[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18897-18900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         STEM CELL LEGISLATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before leaving the floor, if I can have 
the attention of our minority leader. Is it the understanding of the 
leader in propounding this request that the measures proposed in the 
request had bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and he 
believes as I believe--and I see my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, 
who is a great leader on this, who believes as well--that there is very 
strong bipartisan support for the legislation, and we could, in a 
reasonable period of time--really in a matter of hours--pass the 
legislation and still not exclude the possibility of continued debate 
and discussion on the other measures relating to stem cells; and that 
this would permit us to act before August 9, which would be the fourth 
year since we had the limitation and restriction on stem cell research, 
the kind of research that 80 Nobel laureates in a letter to President 
said offers the greatest opportunity for progress in the areas of 
Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, cancer, and so many other 
diseases--do I understand the position of the Senator from Nevada is 
that he believes the progress taken in the House of Representatives in 
a bipartisan way should be given the opportunity for action in the 
Senate?
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to my friend that I believe there 
is a significant majority in the Senate that would quickly support both 
of these bills. I say that without any hyperbole. I believe without 
question that a significant number would vote for this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the position of the Senator from Nevada that this 
is the same kind of research that, as I mentioned earlier, Nobel 
laureates indicate offers the greatest opportunity for progress in 
dealing with the kinds of illnesses and diseases that just about every 
family in America in one way or the other is affected by, and he 
believes, as I do, that this offers an enormous opportunity for hope 
and progress in conquering or curing these diseases?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with scientists, physicians, 
people who have diseases, and the families of those who have diseases, 
and there is a sparkle of hope and anticipation from the scientific 
community, from the people who are ill, and from their loved ones--a 
sparkle of hope and opportunity that I have never seen before. There is 
the hope that these children, for example, who are stuck with needles 
tens of thousands of times in their little lives will no longer have to 
have

[[Page 18898]]

that done; the hope that someone who is beginning Parkinson's syndrome 
will be able to be cured. This is hope I have never seen before.
  We need to go forward with this as quickly as possible. That is why 
for us in the Senate, a couple of months is not much. For those people 
who are sick and the loved ones of those people, it is an eternity. I 
can remember Steve Rigalio, an executive at Nevada Power, the largest 
power company in Nevada, who got sick with this disease. I personally 
watched this man. He had Lou Gehrig's disease. I personally watched 
this man deteriorate before my eyes. He was dead in a matter of months. 
The average life expectancy from the time the disease is diagnosed is 
16 months. That is why the time we spend here is so important and why 
we must move forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this time I have taken 
this morning be charged to leader time and not to morning business 
time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if I might follow up on the discussion now 
on the Senate floor, might I ask the distinguished majority leader a 
question. It is this Senator's understanding, and I think the 
understanding of others with whom I have spoken, that the distinguished 
majority leader, during the last work period--I think that was prior to 
the Memorial Day--no, before the Fourth of July break, I guess it was. 
It was my understanding that the majority leader had made a commitment 
that we would bring up a stem cell bill prior to the August recess. I 
may be mistaken. If so, I stand to be corrected.
  My question is to the distinguished majority leader, was a commitment 
made to bring up the stem cell bill? If so, I am wondering why we have 
not done so and why we have waited until 2 days before we leave and we 
still don't have a stem cell bill before us?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Democratic 
leader, our colleagues from both Iowa and Massachusetts. It gives me an 
opportunity to make it clear. My belief both in the science, the 
potential--we have to be careful not to overpromise. I know my 
colleagues are aware of that. As a physician, you never overpromise and 
give false hope. You have to be very careful. On the other hand, I 
understand the huge promise of this science, the proven therapies of 
adult stem cells, as well as these magnificent embryonic stem cells. 
Unfortunately, the only way you can obtain them is from the destruction 
of the blastocyst. That is the ethical issue everybody struggles with.
  As majority leader, people come to me all the time and have this 
discussion in a very personal way, about the complexities and the 
advancing science coming together in a nexus that we are going to 
increasingly have to face in this Chamber. Both of my colleagues who 
have spoken this morning have been real leaders in that field. I, in 
the last 2 months, have said we have a responsibility to come back and 
review policy--policy where you have advancing science. You have moral 
considerations for each one of us, but that is our responsibility.
  As individuals, we have different feelings, but as a body politic, 
this body needs to address them. Now, in doing that, I have put on the 
table, as leader and in discussions with the Democratic leader for the 
last 6 weeks, the opportunity to address the Castle bill, H.R. 810, 
which passed the House, and bring it to the Senate floor free of 
amendments. The bill is not written very well. It doesn't have the 
ethical construct that I believe we absolutely need.
  So I think the bill is not ideal. But to give the opportunity to have 
a vote on that bill, to give the opportunity to have a vote on the cord 
blood bill, which is proven therapy--and cord blood can be used, and 
bone marrow transplants are used right now for thousands of people. 
That is adult stem cells. Then to address the newer science, which is 
too preliminary but gets through a lot of ethical issues--right now, to 
get the stem cells, it requires the destruction of the embryo. There is 
a science out there that is preliminary but promising, and maybe you 
don't have to destroy embryos to get these cells. That really has been 
developed in talking to scientists, and that deserves consideration on 
the floor as well because it gets beyond all the ethical 
considerations.
  As we said, let's get clean shots on these three bills so everybody 
can express themselves and see where the votes are. Others have come 
forward, and my colleague from Kansas says he cannot agree to that, to 
giving these bills up-or-down votes on the floor without the 
consideration also of another very important bill, and that is the 
cloning bill, which is an element a little bit outside of just the 
developing embryos and the destruction of embryos. So I put that offer 
on the table after discussion with the Democratic leader.
  With that, other people have their individual bills. That is why we 
are not addressing it right now, because I have not been able to get 
unanimous consent to do that. What I hope both of my colleagues and 
others recognize is that I believe, as leader, it is an important issue 
that has to be addressed by this body. It needs ongoing review, and I 
am trying to do just that. I have been denied that by the body thus 
far. To bring up a bill and pass it today, which strikes at the moral 
and ethical fundamentals of each and every one of us, and try to just 
take that single bill--or just two bills through without respecting my 
colleagues, I just cannot do that. I look forward to working with both 
of my colleagues on this important issue, which I believe needs to be 
addressed.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa controls the 
time.
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to respond.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the majority leader. It is this Senator's 
understanding that there have been a number of different bills proposed 
to deal with cloning and a number of other issues that don't really 
pertain to the issue of embryonic stem cell research as the bill was 
passed by the House.
  Is it not true, I ask the distinguished majority leader, that H.R. 
810--the bill we are talking about that passed the House with a 
bipartisan majority and has a number of supporters on both sides of the 
aisle in the Senate--has bipartisan support in the Senate? Last year, I 
will say in further expanding on my question, I think there were 58 
Senators who signed a letter in support of that legislation, many of 
the same Senators who are still here. So it has a lot of bipartisan 
support. These other bills, we don't know. In fact, I say to the 
distinguished majority leader, there are a couple of bills we heard 
about but we have never seen any language on.
  My question to the majority leader is: Why can't we bring up the bill 
that passed the House, which everyone knows about--it is clear, it is 
straightforward, it passed the House, as I said, with a bipartisan 
majority, it has bipartisan support here; we all know it has enough 
votes to pass probably many more than even 60 votes, I would venture to 
guess--why can't we take that up, pass it, get it to the President, and 
then when we come back in September, we can take up these other bills?
  I do not have any problem with these other bills coming up. Some I 
may support when they come up. To bring them all up together clouds and 
confuses the issue. Why can't we just bring up the House bill, simple, 
straightforward, have a limited debate on it, and vote it up or down as 
they did in the House, I ask my leader?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the majority 
leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the question. It 
gives me the opportunity to show the work and the challenge it is to 
address an issue that strikes at the science and ethical concerns.
  My approach has been to include what I think the Senator from Iowa 
wants, and that is a clean up-or-down-vote on this bill. I have real 
concerns

[[Page 18899]]

with how that bill is written, and I will give several examples of why 
it bothers me a bit the way it is written and passing as a clean bill. 
But I am willing to do that if I can take into consideration the moral 
concerns and scientific concerns of others in this body and give them 
the same opportunity that the Senator from Iowa is asking for, and, 
thus, put together a group, a defined group, but not an unlimited 
group--we will be voting up or down on all sorts of votes--but see 
where everybody is on alternative ways: You do not have to destroy 
embryos to get the same cells you get from embryos, the cord blood 
bill, H.R. 810, and the cloning bill. It is a separate issue but 
involves the creation of embryos and ultimately the destruction of 
embryos.
  That is what we are talking about. That is my attempt. It is going to 
take a while on the floor of the Senate because of the fact of it not 
having gone through the committee process and the fact everybody does 
stand in little different positions, from an ethical standpoint, on any 
of the bills.
  On H.R. 810, the consent process is inadequate, from my standpoint. 
There is not an ideal ethical construct. It says informed consent, but 
it does not specifically talk about the potential for financial 
incentives between, say, a physician and an in vitro fertilization 
clinic. That is not addressed specifically in the bill. Instead of 
voting up or down, I would like to at least discuss those issues.
  Another issue--there is informed consent and the financial 
incentives--would be if we pass it, it is passed forever; there is no 
opportunity to come back and look at it on a periodic basis, say, every 
4 or 5 years.
  I mention those concerns because I am willing to step back and give a 
clean vote on that if we can take into consideration other people's 
issues or their particular bills. I am a little surprised my colleagues 
have not taken me up on that opportunity, but since they have not, we 
will have to come back and figure the best way to address it when we 
get back after the recess.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
response. I know Senator Kennedy wants time to make a speech. On the 
stem cell bill, I say to my friend from Tennessee, the distinguished 
leader, the clock is ticking. It does have a lot of support. There may 
be a lot of ideas out there. No bill that ever passes here has 100-
percent approval by everybody of every, as they say, ``jot and tittle'' 
in the bill. If I were to rewrite H.R. 810, I might want to write it 
differently myself.
  The fact is a lot of thought was given to it. The disease groups that 
represent the very ill people in this country--the Juvenile Diabetes 
Foundation, Spinal Cord Injury Foundation, and a whole host of other 
groups--have put their stamp of approval on this bill. They want it 
passed.
  It just seems to me that the more we dawdle around here--I understand 
we are in the last couple of days. We have been here all of July. This 
bill, H.R. 810, has been sitting here. We could have taken it up at any 
time. It is this Senator's observation that all of a sudden all these 
other bills are popping up on cloning, chimeras, and others, which I am 
not saying are not important issues, but they are separate and aside 
from this issue.
  If the distinguished majority leader wants to bring those up at some 
other time for debate and amendments and bring them up for a straight 
up-or-down vote, that is fine, I don't have a problem with that, but 
don't tie them in with a bill that has strong majority support on both 
sides of the aisle, strong bipartisan support, as was shown in the 
House, and one which, if passed, could be sent to the President right 
away for his signature and which could really open the door so our 
scientists could get to work on embryonic stem cell research.
  It seems--I am not accusing anyone of this, but it is the process we 
go through sometimes--there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on, and 
a lot of bills are popping up to confuse the issue and to try to pull 
people away from support of H.R. 810.
  Again, I say to my friend from Tennessee, I hope that we can have 
some assurance from the leader that when we get back in September that 
we will take up H.R. 810 and, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, if 
they want to bring up these other bills at some other time, in some 
other context, I can assure him this Senator would not object. I would 
have no objection to it. But right now there are objections to bringing 
them up at the same time, not just on this side of the aisle, but I 
also understand on the other side of the aisle.
  It seems to me the clearest way is to bring up H.R. 810 and the cord 
blood bill and get them out of the way and deal with the others. I hope 
the majority leader will assure us we will do that when we come back in 
September.
  Mr. FRIST. To complete this, from my standpoint, I want it to be very 
clear, to be understood that the majority leader of the Senate has 
offered to his colleagues to bring up six bills. The statement is made 
this is going to have an overwhelming bipartisan support. It did in the 
House. All I am saying is, let's, in a short period of time--what has 
been offered to both sides, is spend a day debating these six bills 
which do, if you look at the six bills, take the range of ethical 
considerations and moral considerations of this body and do look at the 
science--alternative ways of developing embryonic stem cells--and let's 
take them to the floor and allow each one to get a vote, and let's see 
where the votes are.
  It may be the bill of my distinguished colleague from Iowa will get a 
majority vote or a supermajority vote, but so may the cord blood bill. 
I hope it does. I think it will save lives. The alternative bill, let's 
see what it is. It has never been discussed on the floor. I would hope 
the distinguished colleague from Iowa would vote for it because there 
is potential hope there, as well as obtaining embryonic stem cells from 
embryos. Also, the cloning bill. Let's debate it in a defined period of 
time and vote on that. Let's see where the body is. That has been my 
approach, and that has been the offer to both sides.
  The Senator is correct, on both sides of the aisle there is this 
hesitation to do it. I need for my colleagues to understand that I am 
pushing for clean votes over a period of time, where we can address the 
very issues my two colleagues want to address.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my 
deep sorrow and regret that the Republican leadership has allowed 
another month to go by without taking action on the bipartisan stem 
cell bill approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives.
  Over the last several weeks, Republican leaders in the Senate have 
ignored the true priorities of the American people. They have denied 
the Senate the opportunity to provide our troops the protections they 
need against attack. They have denied the Senate the chance to 
guarantee funding for veterans' health, and to raise the minimum wage, 
and to allow importation of lower cost medicine from Canada and other 
nations.
  And they have stalled and delayed, and twisted and turned, to deny 
action on legislation to unlock the healing potential of stem cell 
research.
  They say there is no time for stem cells, or for the needs of our 
troops, or our veterans, or working families. There's plenty of time to 
protect the makers of lethal assault weapons--but no time for 
lifesaving cures.
  The bill is right there, Mr. President, right there on that desk in 
front of you. At any time, the majority leader could walk over, pick it 
up and have a vote on a bill that would bring new hope to millions of 
Americans.
  For years, patients and their families waited for a medical 
breakthrough to provide new hope for serious illnesses like Parkinson's 
disease, spinal injury, and Alzheimer's disease.
  Then at last, dedicated scientists made that breakthrough. They 
discovered stem cells, which can repair the injuries that cause untold 
suffering and shorten lives.
  The cruel irony is that just as medicine was giving patients new 
hope, the Bush administration snatched it away through needless 
restrictions on stem cell research,
  In a few days, on August 9, patients across America will mark the 
fourth

[[Page 18900]]

tragic anniversary of that cruel decision.
  We in the United States Senate had the opportunity--no, we had the 
responsibility--to see that August 9 of this year did not mark 4 years 
of failure and 4 years of missed opportunity.
  But the Republican leadership would not let us meet that 
responsibility. They let the first week of July slip by, and then the 
second, and now the last--all with no action on this urgently needed 
legislation.
  Every day that we delay is another day of falling behind in the race 
to cure diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease, and many other serious 
illnesses.
  It is another day for America to lose ground to Korea, Singapore, 
Britain, and other nations in the competition for global leadership in 
biotechnology.
  Most of all, it is another day of shattered hopes for millions of 
patients and their families across America.
  Some respond to the failure of the current policy by saying we should 
explore new ways to develop embryonic stem cells. I agree. Let's 
explore the potential of new discoveries in genetics and cell science 
to improve the ways we can tap the potential of stem cells. But let's 
not restrict essential research while scientists explore speculative 
and preliminary theories.
  Some say we should encourage research on stem cells from the blood in 
umbilical cords or on adult stem cells from bone marrow and other 
tissues. Again, I agree. We should seek help for patients wherever it 
may be found. But it makes no sense to limit medical research to one 
narrow channel when the Nation's leading scientists agree that these 
alternatives have a more limited potential than embryonic stem cells. 
As a letter signed by 80 Nobel laureates in February 2001 stated:

       Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have 
     markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for 
     disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem 
     cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks 
     unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or 
     endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult 
     stem cells is evaluated.

  The conclusion of an NIH report in June 2001 is clear:
  Stem cells in adult tissues do not appear to have the same capacity 
to differentiate as do embryonic stem cells.
  It would be cruel to base the hopes of millions of patients on an 
ideological conclusion that these experts are wrong. By all means, 
let's pursue vigorous research on adult stem cells, but let's not 
deceive the American public into thinking it's an adequate substitute 
for embryonic stem cell research.
  Legislation should be an expression of our values, and our 
legislation says loud and clear that we value patients and their 
families--not rigid ideology.
  It is a travesty that no action has been taken on this lifesaving 
measure.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
unanimous consent request offered today by Senator Reid. The Senator 
has asked unanimous consent for the Senate to take up H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and S. 1317, the Bone Marrow and 
Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act.
  Both of these bills have been passed by the House and are sitting at 
the desk waiting to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President 
for his signature.
  The month of July has come and is nearly gone. Yet these two House-
passed bills, with strong bipartisan support, sit and wait at the desk.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act has 41 sponsors--Republicans 
and Democrats alike. This legislation is the result of many years of 
bipartisan cooperation in both the House and Senate. I am pleased to 
join my colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Ted 
Kennedy, and Gordon Smith, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of 
patients and their families across this Nation to see that embryonic 
stem cell research moves forward.
  This legislation is proof positive that Senators from many different 
points of view, be they liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-
choice, can work together on legislation that will help speed the pace 
of cures and treatments for more than 110 million Americans.
  Identical legislation passed the House on May 24 by a vote of 238 to 
194. Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, Delaware, and Diana DeGette, 
Democrat, Colorado, are to be commended for their tireless work in 
getting this bill passed in the House.
  It is essential that the Senate move quickly to pass this bill. The 
clock is ticking. August 9 marks the fourth anniversary of President 
Bush's policy limiting Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research. At the time it was thought there were 78 stem cell lines 
available to researchers, today that number is 22. And all 22 of the 
lines available are contaminated by mouse feeder cells and not usable 
for research in humans.
  So why has the Senate still not acted? The simple unanimous consent 
request put forth by Senator Reid would allow the Senate to vote on 
this bill as early as today. We could send it to the President for his 
signature tonight.
  What is going on here is an attempt to obscure what is a very simple 
issue. What is going on here is an attempt to allow votes on other 
bills in order to pull votes away from H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.
  I think it is appropriate for the Senate to debate other related 
issues at a later time. In fact, yesterday I introduced S. 1520, the 
Human Cloning Ban Act--with 25 bipartisan cosponsors--which would 
prohibit once and for all the immoral and unethical act of human 
reproductive cloning. I believe strongly that Congress must pass a 
prohibition on human cloning or attempts to clone human beings.
  But first we must act on the unanimous consent request offered today 
by Senator Reid, and I hope that request will be one of the first 
issues the Senate deals with after the August recess.
  Embryonic stem cell research is the bright new frontier of medicine. 
We owe it to the 110 million Americans suffering daily with 
debilitating and catastrophic diseases to pass H.R. 810.

                          ____________________