[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20041-20042]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         STEM CELL LEGISLATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was not on the floor a few moments ago 
when the distinguished majority leader and the assistant leader for the 
Democrats had a colloquy when the majority leader propounded a 
unanimous consent request concerning legislation on stem cells. I think 
it useful to make a brief comment or two and then to have, if I might, 
a brief discussion with the majority leader about what will happen on 
the future of the bill.
  The stem cell legislation in question would eliminate the prohibition 
now in effect which limits the use of Federal funds, principally from 
the National Institutes of Health, from paying for extracting stem 
cells from embryos. Once the stem cells have been extracted from 
embryos, then Federal funds may be used on their research, and private 
funds--if I might have the attention of the majority leader for a 
moment while we discuss the stem cell issue, as to what is going to 
happen next. Without describing the legislation--which I can in a 
minute--I ask the distinguished majority leader what he anticipates in 
the future.
  When this issue to eliminate the limitation on funding was stricken 
from the appropriations bill last year, it was done so after I 
consulted with the majority leader because concluding it would have 
resulted in a filibuster and tied up that appropriations bill. The 
majority leader made a commitment, which he has fulfilled today, to 
bring the bill to the floor.
  It had been my hope that we would have had the bill on the floor at 
an earlier time, but I fully understand the complexities of the 
schedule; and once we had reached September, the only way to deal with 
the matter was on a limited time agreement to be obtained through 
unanimous consent.
  So it is my hope that the intent and the thrust of what was 
proposed--I think intended--was that that the bill would be on the 
calendar and considered when we reconvened, when it would not have to 
be subjected to a unanimous consent request, but it might have to pass 
a filibuster vote on a motion to proceed.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield, 
let me acknowledge the fact that the Senator from Pennsylvania did 
agree at a critical moment last year to remove this issue from the 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill so we could complete it. It was 
clearly one of the difficulties we were having in wrapping up the 
session.
  I committed at that time that we would make an effort to get it up 
this year and that I would do that. We probably should have made this 
effort earlier. I owe him an apology for not doing that. Let me say, in 
recent days we have tried to clear it. There is objection to it. I 
believed it was important that I go ahead and make that request 
publicly because we made that commitment to the Senator.
  I know how strongly the Senator from Pennsylvania feels about this 
issue, and a lot of other people feel very strongly about it. I know we 
had some testimony on it within the last couple of weeks in the Senate. 
There are strong and passionate feelings about it on both sides in 
terms of what it can do for some health problems, and there are others 
who obviously think this is an improper use. I am sure it will be a 
good debate whenever it is debated and wherever it is debated. I will 
work with the Senator next year to try to get it up earlier in the 
session. Before I make a commitment at this time that I will file 
cloture, I have to make sure it will not fall through and I can keep 
that commitment.
  But I will work with him to see that he gets a shot at it. He always 
has the opportunity to offer amendments on bills that come along. There 
is not just one way to get it done. I do believe I owe him a commitment 
to keep working with him. Even though I don't necessarily agree with 
him on the substance, I think on the procedure I have an obligation to 
keep a commitment to help him.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his statement. I appreciate his last statement that he doesn't 
necessarily agree with me, which leaves some room that he doesn't 
necessarily disagree with me. I am not looking for a response at this 
time. Senator Lott is well known to have an open mind on controversial 
issues and on matters not debated. I agree with him when he says it is 
subject to passionate feelings on both sides.
  We had debates and witnesses. We had seven hearings on this issue. We 
had Senator Brownback, the principal opponent of the legislation, to 
testify, and Congressman Jay Dickey, the principal opponent of the 
legislation in the House, to testify.
  The hearings have always been balanced, and we have had people who 
have opposed the legislation at every one of the hearings.
  It is a matter which is appropriate for the Senate to consider. I 
appreciate what the majority leader has said about giving consideration 
to an early listing next year, and not making a commitment on pressing 
a cloture motion. I think a cloture motion could be filed by any 17 
Senators. But we are not going to get involved in that at this time.
  But I did want to say for the Record why I believe it is important 
that the matter be considered. And it is because stem cells have such a 
remarkable opportunity to cure many of the most difficult maladies and 
diseases which confront America and the world today. These stem cells 
have the potential to be placed in the human body to replace other 
cells.

[[Page 20042]]

  We had testimony, for example, from Michael J. Fox, who suffers from 
Parkinson's. We had the experts testify that these stem cells could be 
enormously effective in curing Parkinson's. That is an obtainable goal 
perhaps in as early as 5 years.
  The stem cells may also be useful on Alzheimer's disease, on strokes, 
on spinal cord injuries, perhaps on cancer, and perhaps on heart 
ailments.
  There is virtually no limit to what these stem cells can do. They are 
a veritable fountain of youth.
  I have said publicly that I understand those on the other side of the 
issue. It involves taking an embryo which has been created for purposes 
of in vitro fertilization but not used. These embryos are discarded. 
There are some 100,000 embryos in existence today which will not be 
used. So the issue is whether you simply discard these embryos which 
will have no further effect, or whether you use these embryos to 
produce stem cells which can cure many very serious maladies.
  There are other alternatives such as adult stem cells. But the 
scientific evidence has been very compelling, in my judgment, that 
adult stem cells cannot do the job, but stem cells can from embryos.
  There are also stem cells from fetal tissue. Those stem cells are 
limited, and we really need the stem cells from these embryos to 
provide the research opportunities to cure so many of these ailments.
  This is not an issue which is going to lead to the creation of 
embryos for the purposes of extracting stem cells. When we have the 
fetal tissue discussion, many people are concerned that they will 
produce more abortions to have fetal tissue available. In fact, that 
was not the case--fetal tissue was used from abortions which would have 
occurred in any event.
  It is not a controversial pro-life versus pro-choice issue as we have 
had many Senators who are strongly pro-life support stem cell research 
in this legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond, who is very strongly pro-
life and an acknowledged very conservative Senator, testified before 
the subcommittee in favor of this legislation to have Federal funding 
for extraction of stem cells from embryos.
  Senator Connie Mack of Florida has spoken about this bill, another 
pro-life Senator speaking in favor of it. Very strong statements have 
come from Senator Gordon Smith, who is pro-life and very concerned 
about these underlying issues, as to why he feels the balance is in 
favor of this sort of legislation.
  Since the issue was mentioned and there is not another Senator on the 
floor seeking recognition, I thought I would explain in abbreviated 
form where this legislation is pending, and why I have been pressing. 
It comes naturally within the subcommittee of appropriations which I 
chair.
  The prohibition against use of Federal funds to extract stem cells 
from embryos was placed in a bill which came out of this subcommittee. 
When the prohibition was imposed, there was no one who really knew the 
miraculous potential of stem cells, it being a veritable fountain of 
youth. This only came into existence with the research disclosed in 
November of 1998. Since that time, our subcommittee has had seven 
hearings to explore the issue very fully.
  It is my hope that the matter will come before the Senate early next 
year. I appreciate what the majority leader has had to say. We will let 
the Senate work its will. Let us consider it. Let us debate it. Let us 
analyze it and come to judgment on it, which is our role as 
legislators, in a way which considers all of the claims and considers 
all of the positions but resolves the matter so that public policy will 
be determined in accordance with our constitutional standards and our 
legislative procedures.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  MR. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. GRAMS and Mr. SESSIONS pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 3138 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have two unanimous consents that have 
been agreed to on the other side. I will make them as expeditiously as 
I can.

                          ____________________