[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23346-23348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am going to speak about the stem 
cell research issue, which I think is important. I don't have an answer 
to it fully.
  I so much admire Christopher Reeve, whose death we have noted today. 
His commitment to dealing with the terrible problem of spinal cord 
injury was a passion of his. We believe that stem cell research may 
well result in improvement, and hopefully even a cure for spinal 
injury. It is certainly something that I support. I know the President 
supports it. I think every Member of this body supports it.
  I want to share a few thoughts.
  Last night, Dr. Bill Frist, our majority leader, who, as the Senate 
knows, is one of America's great doctors--he was a heart and lung 
transplant surgeon at the Vanderbilt University Medical School, and he 
is a highly trained and skilled physician. He discussed these issues 
last night and I entered into a little dialog with him on the floor of 
the Senate.
  But in light of some of the comments that have been made today, I 
think it is appropriate that we at least get some perspective on this 
issue and try to get back to a rational discussion about it.
  There are different types of stem cells. The one that causes some 
concern is the embryonic stem cell. If it is not destroyed and allowed 
to develop, it will become a human being. That embryo has within it its 
genetic makeup, the markers that will determine whether that person is 
tall or short, red hair or brunette, whatever the color of eyes and 
every other characteristic of that unique human being in that cell. It 
is a stunning, remarkable, marvelous miracle of life.
  When we destroy that which is on the way to being a fully developed 
human person, I don't think anyone can say such destruction does not 
raise at least some moral and ethical dilemmas. Doesn't it raise some 
question about how we should be able to proceed in dealing with it? I 
make that point first.
  It is not a matter of insignificance, the concerns raised here, when 
we deal with an embryo that, if allowed to develop, would be a human 
person.
  Senator Frist laid it out well last night. He quoted Senator Kerry in 
the debate as criticizing President Bush for imposing a ``sweeping 
ban'' on stem cell research. We had Senators this afternoon say 
President Bush's policy

[[Page 23347]]

would ``close the door'' on stem cell research. Senator Frist said as a 
physician, putting on his physician robes, he said that this is a cruel 
thing to say to patients who are ill and dying, and it is just not 
true.
  Senator Kerry knows it is not true. His comments are an attempt to 
make something out of nothing and to misrepresent the position of the 
President and this Congress on this issue. It is not true that the 
President wants to stop stem cell research.
  Let me say where we are, as I understand it. People can agree or 
disagree with the policies. I agree with the policies.
  First, there are what we call adult stem cells. These come from bone 
marrow and other parts of the human anatomy. President Bush has 
increased substantially the funding for adult stem cell research. We 
have made some medical progress in various diseases, including 
diabetes, using adult stem cell research. We are spending more money 
than we have ever spent on it, and we all support that. Private 
research is also ongoing on adult stem cell research.
  Then there are the embryonic stem cell research issues that raise 
these moral and ethical questions. I don't claim to have the answer to 
all the concerns.
  I remember the 100th Psalm that says, Without our aid he did us make. 
Or the Declaration of Independence says, We are created equal. If you 
believe we are created beings and that there is a sacredness to life, 
anybody ought to have at least some concern about this question of 
creating a human being in the making and then destroying that to carry 
out research matters.
  It is a matter that deserves serious moral and ethical discussion. I 
don't think we respect life very much if we lightly move into this area 
without any limitations.
  There are stem cell lines that have already been created from embryos 
that have been killed and destroyed, in effect, in their capability of 
becoming human, and those cell lines continue to produce today. There 
are 26 or more lines producing on a regular basis--embryonic stem 
cells--and Federal funding is allowed for that. Those that we have 
already done--and the President considered it carefully and 
thoughtfully, saying, well, we cannot go back and reverse that--let's 
go ahead and allow the research to go forward in that area.
  In addition, I note there are no bans whatever on stem cell research. 
The question has simply been whether we will take Federal tax money and 
spend it on embryonic stem cell research. That has been the discussion 
on how we are going to do it. President Bush said we will do it for the 
existing lines but we will not take taxpayers' money and destroy life 
to do an experiment.
  Universities, private labs, and hospitals, can all freely conduct 
scientific research on embryonic stem cells. It is not against the law. 
It is not prohibited. It is simply that we are not going to have the 
taxpayers--many people have strong feelings about this life issue--to 
take that money and fund it. It is appropriate to recognize this 
ethical issue and to show this small bit of respect for this marvelous, 
unique, sacred bit of life that is the beginning of a human person. I 
don't think we ought to be spending taxpayer money on it.
  Dr. Frist explained last night only adult stem cell research today 
has shown progress in medical research. The embryonic stem cells have 
not. Senator Sam Brownback has talked about this. He said scientists 
are finding that the embryonic stem cell tends to be volatile and not 
as capable of being utilized in a therapeutic way as adult stem cells. 
Regardless of how it may turn out in the future, that appears to be the 
state of the science today.
  So we are putting the tax money into the areas that not only do not 
raise ethical questions but have the most proven success in making 
therapeutic breakthroughs.
  We are not slamming the door or closing the door on stem cell 
research. We do not have, as Senator Kerry falsely stated in the 
debate, a sweeping ban on stem cell research. That is not true. He 
ought not to have said that. He knows better. He is trying to scare 
people. It is a cruel thing for people out there with illnesses today 
who think there is a ban and that they cannot be helped with research 
from stem cells. There is unprecedented research in the stem cell area. 
We are going to continue that.
  I don't know the answers. I am not a physician or scientist. Is there 
nothing we won't prohibit in the name of science or research?
  I am familiar, from my home State of Alabama, with the research done 
on syphilis that left people infected so they could study them, and 
compare them to people who were treated for syphilis. We now know that 
was wrong.
  We, in this country, have believed by a substantial majority that 
cloning human beings is not right and should not be done. We certainly 
have all seen the rejections of Nazi Germany's abuses of science. As a 
society and a nation, there ought to be some limit on what we can allow 
or should allow. People should be able to talk about it and wrestle 
with it and Congress ought to act on it. If there is serious doubt 
about one phase of scientific research, maybe it is perfectly 
appropriate that taxpayers not be required to fund that because when 
the Government funds it, there is a governmental and societal 
affirmation that this is a good and healthy way to operate. We should 
work on these issues very carefully.
  I close with these thoughts. In the history of the world, no nation 
has invested so much in its effort to cure disease as this Nation. I 
have been pleased and proud of this Congress since I have been here 7, 
8 years now, that we promised several years ago to double the funding 
for the National Institutes of Health. We have met that goal.
  We have had tremendous increases in spending for the National 
Institutes of Health which is where our research money goes. For the 
most part, we allow physicians and scientific experts to say how that 
money is spent, what diseases have the best chance of being cured, what 
experiments going on out there have the greatest opportunity for 
breakthrough. We don't try to micromanage that. In general, that is 
good and I support that.
  There are things we as a society can speak about. We are not denying 
people hope. It would be terribly wrong to suggest what is going on as 
a policy in our Congress and in our Government is denying people hope 
that medical breakthroughs can occur from stem cells.
  We are going to continue unprecedented Federal spending. We will 
continue unprecedented private spending on stem cells. We will spend 
Federal money on embryonic stem cells and Federal money on adult stem 
cells. Who knows, some of those may result in great breakthroughs that 
will help prolong the life and health of millions of American people 
and not just in America but the whole world.
  This Nation, through our investment in scientific research, has 
lifted and improved the lives of people all over the world. It is 
something that we can take pride in as a people. It is something for 
which I am proud. I want to continue to see it developed.
  As we go forward, as we continue to debate these ethical and moral 
matters, as we continue to see the improvements in science and learn 
more from science, we may adjust and be able to come up with different 
ideas as we go forward on stem cell research. Who knows what we will 
learn as time goes forward.
  Based on what I understand today, I see no reason in science, I see 
no reason in ethics--that requires that we blindly go in and destroy 
life for scientific experimentation when there is no clear indication 
that experimentation will result in health benefits to American people.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 23348]]



                          ____________________