 
     therapy.
       Yet some experts doubted the protocol could have been 
     approved in this country. Weir, like several other scientists 
     reached for this report, said the risks of Burt's technique 
     are high enough that he probably would not have approved the 
     experiment if he had been responsible for reviewing it.
       The problem is this: Although early-onset diabetes can have 
     dire long-term effects such as blindness and heart disease, 
     many patients succeed in managing their condition with 
     insulin and lead normal lives for decades. That makes it 
     harder to justify the risks of stem cell transplantation, 
     which Burt has used before on diseases with few other 
     treatment options, such as lupus or multiple sclerosis.
       The immune suppression used in stem-cell transplants can 
     cause infections and even death. None of the patients in the 
     Brazilian study died, though one had severe pneumonia that 
     required supplementary oxygen.
       Several experts said the risks could have made it difficult 
     to get the study past American institutional review boards--
     groups responsible for ensuring that research is safe and 
     ethical.
       ``This is an incredibly invasive therapy to be tried on 
     children without knowing if anyone will benefit from it,'' 
     said Dr. Lainie Ross, associate director of the University of 
     Chicago's MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics.
       Ross said she would not have authorized such a study unless 
     it enrolled only adults. She said research ethics guidelines 
     state that risky experimental therapies should not be used on 
     children unless it's impossible to test them on adult 
     subjects--and in this case, adult diabetes patients were 
     available.
       In fact, Burt said his original protocol included a cutoff 
     age of 18, but a Brazilian review board changed it to allow 
     younger patients in the study. Ages of the subjects ranged 
     from 14 to 31, with eight participants younger than 18.
       Burt said the study was done in Brazil not to avoid the 
     need for an American review board, but because he couldn't 
     find an American diabetes expert interested in pursuing his 
     idea. He said Northwestern review board officials told him 
     his collaboration with the Brazilian team was fine so long as 
     he was not directly involved in patient care. The Juvenile 
     Diabetes Research Foundation cautiously embraced the 
     technique while pointing out the need for further study. A 
     statement from the group said that in the trial, ``the immune 
     system was apparently reset or retrained, and after the 
     procedure, the symptoms of diabetes were reversed.''
       But the statement also noted that because of the risks, 
     ``it is not clear whether this trial would be approved in the 
     U.S.''
       One weakness of the study was its lack of a control group, 
     said Dr. Mark Anderson of the University of California at San 
     Francisco's Diabetes Center. Without that, it's impossible to 
     quantify how much improvement the therapy offered. One 
     scientist interested in taking the next step is Dr. Jay 
     Skyler of the University of Miami, who wrote an accompanying 
     editorial in JAMA.
       ``I don't think [this study] would have gotten approval at 
     our institution out of the box.'' Skyler said. ``But now that 
     it's worked I would be championing it. I want to be one of 
     the sites that's doing it.''

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4326]]

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the distinguished 
manager. I thank him also for his leadership on this issue, which has 
been long and steady.
  Last summer, I had the privilege of coming to the floor to speak on 
this issue, accompanied by a summer intern from my office, a college 
student from Massachusetts named Beth Colby. Beth was paralyzed from 
the chest down in a car accident when she was 14 years old. She came to 
Washington, like so many women, and so many young folks, period, to 
learn about Government. She also came here with a determination to try 
to fight for the scientific research that holds untold promise for her 
and for tens of millions of Americans. She wanted to be, as she put it 
to me in asking to come to the floor during the debate on stem cell 
research, a face Senators can see so they can see what they are voting 
for.
  The truth is there are people like that in every single community in 
our country. They are all hoping to benefit one day from lifesaving 
stem cell therapy. Grandparents with Parkinson's disease have that 
hope. Soldiers coming back from Iraq who are crippled by a roadside 
bomb have that hope. Children who, decades from now, will suffer from a 
disease we are not aware of yet, or that we know well, hope stem cell 
research might be able to cure them.
  Since we first heard about stem cell research several years ago, the 
country has been on a journey together. We have discussed it. A lot of 
folks have sat around their kitchen tables and in their living rooms 
and have talked about stem cell research. Everybody has debated it. We 
have learned a lot more about the promise and the peril of stem cell 
research. At first, our natural reaction was to temper our excitement 
with a well-founded fear that this technology perhaps posed 
insurmountable ethical hurdles. The President himself deliberated. He 
appointed a task force. He studied and debated the fine points with 
teams of bioethicists. He reached what he felt was a reasonable 
compromise. In August of 2001, he announced to the American people that 
Federal funds would be used only for research on a few lines of stem 
cells that were already harvested. Back then, he said stem cells 
``offer both great promise and great peril. I have decided we must 
proceed with great care.''
  That was the President speaking. Since then, America's understanding 
of this issue has evolved. We have learned that the lines available for 
research are far less useful than we had initially hoped. We learned 
the technology is as promising as we dreamed it might be. We have come 
to understand that embracing stem cell research does not condemn us to 
the slippery slope of human cloning.
  Since the President's decision, stem cell research funded by the 
private sector and by the States has gone ahead across the country. But 
it has gone ahead slower than many of us might like in the absence of 
crucial Federal funding--fast enough to fill the pages of major medical 
journals with exciting new discoveries. But this research has taken 
place on a large enough scale at our most important educational 
research institutions to be able to tell us it addresses our major 
fears. What in the summer of 2001 might have seemed a well-founded 
suspicion has completely proven to be unfounded. As Newt Gingrich told 
me yesterday, after reversing himself and acknowledging the threat 
posed by global warming is both urgent and real, serious legislators 
change their stances over time. That is permissible. That is the 
product of thinking, the product of additional information and 
additional input.
  Look at the Senate. Republicans such as John McCain, former majority 
leader Bill Frist, the Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, who is on the 
floor now, have looked carefully at the scientific facts and have 
searched their own consciousness. They have all reached the same 
conclusion: Opposing stem cell research is the opposite of a pro-life 
policy.
  Last summer, 63 Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, and 235 
House Members voted in favor of stem cell research. That was a 
responsible bill, a consensus bill. It was designed specifically to 
address the concerns of lawmakers who are worried about the bioethics--
and appropriately worried, I might add. It is difficult to get 63 
Senators to agree on anything more controversial than the sort of 
standard fare of America, and it is especially difficult on a 
polarizing, emotionally charged issue. But we came together as a 
Senate. We hammered out our differences and they came together in the 
House, and we arrived at a smart, thoughtful, sensitive piece of 
legislation that reflected a consensus and respected our collective 
conscience. When we did so, we were confronted by a President who 
promised to proceed with great care, whose commitment to deliberation 
has calcified into a stubborn refusal to confront reality or re-engage 
in a changing debate.

  America has evolved on this issue, but the President has stood still. 
That is why over an overwhelming bipartisan Senate majority, the 
President finally dusted off the veto pen and offered up the first and, 
to date, the only veto of his entire Presidency. The President has 
signed good and bad legislation--torture bills, pork, giveaways to oil 
companies, and tax cuts for millionaires. But when it came to a strong 
emerging national consensus on an issue that brings hope to families 
across the country, the President chose to shut down the debate and 
block Federal funding for scientific research.
  Make no mistake, this is a personal issue--deeply personal for each 
of us in this Chamber, and for the President. I understand that. I am 
confident when the President made his decision about stem cell research 
over 6 years ago, he searched his mind and his heart, as all of us who 
care passionately about this issue have done. If he vetoes stem cell 
research again, that will send a message that this country no longer 
intends to be the global leader in scientific knowledge and discovery. 
It would send a message to Americans suffering from Parkinson's, spinal 
injuries, and countless ailments that their well-being is not important 
to us. We are telling these people we could do more to cure you, but we 
choose not to. We are telling them help is not on the way.
  The current policy is eroding our national advantage on stem cell 
research. It is undermining the hopes and dreams of millions of 
Americans. We are tying our scientists' hands behind their backs and 
holding them back from the possibilities of the future.
  We need a Federal policy that builds on the advances being made in 
our States and our universities, in our private foundations, and in our 
research centers, all of which have proceeded in a thoughtful and 
commonsense way to the ethics concerned in this issue. The research now 
is already showing tremendous promise. In my State of Massachusetts, 
some of the best scientists in the world are working at the Whitehead 
Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT and the Harvard Stem Cell 
Institute. We are still in the early stages of this line of research, 
but there is here the kind of discovery that we are already making.
  Let me explain. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute identified cells that 
they call ``master cardiac'' stem cells, which is a single cell type 
that gives rise to the major cellular building blocks of the mammalian 
heart. That discovery rewrote the story of cardiac development and 
contributed a significant building block toward what could become 
revolutionary new treatments for heart disease. We are already seeing 
cures for diseases in our labs.
  At the Whitehead Institute, a leading stem cell researcher and his 
team used stem cell therapy to cure a mouse suffering from an immune 
deficiency disease. As you can see, the research is still in the early 
stages, so we cannot say what the immediate results are going to be for 
humans. But, rest assured, today's breakthroughs in mice have often 
become tomorrow's cures for humans.
  Now we can all hope that alternatives to embryonic stem cell research 
hold similar promise. But you

[[Page S4327]]

cannot wish away what our scientists are telling us. Research on 
embryonic stem cells is incredibly promising, pivotal to this new 
field, and not easily sidestepped. Nobel Prize winners past and 
present, and most likely future, believe this is the future biology of 
medical science.
  People of good will and good sense can resolve these complicated 
ethical issues without stopping lifesaving research. The country has 
led the world in revolutionary discoveries, with our breakthroughs and 
our beliefs moving ahead together, symbiotically. Senate passage of 
this bill with a veto-proof majority can put us, again, on that path.
  We are giving this administration yet another chance to consider a 
misjudgment with profound consequences. We are working to create a 
framework for ethical, federally funded research. Like the bill passed 
last summer, this legislation provides important ethical safeguards by 
extending federally funded research only to embryos that are, one, 
donated by in vitro fertilization clinics; two, created specifically 
for fertility treatment, not for research; three, in excess of 
treatment needs and would otherwise be discarded; and four, donated by 
treatment-seeking individuals who provided written, informed consent 
and were not offered financial inducements. I cannot think of any way 
to more effectively and thoughtfully address the ethical issues that 
are concerned here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes. Is that 
possible?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what may not have been clear to us 
initially--and it should be clear now--it just doesn't make sense to 
allow in vitro fertilization to create millions of embryos that will 
never become human beings and then prohibit science from using them to 
cure sick people and relieve human suffering but to simply discard 
those embryos.
  Valuing the mysteries and sacredness of human life is something all 
of us should do. It underlies every religion on this planet. Stem cell 
advocates are no different. Here in the Senate and across this country, 
Americans are approaching an ethical consensus which bans human 
cloning, which is thoughtful about the use of embryos that would be 
discarded, and which respects life and also respects that life by 
protecting stem cell research.
  We don't have the luxury of patience, not when 100 million Americans 
suffer from illnesses that might one day be cured with stem cell 
therapy, not when more than 3,000 Americans die from diseases every day 
that one day may be made treatable by stem cell research.
  If we can get 67 votes out of 100 Senators--4 more than we had last 
summer--then we can send the President a veto-proof message. Last 
summer, the Senate sent the administration a strong message by passing 
a bill that would responsibly fund this research, and the American 
people showed their agreement last November when they sent an even 
larger majority back to Washington to vote in greater numbers to 
support lifesaving scientific research. Sixty-three votes are not 
enough. We hope we receive more today so that we can open the doors to 
this promising future.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I will probably take more like 5 minutes, 
if the Senator from Georgia wants to allocate the time elsewhere.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As you 
can tell by my location in the Senate, I am new to the Senate. I spent 
a great deal of time, as many people did, over the course of the last 2 
years visiting with citizens in our State. I think there is nothing 
that touches us in the public arena more than seeing people who have 
needs and trying to address those needs. That is the reason many of us 
are in the public arena--I hope all of us are in the public arena.
  Few of us are untouched by the many illnesses that plague Americans. 
I know all of us have people who have diseases, such as diabetes, 
various forms of cancers, heart disease, Alzheimer's. I know my own 
family has been touched by Alzheimer's disease. My father has it. All 
of us are aware of issues that are affecting human beings. We also want 
to see breakthroughs take place.
  It is amazing, the breakthroughs that are taking place today with 
stem cell research--research from adult stem cells, research that is 
taking place from matter from amniotic fluids, research that is taking 
place from cord blood matter. So there are amazing cures taking place 
in America today with this research, and I doubt there is a Senator in 
this body--not a Senator in this body--who doesn't support stem cell 
research. The issue really comes down to embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. President, I want you to know that over the course of the last 2 
years, I spent a tremendous amount of time looking into this issue, 
reading white papers, talking to researchers all across America, 
visiting embryonic adoption centers where embryos were actually being 
adopted and creating human beings. Because of this issue, because of 
the ethical divide this issue seems to create for so many Americans, a 
tremendous amount of time was put forth by myself and my staff, but 
myself firsthand, to reach a conclusion about this issue and to be able 
to communicate that to Tennesseans and Americans.
  There are four points I have learned about this issue. The Senator 
from Massachusetts just spoke. He and I have a very different view on 
this issue. What I have learned about this issue is that honorable 
people can disagree. Honorable people who truly want to see cures take 
place for Americans and for people all across the world can disagree as 
to their viewpoint as it relates to embryonic stem cell research. 
Again, all of us support adult stem cell research.
  The second point I have learned is that there are tremendous 
breakthroughs, as I have already mentioned, regarding research that is 
taking place with adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and amniotic 
fluids have matter that is creating stem cells. Tremendous cures are 
being created with these stem cells.
  The third point is that science is going to absolutely outpace our 
ability to deal with this issue. There is no question that even if we 
pass legislation today, science is going to continue to outpace us as 
it relates to our ability to deal with this fascinating area of 
science. But I also believe science and these breakthroughs are going 
to allow us to continue to achieve these cures for Americans and for 
people all across this world without creating this ethical divide of 
destroying human embryos.

  So I am here to strongly support and applaud the Senator from Georgia 
and the Senator from Minnesota who have put forth the HOPE Act. I am 
here to strongly support S. 30, which allows additional research to 
take place on stem cells without breaking that divide. I am also here 
to voice opposition to S. 5, which actually uses Federal dollars to 
destroy human embryos.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I say to my friend from Tennessee, 
there is not one dime in S. 5 that would be permitted to be used for 
the destruction of embryos--not one dime. That is prohibited by the 
Dickey-Wicker amendment. This bill does not override that amendment. 
Not one dime in this bill can ever be used for the destruction of any 
embryos. I just want to make that very clear.
  Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to my colleague, someone with whom 
I have worked on health issues now going back--let me think about 
this--almost 13 years, I guess, back to 1993, someone with whom I have 
worked very closely on a number of health issues and for whom I have a 
great deal of respect for his approach on this issue and so many 
others. I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. 
Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. I 
appreciate the arguments he has been making about this issue.

[[Page S4328]]

  Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of embryonic stem cell 
research.
  First, I plan to vote in favor of both bills that will be considered 
today, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, and S. 30, 
the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act.
  I call upon my colleagues to vote in favor of and pass these bills.
  And I call upon the President to sign both bills into law.
  However, let me make one point perfectly clear while I will be voting 
for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly preferable to 
S. 30. S. 5 permits Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; 
S. 30 does not.
  I want everyone to understand that the votes we cast today could 
tomorrow mean the difference between a healthy life and one of misery 
for many, many Americans.
  I commend my good friends and colleagues for their hard work on S. 
5--first, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin, who held over 
15 bipartisan hearings on embryonic stem cell research over the last 
several years.
  Next, I recognize Senators Kennedy, Smith and Feinstein for their 
courageous leadership and commitment to this important issue.
  And, in the House of Representatives, Representatives Mike Castle and 
Diana DeGette must be singled out for their principled leadership on 
the companion embryonic stem cell research measure, which was approved 
by a strong bipartisan vote.
  Each day, the Congress must address consequential events--and even 
momentous threats to our Nation--but it is not often that we have the 
opportunity to cast a vote that is filled with as much hope and promise 
for the future as the embryonic stem cell research bill we are 
considering today.
  It reminds me of our country's quest for space many years ago, which 
was no more than a dream when the effort began. Yet what was only a 
vision when it was conceived, yielded wonders beyond anything we could 
have imagined.
  The American space program has spawned many important new advances. 
When I think of space exploration, I ponder the gift of global 
positioning technology. I consider the weather mapping that we depend 
upon to warn us of impending natural disasters. I marvel at the 
revolution of instantaneous worldwide communication.
  As a science, embryonic stem cell research today is where the space 
program was when we first dreamed of it. When I think of embryonic stem 
cell research, I imagine diabetics without insulin pumps. I dream of 
patients with Parkinson's Disease who sprint rather than shuffle. I 
conceive of patients with spinal cord injury who stand up and walk 
again.
  I think of 16-year-old Tori Schmanski of Orem, UT, who sustained a 
severe brain injury. I imagine Tori going back to the snowboarding and 
dancing that she loved. Tori Schmanski's parents flew her to China for 
stem-cell therapy. Her father said something that struck me. He said, 
``Our hope is that next time we do this, we won't have to go to 
China.'' America has long been the world leader in ethical biomedical 
research, and we should not lightly cede this ground.
  When I consider the potential of stem cell research, I think of 
people like 17-year-old Travis Ashton of Highland, UT, whose brain was 
injured in a car accident. Today, he is struggling to dribble a 
basketball. I hope tomorrow he will be able not only to dribble a 
basketball but dunk a couple of baskets as well.
  And I think of my great friend, President Ronald Reagan, whose genius 
and energy were sapped away in what were to have been his golden years 
by the ravages of Alzheimer's disease. I imagine him finishing his days 
with his characteristic humor and vitality.
  Last year when Congress voted on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act of 2005, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan sent me a letter urging the 
Senate to support the bill. Let me remind you what it so poignantly 
said:

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

  As we all know, last year, the Senate did approve this legislation, 
but President Bush vetoed it.
  And while I think we all know how this vote will come out today, it 
remains my fervent hope and prayer that President Bush--a person whom I 
greatly respect and with whom I share strong belief in the right to 
life--will sign this bill into law.
  I have received many letters from constituents who ask me, ``Senator 
Hatch, how can you support embryonic stem cell research when adult cell 
research is so promising?'' They ask, ``Why don't you realize that cord 
blood research makes embryonic stem cell research unnecessary?''
  My answer is simple. Who among us can know which will yield the 
greatest breakthroughs? Who among us dares to predetermine the outcome 
by limiting the possibilities of ethical scientific research at the 
outset of this new field of research?
  The stories I have just related compel me to advocate for all types 
of ethical stem cell research--adult, cord blood, amniotic, and 
embryonic.
  Indeed, it must be recognized that in August, 2001, President Bush 
became the first President to support Federal funding for embryonic 
stem cell research. The President has my respect and admiration for his 
decision. At that time, he announced that 78 embryonic stem cell lines 
would be eligible for Federal support. It was a good start.
  It was also a decision that recognized discarded embryos can, and 
should, be used to advance our Nation's scientific inquiry. That is 
fundamentally still the issue before us today.
  The President's policy has not lived up to its promise.
  In the past 6 years, much has changed. What was once thought to be 
over 70 stem cell lines has dwindled. A number of scientists have told 
me that in reality the number of usable cell lines has shriveled to 
merely a dozen or fewer.
  Scientists have told me that these lines are not enough to represent 
the general population anyway--they have been genetically distorted by 
years of replication. Furthermore, they are contaminated with so-called 
animal feeder cells and, therefore, can never be approved for use in 
human therapy.
  Existing Federal policy has created what I have characterized as 
handcuffed science. By this I mean that scientists are forced to go to 
extreme lengths to comply with Federal law. When they are able to 
scrounge up private funding for fresh embryonic stem cell lines, the 
scientists find their hands bound.
  They are afraid of violating Federal law by mixing research between 
the limited, contaminated, federally sanctioned stem cells and cells 
with the new cell lines lawfully developed with non-Federal funds. No 
equipment purchased with NIH funds touches the new, lawful cell lines 
and the result is that equipment purchased with Federal money lays 
underused while limited precious money is used to purchase duplicate 
equipment and supplies.
  Dr. Linda Kelley is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the 
University of Utah. Dr. Kelley told me that the limited number of 
currently federally sanctioned cell lines is so unstable that, in her 
words, ``You are lucky if you can recover 10 percent of the cells they 
send you.'' She said the cells have been reused for so long that they 
have degraded and no longer represent the comprehensive human 
population.
  I do not want Utah's scientists moving to California or America's 
scientists moving overseas so they can do their research.
  Just as we are a nation that would never want to allow a situation to 
exist where American citizens must go abroad for best medical 
treatment, we should neither allow nor accept an atmosphere where our 
best doctors and

[[Page S4329]]

scientists must go abroad to develop and provide the best medicine.
  I do not want U.S. scientists walking away from embryonic stem cell 
research because there are too many impediments to pursuing it in our 
country for our citizens.
  Dr. Marie Cseta is a cell biologist from Emory University and is one 
of the many scientists who firmly believe that embryonic stem cells 
hold unusual promise. She is unable to send her NIH-funded, post 
doctoral fellows to qualified laboratories to learn new procedures 
because those laboratories work with the new cell lines. She told me 
that the restrictions that current Federal policy places upon her and 
her colleagues are, in her words `` . . . so odious that many 
scientists just do not try.''
  I want scientists to try.
  I think we will see after today's vote that most Senators want 
scientists to try.
  I am sure my friends, neighbors, and constituents in Utah want our 
best scientists to try.
  In forming my opinions and views on this topic, I met with many 
leading experts in the field of science, ethics, law and, yes, 
religion. I met with a number of Nobel Laureates including Dr. Harold 
Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. 
Thomas Cech of the Howard Hughes Institute of Medical Research and Dr. 
Paul Berg of Stanford University.
  I met with other leading experts including: Dr. Curt Civin and Dr. 
John Gearhart both of Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Irv Weissman of 
Stanford University; and the University of Utah's own Dr. Mario 
Capecchi.
  Let me tell my colleagues that we have some great scientists in the 
State of Utah. In fact, Dr. Capecchi, a leading research professor at 
the University of Utah, is widely recognized as one of the true 
pioneers of embryonic stem cell research. He has been working on 
embryonic stem cell research throughout his 40-year career. He has been 
the recipient of the prestigious Lasker Award which is considered the 
most prestigious American award in the biomedical sciences. It is often 
the case that Lasker Award winners go on to receive Nobel prizes.
  When I was home in Utah last week, I spent a lot of time talking to 
Dr. Capecchi. I asked him if he could provide me with what he believed 
are the top reasons why our government should fund embryonic stem cell 
research. He shared the following with me:
  1. Potential source of cures. Embryonic stem cell research provides 
the potential to cure or ameliorate some of the most devastating and 
costly diseases faced by our Nation including diabetes, Parkinson's 
disease, and Alzheimer's disease.
  2. Embryonic stem cells grow quickly and are versatile. Two inherent 
properties of embryonic stem cells, not shared with adult stem cells, 
make them especially attractive cells for cell transplantation-based 
therapies: i) rapid cell division and ii) versatility.
  Rapid cell division is critical if we want to use any stem cells for 
transplantation therapy, as we must quickly expand a limited number of 
cells to the large mass required for therapeutic effect. Embryonic stem 
cells are almost unique in their capacity for rapid growth without loss 
of developmental function.
  The versatility of embryonic stem cells is truly remarkable. In the 
mouse, embryonic stem cells have been unequivocally demonstrated to be 
pluripotent, capable of generating every cell type present in the adult 
body. Studies in cell culture indicate that human embryonic stem cells 
also possess this remarkable pluripotency.
  3. Adult stem cells grow slowly. In contrast, adult stem cells divide 
slowly and normally require a very specialized and undefined cellular 
environment--called a niche--for their survival and growth. For 
example, removal of adult intestinal stem cells from their biological 
niche leads to their automatic, programmed cell death. Blood stem 
cells, obtained from the bone marrow, are among the few adult stem 
cells currently in clinical use, but they cannot yet be expanded in 
culture without losing their developmental function, and hence their 
limited therapeutic utility.
  4. Adult stem cells are very restricted in what cell types they can 
produce. Whereas embryonic stem cells are extremely versatile in their 
capacity to generate different cell types, adult stem cells appear to 
range in versatility from quite restricted--for example, blood stem 
cells that can generate multiple types of blood cells, but nothing 
else--to completely restricted, for example, muscle stem cells that 
generate only muscle cells.
  5. Many important organs do not have adult stem cells. Many tissues 
such as liver, pancreas, and blood vessels do not appear to have a 
corresponding adult stem cell population. Therapies of diseases 
involving these tissues would therefore not be readily approachable by 
adult stem cell-based therapy, but could be approached using embryonic 
stem cell-based therapies.
  6. The usefulness of existing embryonic stem cell lines is extremely 
limited. The approved set of human embryonic stem cell lines, 
authorized nearly 6 years ago for federally funded research, is 
woefully inadequate. Some of them apparently do not exist at all, 
others are embroiled in extensive proprietary agreements and all of 
them though suitable for some research purposes, will never be 
suitable, due to problems with contamination, for therapeutic purposes.

  More importantly, ongoing research--funded by private foundations and 
industry, or performed abroad--has brought about improvements in how 
laboratories isolate and grow embryonic stem cells. Mouse embryonic 
stem cells were first characterized over 25 years ago, yet the cell 
lines that researchers use today are far superior to the ones available 
5 or 10 years ago. With the hope of further improvements, we continue 
to isolate new mouse embryonic stem cell lines.
  So long as the Federal funding ban remains in place, the majority of 
American researchers cannot make similar progress with human embryonic 
stem cells, nor exploit the advances made by others. With the limits 
currently in place, American human embryonic stem cell researchers are 
in the unfortunate and unique position of being frozen in time, trapped 
by the technical limitations of mid-2001, while other disciplines 
continue to advance. This makes no sense from a medical or scientific 
perspective.
  Although today's debate focuses on the use of spare embryos to 
develop embryonic stem cell lines, the next two points that Dr. 
Capecchi makes center on a different method of producing embryonic stem 
cell lines.
  For the last three Congresses, Senator Feinstein and I have 
introduced legislation that addresses this form of embryonic stem cell 
research. Although this issue is not squarely before us today, I hope 
that the majority leader will allow us to take up this important matter 
sometime this Congress.
  7. Somatic cell nuclear transfer as a research tool. A limitation of 
IVF embryo-derived stem cells is their potential of rejection by the 
patient because of immunological incompatibility. A potential solution 
is the generation of ``customized'' embryonic stem cells by somatic 
cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, which has been demonstrated in proof of 
concept experiments in mice.
  While, at present, nuclear transfer using human eggs to generate 
customized embryonic stem cells for therapy would be too complex and 
too controversial to be applicable for routine transplantation 
medicine, it represents an important tool for investigating the 
mechanism of converting a somatic cell such as skin cell into an 
embryonic stem cell.
  We need to learn the ``reprogramming rules'' the egg uses to convert 
the adult nucleus into an embryonic state following nuclear 
transplantation. One goal of research in this field is to convert a 
somatic cell to a pluripotent embryonic stem-cell-like state in culture 
without SCNT.
  We need to use eggs temporarily to learn how to reprogram the adult 
nucleus without the need for human eggs. Progress toward this goal can 
only be assured if Federal funding would be able to support research in 
this field in the best academic institutions of our country.
  8. Embryonic stem cells to study human disease. Because SCNT allows 
production of patient-specific embryonic stem cells, this approach 
would allow establishing research tools for the investigation of 
complex human diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, or 
diabetes in cell culture.

[[Page S4330]]

An embryonic stem cell line derived from such patients would carry in 
its genome all genetic alterations that caused the disease. Thus, 
differentiating these patient-specific embryonic stem cells in culture 
to a cell type that is defective in the patients may provide crucial 
insights into the pathology of the disease and may provide a critical 
platform to identify drugs that help prevent, ameliorate, or cure the 
disease.
  9. Lack of government commitment means lack of future researchers. 
The brightest young researchers in our country are currently not 
engaging in human embryonic stem research because they are aware of its 
uncertain future, the low level of commitment by our government to its 
support and of the cumbersome restrictions faced by scientists 
participating in this research. We are losing the scientists that will 
carry this critical research into the future.
  10. Health and economic implications. The health and economic 
implications of human stem cell research are enormous and other 
countries have recognized this potential. They are heavily investing in 
embryonic stem cell research. Our country is in grave danger of falling 
behind in one of the most promising fields of biomedical research.
  Dr. Capecchi gives very compelling reasons for funding embryonic stem 
cell research. I believe that all ethically responsible avenues of stem 
cell research should be pursued and that is the Congress's obligation 
to the American public to see that they all are pursued.
  But let me caution that no one should imagine that one bill is a 
substitute for the other.
  S. 30, introduced by Senator Norm Coleman, directs the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on 
pluripotent stem cells that do not damage a human embryo. It also 
specifies work on naturally dead embryos.
  But, the concept of alive-but-naturally-dead embryos is based upon 
limited research that has not yet been duplicated widely.
  It is promising research, but it is no more than that at this stage. 
In fact, some scientists are worried that these arrested embryos are 
defective and would, therefore, produce defective stem cells. And it is 
by no means certain that an arrested embryo can be differentiated from 
one that could develop further.
  In short, this idea may not pan out.
  Recently, there was another flurry of activity around the possibility 
that certain cells in amniotic fluid behave similarly to stem cells. 
But even Dr. Anthony Atala who characterized these cells has said that 
it is a mistake to assume that they are a substitute for embryonic stem 
cells.
  The vote that counts in the minds of our best and brightest 
scientists--and should count for my colleagues in the Senate and the 
American public--is your vote for S. 5, the Specter-Harkin bill that 
has already passed the House by a broad bipartisan vote. Our leading 
scientists, including more than 40 Nobel Laureates, tell us at this 
time there is no known scientific substitute for embryonic stem cells.
  Yet I understand that the vote I ask you to cast is ethically 
troubling for some of my colleagues.
  I have a long, proud and strong record as a right-to-life Senator.
  I stand against abortion on demand, and I think that Roe v. Wade 
should never have been decided the way it was.
  As a member and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I 
worked toward a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
  In the 108th Congress, I was at the President's side when he signed 
the bill banning the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. I was 
chairman of the House-Senate conference committee that finalized the 
bill.
  So why does a pro-life Senator support embryonic stem cell research? 
Because I do not consider a frozen embryo to be a human life until it 
is implanted in a woman's uterus. S. 5 allocates Federal research 
funding to embryonic stem cells derived from frozen embryos that are to 
be discarded. In fact, thousands of such embryos are routinely 
discarded each year.
  I should explain why frozen embryos exist and why they are discarded.
  As part of the fertility treatment process, multiple embryos are 
created and only one or a few of those that are created are ultimately 
used. The rest can be stored for years in liquid nitrogen. About 11,000 
embryos per year are discarded by their donors and could be used for 
research.
  I see ethics as being on the side of creating human life through 
fertility treatments. I see it as trying to cure human misery through 
ethical stem cell research as is provided through S. 5.
  When I first took this position in 2001, it was over the objection of 
some of my constituents in Utah. Utah is a very conservative State. 
Since that time, however, the majority of Utahns and the majority of 
Americans have come to support the use of Federal funds for embryonic 
stem cell research conducted under ethical guidelines.
  This year, as in past years, I have had a steady stream of Utahns 
with chronic diseases visiting my office urging me to continue to push 
for stem cell research. One young man who has been afflicted with 
diabetes since youth now has a son with the disease. He urged me to 
continue with this fight so that maybe his son might be spared the 
ravages of the disease. A woman disabled with multiple sclerosis 
earnestly told me to persist. A constituent with Parkinson's disease 
told me to do whatever it takes. They all want hope.
  NIH support is the bedrock of scientific research in the United 
States and really around the world. And without NIH support, embryonic 
stem cell research will never reach its full potential.
  While constrained by his position in the administration about what he 
can and cannot say about the legislation before the Senate, in 
testimony before the Congress, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni recently 
made it abundantly clear that--based on consideration of science 
alone--embryonic stem cell research presents great opportunities for 
scientific advancement. And Dr. Zerhouni is not alone.
  As I emphasized, one reason is that the limited and continually 
shrinking number of federally sanctioned contaminated cell lines are so 
tired that they no longer adequately represent the genetic code of the 
larger human family.
  A second is that the logistics of investigation are burdensome and 
impractical because of the need to separate funding sources for 
research with the limited, deficient federally sanctioned stem cell 
lines and the newer cell lines lawfully developed within Federal 
support.
  A third reason is that scientists cannot now use Federal funds for 
research on any embryonic stem cell line that they could implant in 
humans--these federally sanctioned lines are contaminated with animal 
cells.
  A fourth reason is the need to be able to bring the fruits of basic 
research to the patient. It is one thing to find several hundred 
thousand dollars of private money to complete an early stage research 
project on stem cell lines in the laboratory. However, when it comes 
time for clinical testing, the costs of research are in the millions of 
dollars, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars per experiment. 
Typically, this kind of private money is not available unless it is 
from industry. Clinical research with stem cells will hit the wall 
without NIH funding when that time comes.
  The private sector will not want to invest millions of dollars into 
stem cell lines that we already know will never yield ethical human 
treatments. Nor should Congress and the public allow the status quo to 
continue.
  If we unlock the shackles on our scientists, I believe we can 
materially shorten the time between basic and applied research--the 
time between the test tube and the patient's bedside. Let me give you 
just a few examples of what has been accomplished since the Senate last 
debated this issue.
  In last October's Nature, biotechnology investigators reported that 
they could convert human embryonic stem cells into cells capable of 
synthesizing insulin, the missing hormone in diabetics. This work was 
conducted on privately funded stem cell lines.
  At the University of California, Los Angeles researchers demonstrated 
that they could coax embryonic stem cells into becoming T-cells of the 
immune system, the missing cell line in AIDS patients.

[[Page S4331]]

  And in my own State of Utah, Dr. Raymond D. Lund, a professor of the 
Moran Eye Center at the University of Utah, reported that human 
embryonic stem cells injected into the eyes of blind rats improved 
their vision. This important work was conducted with private funding.
  An Israeli team partially funded by the Israel Science Foundation 
reported engineering a small piece of heart tissue derived from human 
embryonic stem cells that contracted rhythmically, carrying promise for 
future cardiac replacement therapies.
  Last month, Dr. Dachun Wang and Dr. Rick A. Wetsel at the University 
of Texas reported a procedure that differentiates human embryonic stem 
cells into the lung cells that are missing from many lung diseases. The 
work was funded with a grant from a private donor.
  Finally, in a recent Nature Medicine Journal, human embryonic stem 
cells delayed the onset of the mouse equivalent of a degenerative brain 
disease by 70 percent. The approach described in the article holds 
exciting potential for treating dreadful diseases such as ALS and 
Alzheimer's disease.
  As you can see, there is a lot of promising work being done in the 
field of embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, due to the 
limitations and restrictions placed on the few cell lines eligible for 
Federal research assistance, much of most promising work is being done 
outside the normal channel of the NIH research network.
  Yet with all this progress, is science progressing as fast as it 
should? I recently asked this question of an eminent neuroscientist who 
directs the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, Dr. 
Story Landis.
  At the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's hearing 
entitled ``Can Congress Help Fulfill the Promise of Stem Cell 
Research,'' committee members heard from scientists, from a young 
patient who suffered from diabetes, and from Dr. Landis. I asked Dr. 
Landis if NIH funds were made available for research on all ethically 
obtained embryos from in vitro fertilization, would the probability of 
finding cures for human diseases increase?
  Her response was as follows:

       Absolutely it would increase. There is no question about 
     it. We would have a real opportunity. I can give you one 
     specific example. Huntington's disease is an inherited 
     disease. It caused a particular kind of nerve cell in the 
     brain to die . . . If we had embryonic stem cells derived 
     from discarded embryos that were not implanted, we would be 
     able to make extraordinary inroads into therapeutics for that 
     disease.

  Much is weighing in the balance on today's vote.
  I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the positions they take 
today.
  In the interests of all those who suffer from debilitating diseases 
and hope for deliverance, I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 5.
  Let me close by making a point I made to President Bush back in 2001.

       In the opening days of your term in office, scientists have 
     completed the task of sequencing the human genome. While this 
     accomplishment--the work of many in the public and private 
     sectors--is of historical significance, it is only the end of 
     the beginning in a new era of our understanding of the 
     biological sciences. Over your next eight years in office, 
     you have an unprecedented opportunity to provide the personal 
     leadership required to see to it that your Administration 
     will be remembered by future historians as the beginning of 
     the end for such deadly and debilitating diseases as cancer, 
     Alzheimer's and diabetes.

  That is what S. 5 is all about--providing a potential new avenue of 
research that may lead to treatments and cures for many diseases that 
afflict many families across our Nation and the world.
  Mr. President, while I have no objections to S. 30, let us not delude 
ourselves into thinking it is the best solution to this. Again, while I 
will be voting for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly 
preferable to S. 30. S. 5 permits Federal funding for embryonic stem 
cell research, S. 30 does not. S. 5 is the bill that will clearly make 
a significant difference in the future of medical research.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 5.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 13 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am very grateful the Senate is 
considering the issue of stem cell research today. This debate marks 
the culmination of years of work by many of my colleagues and certainly 
by myself and a host of dedicated advocates.
  I thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their leadership on this 
issue, as well as Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Kennedy. Working 
together for almost a decade, the six of us have over the years laid 
the groundwork for the Senate to overwhelmingly approve Federal funding 
for embryonic stem cell research.
  We did this last July but, as we all know, unfortunately, that bill 
was ultimately vetoed by the President. That is behind us now, and with 
a new Congress comes a new opportunity to revisit this important issue, 
the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
  I hope the experiences of the past have helped my colleagues to gain 
a fresh perspective on this issue. I know they certainly have for me. 
Some may view the vote we will take later today on S. 5 and S. 30 as a 
one-or-the-other option. In my opinion, that is simply shortsighted.
  I intend to vote for both measures. At the end of the day, they both 
accomplish the goal of advancing stem cell science in the hopes of 
finding cures for debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, and diabetes, to name but a few.
  S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, would allow 
Federal dollars to support research on stem cells derived from human 
embryos created through in vitro fertilization.
  S. 30, the so-called alternative bill, would provide the support for 
other means of deriving pluripotent stem cells. In that regard, both 
measures deserve the Senate's support. I find it troubling that these 
measures should be pitted against one another. Many argue that S. 5 is 
a must-pass legislation, and I would tend to agree with them.
  But that should not detract from the importance of alternative forms 
of stem cell research sanctioned in S. 30. As research on embryonic and 
other forms of stem cells like amniotic or the placental therapies is 
still in its infancy, we need to support them all to fully realize the 
potential they might hold.
  Since the Senate last considered stem cell research, we have all had 
additional time to reflect on the sensitive issues underlying this 
debate. As a pro-life Republican, I initially had some uneasiness with 
endorsing this type of research that so heavily relies on human 
embryos.
  Drawing from my deeply held religious beliefs, scientific evidence, 
and countless stories of individuals living with terrible illnesses, I 
fashioned my position on the basis that I truly believe it supports the 
sanctity of human life.
  The real tension surrounding this issue, I believe, pits the 
potential medical benefits stem cells hold against the ethical 
uncertainties or the religious convictions some of my colleagues might 
have with what this kind of research entails. Based upon my personal 
struggle with this issue, I now believe any reservations with embryonic 
stem cell research are misplaced, especially when one truly considers 
the question of when life begins.
  For me, it begins with the mother, with the implantation of the 
embryo.
  I believe the Scriptures provide ample support showing that flesh and 
spirit become one within a mother. This is one of womankind's supernal 
gifts. I find verses in the Old and the New Testament, in Genesis, 
Jeremiah, the Psalms, Job, as well as in the Gospels.
  All of these things lead me to feel comfortable with an ethical 
conclusion that life begins when flesh and spirit are united in a 
mother's womb and not before.
  Embryos created as part of the in vitro fertilization process were 
intended to provide infertile couples the gift of life, the chance to 
become parents. Those that go unused in infertility treatments should 
still have the opportunity to give the gift of life either by later 
implantation or to those living with debilitating diseases through stem 
cell research.
  Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF embryo is a group 
of

[[Page S4332]]

cells growing in a petri dish. If those cells are stored in a lab for 
1,000 years, they have no possibility of developing into anything more 
than a group of cells. They remain the dust of the Earth, one of the 
building blocks leading to life.
  It is the act of implantation within a mother that gives them life. 
It is the act of implantation that is the essential missing ingredient 
in this debate. So instead of destroying or discarding unused embryos, 
we have the opportunity to use them to derive much needed stem cell 
lines for the advancement of stem cell science.
  It is not more moral to simply throw them away. While many of my pro-
life colleagues may not agree with my position, I know they do support 
the intent of embryonic stem cell research; that of finding cures for a 
number of chronic diseases and debilitating health conditions. That is 
why I still struggle with describing S. 30 as an alternative to S. 5. 
It is not an alternative or a substitute, it is a perfect complement.
  To fully realize the benefits that all types of stem cell research 
offer, I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively for both measures we 
are considering today.
  The promise of embryonic stem cell research is very real. Those 
suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cardiovascular 
disease, and many cancers believe in that promise, and so do I.
  But we have yet to unleash the potential behind this science because 
of the restrictions we have placed upon stem cell research. While I 
appreciate the President allowing the research to move forward on a 
limited number of stem cell lines, we all know that over time those 
lines have been degraded, and scientists are in desperate need of new, 
uncontaminated lines.
  We cannot expect scientists to make progress in developing today's 
treatments if we limit them to yesterday's science.
  I believe the Federal Government has a vital, moral role to play in 
the development of stem cell science to ensure that appropriate ethical 
guidelines are followed. It is uncertain where we will end up if 
embryonic stem cell research becomes an entirely private sector 
venture.
  With lack of sufficient funding and ethical boundaries, who knows 
where we will wind up? The Federal Government can guide research in the 
right direction. I fear if we fail to show up to work on this issue, we 
will run into very serious problems in the long run.

  Over the last 7 years it has become increasingly clear to me that 
being pro-life requires protecting both the sanctity of human life and 
the quality of human life. By allowing research on stem cell lines 
derived from unused IVF embryos, we could forge a path that would one 
day lead to cures for some of mankind's most dreadful medical maladies.
  If only one life-improving application of stem cell science comes 
from my vote in favor of S. 5, then I believe I have done my job, and 
done it correctly; for I have chosen to err on the side of hope, 
healing, and health.
  I encourage all of my colleagues, even those who have some ethical 
reservations or contrary religious feelings on this issue, to do the 
same. I have heard some refer to embryonic stem cell research as a 
conflict between science and religion. I do not believe that is the 
case. One of the greatest qualities and aspects of life in the United 
States is our religious pluralism. It is something we see an absence 
of, tragically, in too many places around the world.
  We do not serve the public well by taking the narrowest theological 
position and trying to impose it on public policy. The American 
tradition is open enough to include other considerations of ethical 
ideas, Scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope.
  I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. But as I use my 
agency to interpret what I know in the Scriptures, and the complexities 
of medicine, I have come to the conclusion that we are all made of 
dust. Dust thou art and unto dust thou shall return, as the Lord said 
to Job.
  In that regard, pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks 
of life, the dust of the Earth. I believe we miss the understanding of 
the importance of the spirit, the breath of life, the spirit within 
mankind, as the essential ingredient which causes life to begin.
  I do not find that religion and science are in conflict in the Senate 
today. I believe they are in harmony. I believe we should have a broad 
enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism.
  To that point, Mr. President, I turn to the Scriptures even to find 
wisdom that I do not have of myself. In the earliest pages of the Old 
Testament, I find this statement:

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

  Mr. President, there are two conjunctions. The dust of the ground 
``and'' the breath of life ``and'' then man becomes a living 
soul. Until you have both, you do not have life.

  I cannot end my comments today without mentioning also my own 
family's history. It has played a role in shaping my views on embryonic 
stem cell research. My mother's name was Jessica Udall. I watched my 
grandmother Lela Lee Udall die of Parkinson's. I watched my uncle 
Addison Udall die of Parkinson's. I watched my cousin, former 
Democratic Presidential candidate and Arizona Congressman, Morris K. 
Udall, die of Parkinson's. To watch people die of such a malady is to 
instill in one's heart a desire to err on the side of health, hope, and 
healing. We will all die, but no one should have to die as they died.
  I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote for both of these 
measures. They are complementary. They are headed in the same 
direction. They are not putting science and faith at odds with one 
another.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Who yields time?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, this is indeed a difficult issue and 
debate. I respect so much my colleague from Oregon. I know he speaks 
with passion and heart as he deals with these contentious but important 
issues. I must express some disagreement with him, while I agree with 
most of what he said.
  The issue of stem cells is a vital and emotional one, and we need to 
deal with it carefully as we move forward in the Senate.
  The embryonic stem cell debate stimulates some of us to defend the 
inherent human desire to make discoveries and to build on them; 
likewise, this debate galvanizes others of us who defend human life and 
believe it should be valued in all its forms. The engineered creation 
or destruction of a human embryo for the sake of scientific advancement 
cannot be the answer to any of our ever-growing challenges.
  In this great country of ours, and around the world, there are many 
suffering from debilitating conditions and ravaging diseases such as 
multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. These people are in need 
of medical treatment. Thanks to the brilliant minds and innovative ways 
of doctors and scientists across the globe, many medical treatments are 
now available. We can credit advances in stem cell research with this 
expanding treatment.
  Stem cell research holds tremendous opportunities for our society to 
help treat and cure people's diseases and illnesses; and some would 
like to extend the success found through federally funded adult stem 
cell research to embryonic research. They have proposed that we harvest 
these human embryos--which were created with the knowledge that many of 
them would be destroyed--to be used for research.
  While I, and others, understand the great need, we also know that 
there has to be a better way. In fact, I know there is. That is what I 
want to discuss today.
  The legislation currently being considered will direct Federal 
taxpayer dollars specifically for the destruction of human embryos to 
develop cells that might lead to treatments for various health 
problems. This raises moral objections with me because of my deeply 
held religious beliefs.
  We are currently funding research on nonembryonic stem cells derived 
from adult stem cells, amniotic cord blood or placenta sources. These 
have proven their ability to target many, if not eventually all, of the 
conditions expected to be addressed through embryonic stem cell 
research.

[[Page S4333]]

  The University of Florida has one of the top five adult stem cell 
research centers in the world and their findings are already making a 
difference.
  At the University of Florida, researchers are making great headway 
with stem cell research. They have in the works treatments for heart 
disease, a cure for diabetes, and preventions for diabetic eye 
diseases. Additionally, researchers at the University of Florida are 
making significant strides on the path toward reversing adult 
blindness, treating neurological conditions, and rebuilding human brain 
cells. Researchers in Gainesville are also leading the world in 
identifying cancer stem cells a primary step toward identifying 
therapies to cure various forms of cancer.
  It is worth noting that all of these advances have a vital common 
thread; each of the aforementioned breakthroughs came about thanks to 
nonembryonic stem cells.
  At the end of 2005, President Bush signed a bill that aims to further 
develop our Nation's cord blood inventory to allow for increased 
availability of existing and future stem cell treatments; and I was 
very proud to have supported this legislation.
  As my colleagues know, this legislation made its way through Congress 
with tremendous success. The House of Representatives passed it with 
only one dissenting vote, and in the Senate it passed it unanimously.
  The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 created a new 
Federal program to collect and store cord blood. In addition, the law 
expands the existing bone marrow registry to include cord blood.
  New programs utilizing cord blood, such as the recently created 
CORD:USE Center at the Winnie Palmer Hospital in my own home State of 
Florida, are building on this valuable and expanding foundation. These 
programs are advancing science without compromising morality.
  Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies in Orlando is now able to 
contribute a diverse and increased supply of cord blood. This is 
reassuring news for the thousands of people who would otherwise die 
unnecessarily each and every year were it not for the large, 
genetically-diversified stem cell bank that is now available. The uses 
of cord blood are fascinating and they speak of breakthroughs.
  Stephen Sprague, one of the first adults to receive a stem cell 
transplant from umbilical cord blood, recently visited Winnie Palmer 
Hospital and its cord blood bank to express his gratitude for what they 
are doing. Stephen was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 
1995, and when chemotherapy and other treatments did not work, and a 
match for a bone marrow transplant could not be found, he was informed 
that essentially nothing more could be done. Luckily, Stephen's 
oncologist was able to enroll him in one of the first clinical trials 
using umbilical cord blood.
  A wonderful mother agreed to donate her placenta; from that, the 
lifesaving cord blood was collected. Ten years after receiving the stem 
cell transplant, Stephen remains completely cancer-free. Not only this, 
but before his cord blood transplant, Stephen was an insulin-dependent 
diabetic. Following the transplant, Stephen has not needed to use 
insulin; through taking only oral diabetic medications, his sugar 
levels have remained normal.
  So, not only was Stephen's life saved by the transplant, his quality 
of life was improved. It is no wonder that Stephen has now dedicated 
his life to telling his cord blood story of hope to patients and 
mothers who can also give the gift of life through the donation of 
their cord blood.
  Umbilical cord blood stems cells have now been used in thousands of 
patients requiring a potentially lifesaving stem cell transplant and 
with good results.
  The collection of these cells from the delivery of a healthy newborn 
baby can result in a stem cell transplant desperately needed to save 
someone else's life. Essentially, new life is helping to stimulate more 
life.
  This allows us to help countless people in need without the moral 
dilemma presented by the embryonic alternative which, from my 
perspective, is no true alternative.
  Cord blood is currently being used to treat nearly 80 diseases.
  Adult stem cells have made, and will continue to make, a recognizable 
contribution to helping those with leukemia, sickle cell disease, and 
other potentially fatal illnesses and conditions.
  Proponents of embryonic stem cell research say they want to make 
available for research only those embryos that are, in their words, 
``unwanted.'' One of my colleagues recently asserted, ``If these 
embryos were going to create life, we wouldn't be supporting research 
on them.
  Yet, there is proof that these embryos are living things and that 
they are wanted. Yes, these embryos can, and are, growing into fully 
formed babies. Known as ``snowflake babies,'' these babies are born 
from adopted embryos--excess embryos from successful in vitro 
fertilization parents that are donated and adopted by a couple where 
fertilization techniques were forgone or unsuccessful.
  To date, 133 snowflake babies have been born, with nearly another two 
dozen on the way.
  Had these--in the words of the critics, ``unwanted'' embryos--been 
tossed aside, human life would have literally been discarded.
  Many Americans agree that we need to move forward on this issue with 
prudence, and in a way that respects and values human life. As we stand 
to balance our interests in helping those in need without destroying 
human life, there is a good piece of legislation being considered that 
I want my colleagues to consider.
  Under the HOPE Act, no living embryo would be damaged or harmed for 
the sake of research. What the HOPE Act would do is allow scientists 
for the first time to apply for Federal funds to perform research on 
embryos that have died naturally during the in vitro process. For those 
hoping to find a cure through embryonic stem cell research, this would 
be a modest and principled step toward achieving that goal.
  It would also be the right step to take, because it is the only 
option that opens up new frontiers without damaging human life; a move 
in this direction would not detract from the real results we have seen 
through federally-sponsored adult stem cell research. I encourage my 
colleagues to strongly consider voting in favor of the HOPE Act.
  We must be dedicated only to research which preserves and protects 
lives. Adult stem cells hold great promise, have had more proven 
success in lab trials and actual applications, and they do not require 
the destruction of human life. This is where our Federal funding should 
remain focused.
  At this time, efforts to federally fund a different area would siphon 
money from proven research.
  If it is possible to simultaneously defend human life and help others 
in need, why on earth would we not do it? Why wouldn't that be the 
better option? We know it is possible to do both at the same time. It 
seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do. That is why I urge my 
colleagues today to support the HOPE Act, to support a way of 
continuing to advance the frontiers of research while at the same time 
avoiding the troublesome and meddlesome moral dilemmas that funding for 
embryonic stem cells would present.

  There is an option. There is an alternative. There is an opportunity 
to advance stem cell research of the embryonic type, knowing we have 
already had great success with adult stem cells, with cord blood, and 
all of the other usages, but at the same time not tampering with the 
moral dilemma we would have to cross if we are destroying embryonic 
life in order to have stem cell research in that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida and 
my colleague from Oregon as well. I want to address a couple of issues 
in response to some of the statements that have been made and also get 
us back to what we are discussing.
  On S. 5, the central issue is, will we sanction the destruction of 
nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? There is currently no 
prohibition

[[Page S4334]]

against embryonic stem cell research in this country. Any private group 
in Illinois or Kansas or Pennsylvania that wants to develop an 
embryonic stem cell line can do so. There is no prohibition. The 
question is, will we use Federal taxpayer dollars to destroy human life 
to develop additional stem cell lines? That is what S. 5 is about.
  The second point is, if we want to talk about cures, which I believe 
that is what the debate should be centered on, is it appropriate to 
divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research, from cord blood 
research, from placental research, from amniotic fluid research into 
these areas of highly speculative embryonic stem cell research that has 
not produced results to date and is unlikely to produce results in the 
near future, if at all. If it does produce results, it is going to lead 
us toward human cloning, because we are not going to have a genetic 
match on the embryonic stem cell line. You are going to need a genetic 
match so you will have to develop human cloning to get a genetic match 
to produce the cure you want.
  Cloning is not on the table today, but that is what this moves us 
toward, because that is what is going to have to happen, if this will 
ever work. But it doesn't need to go that route. I want to get us back 
on those central questions.
  Let's talk about the facts on these questions. We have invested 
heavily as a country in embryonic stem cell research. We have invested 
in adult stem cell research. We have invested nearly $613 million on 
embryonic stem cell research. In total, since 2002, $613 million 
invested in embryonic stem cell research. So to say that we are not 
funding, we are not doing work in this area, is false. We have invested 
a considerable amount of work and effort in this field.

  Now, individuals are saying: OK, yes, you have put money into this 
field, but the lines on which you allow research are contaminated. I 
wish to draw attention to this article from Nature magazine--excuse me. 
I want to get this one up. This article: ``Bush Stem Cell Line 
Contamination is Exaggerated.'' This is from a CEO of a stem cell 
company:

       So the stuff you hear published--

  I am reading the quotation--

     --that all of these lines are irrevocably contaminated with 
     mouse materials that could never be used in people--hogwash. 
     If you know how to grow them, they're fine.

  That is in an article where one of the key individuals, the CEO of a 
stem cell company, is saying that. So we have $613 million that is in 
human and nonhuman embryonic stem cell research. The idea that the 
lines are contaminated is hogwash. They are not contaminated. They are 
useful. They are being used. The research is taking place. So we have 
this. We have $613 million going into this area since 2002. One would 
reasonably expect we ought to have some results after over half a 
million dollars going into the field in this period of time and a lot 
of efforts from the scientific community. We have known about embryonic 
stem cells for 25 years.
  Indeed, the magazine Nature in 2006 marked the 25th anniversary of 
the two papers reporting the first isolation of mouse embryonic stem 
cells--a 25-year celebration. So we have known about embryonic stem 
cells for 25 years and in humans for the last 10 years. We have been 
able to research on them in lab animals for the last 25 years. That is 
an exciting development which took place a quarter of a century ago. We 
have invested heavily--$613 million since 2002. We have put a lot of 
money into this. We put a lot of scientific effort into this.
  What do we have? That should be a reasonable question all my 
colleagues would ask. All my colleagues would say: Well, OK. We have 
talked about this, we have put money in it, we have discovered it, and 
we have put a lot of our best scientific minds into this field. What do 
we have? The results for adult versus embryonic: We have invested more 
in adult than we have in embryonic, but it is not an inconsequential 
amount that we have put into embryonic--$613 million. This chart shows 
the current human applications in the two fields of adult versus the 
embryonic. For allergy and infectious disease, embryonic stem cell 
research and human applications: zero. We have 15 in the adult field. 
Cancer Institute: zero in ESCR, 26 in adult. Child Health Institute: 
zero here for embryonic, 8 in adult. Diabetes and Digestive: zero for 
embryonic, three in the adult field. Eye Institute: one adult, zero 
embryonic. Zero embryonic, zero embryonic, zero embryonic in each of 
those fields. You can see what we have been able to do in the adult 
field by the investment we have there.
  So from just a sheer practicality standpoint--we have known about 
this for 25 years, and we have put $613 million into it. We have zero 
human clinical applications today taking place. We have over--and here 
I want to show an adjusted chart. I am sorry this is one we have had to 
paper over, but just yesterday we had juvenile diabetes on our board 
for adult stem cell application--one of the big ones. This affects a 
lot of people. It is one that a number of people in this body are 
strongly interested in, deeply interested in.
  I just read to my colleagues this morning from the Chicago Tribune 
about this adult stem cell work treating juvenile diabetes where an 
individual with their own--this is type 1 diabetes--treating an 
individual with their own stem cells at Northwestern University. Here 
is a quote from a researcher who was reviewing it from Harvard Medical 
School:

       Their results look better than anything I have seen so far.

  Type 1 diabetes. We added it, gladly, to the board today. Seventy-
three different human applications we have in adult stem cells. Cord 
blood. We don't have amniotic fluid yet developing, which I think we 
should start banking the amniotic fluid from the placenta because of 
the rich stores of stem cells, but we haven't quite started that yet 
today. So we have put in money in adult and we have put money in 
embryonic. We have a lot of results in adult.
  I held this up for my colleagues yesterday, but I hope they get a 
chance to look at it again. This is the front page of the research 
findings in the adult fields we have. It is about a 4-inch binder. That 
was accumulated as of April 2006--last year. We did an addendum from 
June 2006 to March 2007. These are the findings. These are the 
successful results in the adult cord blood field that we have. I don't 
have my empty binder to show what we have on embryonic stem cell. It is 
a legitimate question, just a legitimate question about what we should 
be investing in that is yielding results in the adult versus embryonic 
field that is taking place.
  There is the tumor problem. My colleague from Utah was saying we can 
get over this tumor problem which is taking place. Unfortunately, I 
have a stack--and I put it into the Record yesterday--of 10 research 
papers, and that was really just a sampling of the papers where the 
embryonic stem cells are producing tumors. This is real. It is 
significant. It is not going away, these tumor-formation problems with 
embryonic stem cells.
  This is in a publication called ``Stem Cells'': ``The presentation of 
the insulin gene could be demonstrated only when the cells 
differentiated in vivo into teratomas''--into tumors. These are tumors 
which are taking place. This is just one of a stack of research papers 
saying this is a problem. It is a difficulty we have.

  Let's talk about patients again because, to me, that is what we 
really have to get to--the bottom line. We have to bring this back to 
the patients.
  We now have this exciting development which is taking place with type 
1 juvenile diabetes. Unfortunately, it is taking place in Brazil 
instead of the United States. I wish we were having the researchers 
doing this in the United States. I guess they--whether they are being 
attracted overseas to do adult stem cell work and not in the United 
States--but this was Northwestern University which was doing this in 
Brazil.
  I want to look at Parkinson's. One of my colleagues raised the issue 
of Parkinson's, which is a very difficult, terrible disease that 
confronts and confounds us as a society and as individuals. I wish to 
point out to my colleagues an individual who came to testify in 2004 
who was a Parkinson's patient and testified about his treatment with 
his own stem cells that was taking place, a Parkinson's patient, Dr. 
Dennis Turner, and he was Parkinson's free for a period of 5 years. We 
tried to get him in to testify a number of different times. We had 
trouble. He was

[[Page S4335]]

out doing African safaris after his stem cell treatment as he was doing 
so well from it.
  My point is that we have tried this. We have tried it aggressively. 
We have tried it ethically to say: OK, let's try embryonic stem cell 
work on lines where a life-and-death decision has already been made. 
That was the President's determination in 2001. He was saying: We don't 
know at this point in time where this science will lead us. Let's try 
it on these ethical lines because somebody has already made the life-
and-death decision. Let's put money into it. Let's start in the 
nonhuman area first because we want to develop this in the animal 
models, which is clearly the right way to go. Let's invest heavily in 
it, which I noted in the earlier chart where I pointed this out, the 
amount of animal trials, the money that has been put into animal trials 
on embryonic stem cell work--in 2006 alone, $110 million; $481 million 
for 2002 through 2006--trying to find out: Is there a place? Is there a 
way? Can we make this work? We continue to have this tumor problem 
which keeps coming up in almost all of the studies. Yet we are saying: 
Let's try it on human embryonic and these lines that have already been 
developed, and we still are not getting the results. So why would we 
continue to fund in this area?
  Now we want to expand the funding in this area and we want to expand 
the lines and we want to--not only go there, we want to cross the big 
moral divide that many of us have different opinions on but all of us 
have to say is a profound question: the use of taxpayer dollars to fund 
the destruction of young human life. We are all troubled about that. 
One way or the other, we are all troubled about that. That is the 
question on this particular bill and why it is so divisive. We all want 
cures. I think people are troubled about the lack of scientific results 
in one area and the fact that we are now at, in clinicaltrials.gov., 
1,422 human clinical trials now going on, being recruited for or no 
longer recruiting for using adult stem cell work right now. So this is 
going on. It is going on well. We are not seeing any of it in the 
embryonic.
  Now we want to take another step. We want to use taxpayer dollars. We 
want to destroy young human life. We want to create more embryonic stem 
cell lines. Never mind that it hasn't worked to date. Never mind that 
we are getting a lot of results in this other field. Never mind that a 
good portion of our electorate finds this ethically very troubling. We 
are going to do it. We are going to go with it. We think we ought to do 
it.
  I don't think this is a wise move. I don't think it is wise 
practically. I don't think it is wise ethically in spite of the 
thoughts others might have. Ronald Reagan said: If you didn't know if 
somebody was alive or dead, you wouldn't bury them. If you weren't 
sure, you wouldn't bury them, just as a commonsense thought.
  My colleague from Oregon did a very good discussion of the ethical 
issues here, yet I could even detect in his thoughts that this is a 
troubling question. It is a tough one. So if we are not sure if it is 
alive or dead, would you bury them? No, you wouldn't. And if we have a 
moral question about this and we have a route where we can use this 
$613 million to get treatments for people like Dennis Turner, whom I 
put up here, and where we have had some successes, if we can get 
treatments for diabetes that are being developed by Northwestern 
University--but for some reason, we are not having enough interest here 
to do them here, we are having to do them in Brazil. I want people to 
get treatments. I want Parkinson's treatment to take place. We have a 
route to do this. We are not unlimited on money resources in the health 
care field. I think we should invest more in the health care field. We 
have a route to go here. We have a route that can use the resources. If 
we are at 1,422 clinical trials now, my guess is there would be a lot 
more we could try.
  I put up pictures of people here yesterday who are having to go to 
Portugal for spinal cord injury treatment. I want to put a picture back 
up here again. She wonders why we couldn't do this here.
  I might also note to my colleagues that it is critical that this is 
done quickly. They are finding in these early research results that the 
sooner you can get the treatment for a spinal cord injury, the more 
likelihood of success. So how many people here can afford to fly to 
Portugal for the treatment, and how much better would it be if this 
were done in Chicago or in Kansas City where people could go in this 
country? This lady from central Illinois was having to go to Portugal.

  We are finding this in the diabetes area. They are saying the sooner 
the treatment is taking place--and this is common sense to most of us 
as well--we know that the sooner you catch something, the more 
likelihood you have success if you get quick treatment. Should we be 
forcing people, then, to go to Brazil and Portugal and Thailand to get 
these adult stem cell treatments, many of which were developed in the 
United States, being done by U.S. researchers, and now are being 
conducted abroad? Why? I understand we are all after this goal of 
treatments, and I would hope--and I give that to my opponents, that is 
what they are after as well--they see this hope and promise.
  I can't cross the ethical boundary they have been able to cross. I 
find that each of these lives--and here, I am not quoting from a 
religious source; I am quoting from a biology textbook, an embryology 
textbook, 1996 human embryology textbook that says this about when life 
begins, not talking about the theology but the biology. It says:

       Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a 
     critical landmark, because under ordinary circumstances, a 
     new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

  The Presiding Officer wouldn't be here if he was destroyed as an 
embryo. If we have somebody in the future who in this body--I want to 
show Hannah--who was in this body who was created--or, excuse me, was 
started in an IVF clinic, was a frozen embryo at some point in time, 
she is destroyed as a frozen embryo, she isn't going to be here as a 
U.S. Senator. This life is a continuum. We all know this. This is not 
something which is new to anybody. Here is man who is a snowflake baby, 
a frozen embryo, who was adopted. We have another route to go on these 
frozen embryos. We could really push an adoption technique. If she is 
destroyed at this early phase, she obviously isn't here at a later 
phase. We know that. We know what the embryology textbook says, and we 
know each of us started out as an embryo, so why would we do this? I 
understand people are saying: Well, because we want cures. And I do, 
too. We have an ethical route to go on the cures. We have a route which 
is producing enormous successful results and one which is producing no 
results.
  Now, maybe it will, in a decade or two, over large U.S. expenditure, 
over a great ethical divide that we all are troubled about, and then we 
will expand into human cloning to be able to get a genetic match, 
because it will have to. Otherwise, if you do this with embryonic stem 
cells and implant them and the genetic type doesn't match up with that 
of the body, you are going to have to have immunosuppressants being 
used all your life. Is it likely we are going to continue that route? 
No. We are obviously going to have to do human cloning, develop young 
human clones that genetically match the individual being treated. You 
are going to have to harvest thousands, if not millions, or hundreds of 
thousands of women's eggs to get the human eggs to develop the clones.
  Do we want to go there with women? You are probably going to have to 
incentivize and pay women in poorer countries to get the human eggs to 
develop the clones that genetically match so you can implant them. This 
leads down several paths we don't want to go. So why would we start 
down there if we don't want to go there and we have an ethical route in 
which to go?
  I plead with my colleagues that we don't need to do this. We don't 
need to jump over this ethical divide, and we don't need to ignore this 
definition. We don't need to create a legal fiction that, yes, it is 
alive but it is not a life, which we are doing now with this 
discussion. We don't need to go back to the old debate of treating 
human life as property and that you can patent it and own it and 
manipulate it, and treat it for your own purposes. We have been there 
before. We have always regretted

[[Page S4336]]

it. Why would we do that now? We don't need to go there. I say to my 
colleagues, let's not go there. Let's go this route we can all agree 
on. Let's do amniotic fluid banking. Let's do banking of those stem 
cells and create more treatments. Let's invest more heavily in the 
adult stem cell field so we can create and find those cures. Let's have 
treatments done in the United States and not force people to travel 
overseas to get these treatments. We don't need to go there.
  We don't need to get women into a position to pay them to harvest 
their eggs. We don't need to go down the route of human cloning, 
creating life for our own purposes. We have done that before and have 
deeply regretted it.
  This is a turning point for us. I have no doubt how the vote will 
come out today. It will be in favor of S. 5. I think that is 
regrettable. I believe the President when he says he is going to veto 
it. I hope he does. I will be strongly in support of him doing that. 
Instead of having a culture that looks at using life, let's have a 
culture that values life, that sees every life as dignified, beautiful, 
sacred, a child of a loving God, not to be used for other purposes but 
has dignity because of who it is, because of the beauty of who it is. 
What is wrong with that? Let's find cures, and we can do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Will the Chair advise us of how much time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia controls 14 minutes. 
The Senator from Iowa controls 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois will speak next 
and he told me he needed extra time. In the spirit of cooperation, I 
will be glad to yield 5 of our minutes to the Senator from Illinois so 
he will have 11 minutes, and then I will conclude. Is that fair?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. We will yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. ISAKSON. You have 6 minutes left. I am giving him 5 and I will 
take a closing. Is that fair?
  Mr. HARKIN. That sounds good to me.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
gracious gesture. I also thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, 
along with Senator Specter, for introducing this bill on stem cell 
research.
  Some important things have been said on the Senate floor today. 
Senator Smith of Oregon made an exceptionally moving statement on this 
issue. I thank him for sharing his views. This is a tough issue. It is 
not easy. I totally respect those who see it differently than I do, 
including the Senator from Kansas. They are trying to apply to this 
important political debate their own conscience. That is an important 
thing in this business, that we bring our conscience to the Senate 
Chamber. I know, as most people do, that as we meet and debate this 
issue on the floor of the Senate, the lives of Americans continue. All 
across America, in sterile laboratories, there are doctors and 
scientists at work today trying to help loving couples create human 
life. These are men and women, husbands and wives, who want a child 
and, because of some physical problem, they cannot conceive. So they 
spend enormous sums of money--thousands of dollars--on the chance that 
in a little glass dish in a laboratory life can be created that will 
end up being the child they will love for the rest of their lives. It 
is a beautiful story of love that is repeated every day in America in 
these laboratories. I have a friend who recently had a baby girl--2 
weeks ago. Eight days after she was born, I was giving her a bottle. I 
thought I had lost all those talents, but they came back to me. My wife 
was admiring her and telling the mom how proud we were. She talked 
about going through this process and how when they went into this 
laboratory and looked at all of the possible embryos that could lead to 
the birth of the child, they picked the healthiest and strongest ones, 
naturally.
  But other embryos were not chosen. What happens to those? At the end 
of the day, what happens to those that are not chosen to end up 
becoming a baby? They are thrown away, discarded. Now, Senator 
Brownback has referred to these as ``nascent'' human life, young human 
beings. I see this a little differently. I cannot understand how we can 
condone legally a process that will end up at the end of the day with 
these embryonic stem cells being thrown away and discarded, when we 
know if those same stem cells that are about to be thrown away are 
given, under appropriate guidelines, with strong ethical standards, to 
laboratories, they could lead to cures for serious illnesses. Is it 
better morally to throw them away or is it better morally to use them 
in a positive way to enrich and save human life? That is what this 
debate comes down to, as far as I am concerned.

  I have many friends and there isn't a family in America that hasn't 
been touched by Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, ALS, or 
diabetes. We all know the stories. That is part of American family life 
today. When you are a parent of a child who suffers from one of these 
illnesses or diseases, the first thing you want to know is: Doctor, 
what can be done? Is there a cure? Is there a place I can take my 
daughter to where they are going do surgery or a procedure--something--
to save her from this disease? That is the first question a parent 
asks.
  Because President Bush decided over 4 years ago to close down Federal 
funding in this area of research, it limits the opportunity to find 
those cures. The President has said he is asserting his moral belief, 
his ethical position on this issue. Well, everybody brings their moral 
and ethical positions to these issues, but you have to ask the larger 
question: Is it right for the President to impose on all of the 
families in America who are afflicted with diseases his moral and 
ethical views?
  I think what Senator Harkin has done is more reasonable. He has said 
we will have strong ethical guidelines for this kind of research. No 
one is going to make a dollar off this. You cannot direct this research 
toward any person. This is strictly scientific, closely guarded, with 
strong ethical guidelines. Senator Isakson has come up with an 
approach, too, to use a different form of these cells. I also applaud 
his approach. Let us try everything we can ethically find that moves us 
forward toward finding cures. That is what this should be about. If you 
believe the embryos not used in in vitro fertilization are human life, 
as described here, I think you have a moral obligation to outlaw in 
vitro fertilization because, frankly, at the end of the day these 
``nascent'' human lives will be destroyed. We know that. But you have 
not heard that suggestion. Those opposing stem cell research are not 
opposing in vitro fertilization; they say go forward with that, knowing 
the choice would be made to discard the stem cells rather than use them 
for medical research. I don't follow that logic. I think it is morally 
consistent for them to oppose embryonic stem cell research and prohibit 
in vitro fertilization. But they have not gone that far.
  We have tough choices ahead of us in this bill. I think they are 
obvious choices. We understand what Senators Harkin and Specter have 
done. They open the door for funding Federal research in this area. I 
am glad the Governor of Illinois found money to initiate this research 
in Illinois. California and many other States are also doing this. Why 
are we doing it State by State, not as a national Government, as we do 
all medical research? The President doesn't view this the same as other 
people. He used his veto pen once as President and that was to veto 
stem cell research. I think that is inappropriate.
  As I get into this debate, I think about a lot of people I have met 
who are victims of multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, and 
spinal cord injuries. I think about visiting the Heinz VA Hospital 
yesterday and seeing a quadriplegic who has been bedridden since the 
Korean war. Imagine that, if you will. I think about those who have 
suffered spinal cord injuries who want the chance, the possibility, 
that this research will allow them to lead a more complete and full 
life. I also think of my colleague from the House of Representatives, 
Lane Evans. He came to Congress in 1982 as a wonderful, great young 
man, a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam era. He had to give up his 
congressional career last year because of Parkinson's. It got

[[Page S4337]]

to the point where he could not continue his official duties. He used 
to come to the floor and beg for this bill to pass so others suffering 
from Parkinson's would have a chance.
  I dedicate my vote in support of this bill in support of Lane Evans, 
the veterans, and so many others who are counting on us to move this 
research forward. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the NIH, stated 
our Nation would be better served if federally funded scientists had 
access to embryonic stem cells for research. He separated himself from 
the Bush administration's official position. He said:

       It is not possible for me to know how we can continue the 
     momentum of science and research with the stem cell lines we 
     have at NIH that can't be funded. From my standpoint as 
     director of the NIH, it is in the best interest of our 
     scientists, our science, and our country that we find ways 
     and the nation finds a way to go full speed across adult and 
     embryonic stem cells equally.

  I am not going to argue against research using cord blood, adult stem 
cells, the type of stem cells described by Senator Isakson in his bill. 
But I think we have a moral obligation to the men and women who are 
counting on us to open this research to find cures. This is our chance, 
with passage of this bill.
  I will vote in favor of both S. 5, the Harkin bill, and S. 30, the 
Isakson bill, to support all ways of deriving stem cells in a positive 
way to save lives. If you are in favor of human life and making it 
better, this is your chance. What matters most in this debate is that 
we aim to make good on the promises we vowed to keep. Let's support the 
research that can lessen so much pain for so many and support S. 5.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will be brief. I will take a portion of 
the remainder of our time and yield back the rest. I compliment Senator 
Durbin on his excellent remarks. Referring back to Senator Dorgan's and 
Senator Smith's speeches and so many other speeches, I think this has 
been a terrific debate.
  I compliment the Senator from Iowa tremendously. We all gained a 
great deal of education. I think, with rare exception, we have seen 
exhibited a passion to further embryonic stem cell research. The 
questions are not if that is what we should do but how we go about 
doing it.
  What I have tried to do, and Senator Harkin and I had a great 
exchange last night when we educated one another on our positions, but 
what I tried to do is open a door that already existed, a door that 
brought about 5 of the 21 embryonic stem cell lines that are currently 
under NIH approval. But as Senator Harkin and others have stated, those 
lines have now been experimented on for 5\1/2\ years, using mice, they 
have developed pollution or less-than-quality lines. It is time for us 
to find a way to further the science, to reach out for those 
discoveries and do so. S. 30, which I am here to advocate for, affords 
that opportunity because it allows the NIH to invest future funds in 
embryonic stem cell research on embryos derived from Level III Gardner 
principle remainders and in vitro fertilization, arrested embryos, as 
they are referred to in some cases, dead embryos as referred to in 
other cases, but in all cases embryos that are no longer going to 
become a life but do generate and contain pluripotent embryonic stem 
cells.
  In the end, I feel that approach satisfies the questions raised at 
the White House and affords us an opportunity of a bill that will be 
signed by the President and does what everybody on this floor supports, 
with rare exception, I believe, or maybe no exception once done, and 
that is the expansion and the extension of the research.
  I end where I began with my remarks a minute ago. I compliment 
Senator Harkin and others who have spoken and the advocacy that has 
been here today and the level and quality of this debate on this 
subject. I look forward to this afternoon and the remaining 3 hours as 
we lead up to the votes.
  I guess I would say the same thing the Senator from Iowa would say. 
If any Members want to speak this afternoon, it is time to let us know 
now rather than later because we will have 3 hours equally divided 
between four different groups.
  With that said, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________