[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14455-14456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will begin debate on 
three important pieces of legislation under an agreement that was 
reached between both sides of the aisle several days ago. Those three 
bills are as follows:
  The Alterative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, a 
bill sponsored by Senator Santorum and Senator Specter; second, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which is the bill from the House, 
H.R. 810--the House--Castle and DeGette, Senate--Specter and Hatch 
bill; and, third, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006--the 
Santorum and Brownback bill.
  It was 5 years ago almost exactly--on July 18, 2001, before the 
administration laid out its policy--that I laid out a comprehensive 
proposal to promote stem cell research within a strong ethical and 
moral framework. I proposed at that time on the floor 10 specific 
interdependent principles. I also laid out a proposal and told 
policymakers and my colleagues I felt it was our responsibility to 
assess and to reassess, on a periodic basis, whatever we or the 
administration does because of the rapidly advancing science that so 
characterizes this decade or the 21st century.
  As this century progresses and as science advances--and it is 
skyrocketing in terms of the advances that are being made--we are going 
to continually have to face our responsibility to face the moral and 
ethical challenges and limits. It is our responsibility, as 
individuals, as part of this body politic, to reassess whatever 
constructs we come up with that frame and that govern biomedical 
research.
  It is uncomfortable, it is challenging, and it causes each of us to 
go back and study the science which can be confusing for everyone, 
including scientists as well as nonscientists, and to look at the 
framework--both moral and ethical framework that individuals have and 
that we have--in representing the people of our States, our 
constituents.
  I said 5 years ago, on July 18, 2001, and I believe now that we must 
also do all we can to pursue promising alternative strategies that hold 
the magnificent potential for developing these powerful pluripotent 
cell lines without damaging or destroying nascent human life.
  That is why, in the package we will be looking at Monday, I have 
asked the

[[Page 14456]]

Senate to consider legislation to enhance support for alternatives to 
embryonic stem cell research.
  I have worked very closely with my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia, who is occupying the chair, on this very issue. I have asked 
Senators Santorum and Specter to work together, and they have done a 
tremendous job in crafting the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell 
Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, in this regard. Their bill is very 
similar to the legislation that Senator Isakson and I and a number of 
other colleagues introduced last year. And I encourage every Senator to 
look very carefully at it because I believe every Senator should be 
able to support that bill.
  There is no reason why that piece of legislation should not unite 
this body and be something that everybody can support.
  Third is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006. People ask the 
question--and I have been asked over the course of today and the reason 
I wanted to come back to the floor and close and begin to frame the 
debate--what is fetus farming? It is the implantation, growth or 
gestation of an embryo in a human or in an animal for the purpose of 
aborting that growing fetus for research. Fetus farming is not 
currently employed. But it is forward thinking because it is a trend 
that we could inadvertently move to in trying to advance science, and 
that line should not be crossed. Therefore, Senators Brownback and 
Santorum have proposed legislation that would draw a clear line that 
should not be crossed--a clear line that is not there today.
  Again, 5 years ago on July 18, when I outlined the proposal on the 
floor, it was covered in an article in the Wall Street Journal on that 
same day. I outlined my principles. Shortly after--1 month later--the 
President laid out the administration's policy on embryonic stem cell 
research.
  A lot of people do not pay attention to it today.
  The President's legislation was the first Federal legislation to fund 
embryonic stem cell research. It did so within an ethical framework, a 
moral and ethical framework. It showed respect for basic human life.
  President Bush and I do not differ about the need for strong 
guidelines supporting embryonic stem cell research. His policy was 
generally consistent with the principles I set forth a month before his 
announcement in 2001. However, what has now sort of changed, since that 
point in time, is science has progressed over the last 5 years, and I 
feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded 
research, those original limits--given what has happened in science 
today and what we have learned--are too restrictive.
  Because people's views shift, let me refer back to the principle I 
presented 5 years ago. The fifth principle which I presented on the 
floor 5 years ago, No. 5, and I quote:

       Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from 
     blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to 
     allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic 
     stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after 
     in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded.

  I quote that to point out that that was my stance 5 years ago, and 
indeed when people ask: Why, Senator Frist, or Dr. Frist, are you 
supporting the House bill, you can see the consistency there.
  This is very important. H.R. 810, despite its many shortcomings which 
I mentioned last week, is clearly consistent with that principle. And 
the bill applies this restriction almost verbatim. The very words 
``would otherwise be discarded'' were from my remarks 5 years ago and 
is also in the House bill.
  All three of the bills the Senate will address raise profound ethical 
questions. They will require a lot of thought, a lot of study over the 
course of the next several days. They are challenging to us as a body 
and challenging to us as individuals. They merit serious debate. That 
is why I am pleased, on an issue of this magnitude, that Senators will 
have an opportunity to have their ideas considered in an orderly, 
respectful and dignified way and voted on separately and clearly.

                          ____________________