[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14617-14637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 FETUS FARMING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

      ALTERNATIVE PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL THERAPIES ENHANCEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 3504, S. 
2754, and H.R. 810, en bloc, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 810) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
       A bill (S. 3504) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from 
     fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other 
     purposes.
       A bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell 
     lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of stem cell 
research.
  I plan to vote in favor of each of the three bills that we will be 
considering today. I call upon my colleagues to pass all three of these 
bills. I call upon the President to sign all of them into law.
  Make no mistake about it. This is an important debate. We will cast 
important votes today.
  Even with all the events taking place the world today, including the 
developments in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, it is my hope--and the hope 
of many others--that when the history of our time is written, the 
ultimate outcome of today's debate over stem cell research will have 
been a major breakthrough in our understanding of, and ability to 
promote, human health and prevent and treat disease.
  I admire and respect President Bush tremendously for being the first 
President to dedicate Federal funds for stem cell research. As many may 
recall, in August 2001, the President announced that Federal funds 
would be used for research on 60 stem cell lines that were created from 
embryos that have already been destroyed. Unfortunately, many of these 
stem lines became contaminated so the cells could never be used for 
scientific research. I believe that H.R. 810 must be signed into law in 
order to make the President's policy work because in my view, the 
President already made the decision to use the cells. H.R. 810 just 
changes the guidelines for stem cell research by allowing embryos that 
would otherwise be discarded to be made available for research. I 
believe that by using these embryos for medical research, we are, in 
fact, promoting life.
  One of the reasons why so many are so interested in this debate is 
that literally everyone either has, or knows, a

[[Page 14618]]

loved one who has, one of the diseases or conditions that may one day 
benefit from stem cell research.
  One reason why I support stem cell research so strongly is because I 
have heard from so many of my fellow citizens of Utah and fellow 
Americans about how important this issue is to them and their families.
  That is the reason why Nancy Reagan wrote me the following letter 
about stem cell research:

                                                       May 1, 2006
       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.

  I want to make it clear that there is broad consensus among leading 
scientists that among the three bills we will vote upon today--the Stem 
Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 810; the Alternative 
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754; and the Fetus 
Farming Prohibition Act of 2006--it is H.R. 810 that can most 
immediately advance science.
  The vote on H.R. 810 is the one that really counts.
  Some in this debate suggest that passage of the Specter-Santorum 
alternatives bill would obviate the need for H.R. 810. Neither Senator 
Specter nor I believe that. Nor do the leading scientists in America 
believe that. Nor should you believe that.
  To put a point on it, the other two bills, S. 2754 and S. 3504, are 
most emphatically not a substitute for H.R. 810. These bills complement 
H.R. 810. In no way can, or do, they replace H.R. 810.
  I support the alternatives bill, S. 2754, for a lot of the same 
reasons why I coauthored the cord blood stem cell research bill that 
President Bush signed into law last year. I believe that all 
scientifically credible and ethically sound avenues of stem cell 
research ought to be pursued. I might add that when we passed the cord 
blood legislation, that form of research had already yielded tangible 
results for several types of diseases, such as some forms of bone 
marrow cancer.
  In sharp contrast, whatever benefits the alternatives bill may yield, 
experts tell us that they are largely unrealized today and, as often 
the case with cutting edge science, uncertain in the future. But that 
is the way science works. Advance in science often progresses in fits 
and starts. Sometimes, actually most of the time, particular avenues of 
research are found to be blind alleys and advances do not come. Many 
seeds of discovery have to be planted for the flower of progress to 
bloom.
  Today's votes give us an opportunity to move forward on several 
fronts.
  Let us be clear that the centerpiece of today's debate is H.R. 810. 
This is the bill that will help provide the long overdue expansion of 
the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally funded biomedical 
research. This is what our leading scientists have told us they want 
and need to move the field of stem cell research forward.
  I have worked with leading scientists throughout my 30-year career in 
the Senate. Few, if any, issues have created the genuine sense of 
excitement among the scientific community as have the current 
opportunities in stem cell research.
  Listen to what Dr. Harold Varmus has said about the promise of stem 
cell research. Dr. Varmus is a Nobel Laureate. He is the former 
Director of the National Institutes of Health. He currently runs the 
prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. By all accounts, he is one 
of the leading scientists in the world. I met with Dr. Varmus on 
several occasions to learn what scientists think about stem cell 
research.
  Here is Dr. Varmus' assessment:

       (t)he development of a cell that may produce almost every 
     tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific 
     breakthrough. It is not too unrealistic to say that this 
     practice has the potential to revolutionize the practice of 
     medicine.

  More than 40 other Nobel prize-winners and as well most of our 
Nation's leading scientists, disease advocacy organizations, and many 
other interested citizens and organizations share this view.
  For example, here is what Dr. Edward Clark of the University of Utah 
Department of Pediatrics has told me about stem cell research:

        . . . I can assure you that the scientific progress of 
     stem cell research is extraordinary.
        . . . In pediatrics, stem cell research offers therapy, 
     and indeed possibly a cure, for a wide variety of childhood 
     diseases, including neurologic disease, spinal cord injuries, 
     and heart disease . . .
       I can think of nothing that will provide as much meaningful 
     therapy for children and children's problems than the promise 
     offered by stem cell research.

  It is not hard to understand why the additional stem cell lines that 
can and will be used by federally funded scientists if H.R. 810 becomes 
law is so exciting for scientists and important for the American 
public.
  The stakes of today's debate are high. As a report of the influential 
National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine has stated:

       (S)tem cell research has the potential to affect the lives 
     of millions of people in the United States and around the 
     world.

  This Institute of Medicine Report goes on to cite the following high 
prevalence diseases as likely candidates for stem cell research: 
Cardiovascular Disease--58 million U.S. patients; Autoimmune Diseases--
30 million U.S. patients; Diabetes--16 million U.S. patients; 
Osteoporosis--10 million U.S. patients; Cancer--10 million U.S. 
patients; Alzheimer's Disease--5.5 million U.S. patients; Parkinson's 
Disease--1.5 million U.S. patients.
  What family in America does not include someone afflicted with a 
disease on this list? And a complete list includes many other diseases 
and conditions such as spinal cord injuries, burns, and many birth 
defects. Experts believe that upward of 100 million Americans--and 
hundreds of millions of others around the world--may one day benefit 
from stem cell research.
  For example, let us consider spinal cord injuries. Who does not know, 
or know of, someone whose life has been devastated by a spinal cord 
injury?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter I received just last month from Michael Armstrong, Chairman of 
the Board of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Johns Hopkins Medicine,

                                        Naples, FL, June 26, 2006.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I'm writing to let you know about an 
     exciting recent breakthrough in biomedical research at the 
     Johns Hopkins University. Using mouse embryonic stem cells, 
     scientists led by Dr. Douglas Kerr have regenerated damaged 
     nerve tissue in paralyzed rats, thereby restoring motor 
     function. The details of Dr. Kerr's research are described in 
     a press release attached to this letter.
       This breakthrough represents the first time that scientists 
     have actually re-grown damaged components of a nervous 
     system, and it could lead to human therapies that seemed 
     previously to be beyond our reach. Treatments not only for 
     paralysis, but for ALS, multiple sclerosis, and similar 
     diseases of the brain now seem possible. The exact timeframe 
     is impossible to predict, but it will almost certainly depend 
     on the availability of federal funding.
       Due to restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem 
     cell research, Dr. Kerr will likely seek state support for 
     his continuing work. We at Johns Hopkins applaud the 
     courageous efforts of the Maryland General Assembly to make 
     that support possible by passing the Maryland Stem Cell 
     Enhancement Act earlier this year.
       The level of funding that will ultimately be required to 
     advance this field of science to human trials, however, 
     suggests that federal funding will be necessary. Yet under 
     current federal policy, the only stem cell lines eligible for 
     federal funding were created using mouse feeder cells and 
     could never be used in clinical trials with humans. It is 
     therefore

[[Page 14619]]

     crucial that current federal stem cell policy be revised.
       We are grateful for your ongoing commitment to biomedical 
     research. I'm sure your leadership on this issue will 
     continue to uphold the best interests of American researcher, 
     physicians, and above all, patients.
           Sincerely,
                                             C. Michael Armstrong,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this letter describes groundbreaking 
research conducted by a Johns Hopkins scientist, Dr. Douglas Kerr, on 
how mouse embryonic stem cells have been able to regenerate damaged 
nerve tissue in paralyzed rats. According to the letter from Johns 
Hopkins University, one of the world's most respected biomedical 
research institutions in the world, Dr. Kerr's ``breakthrough 
represents the first time that scientists have actually re-grown 
damaged components of a nervous system, and it could lead to human 
therapies that seemed previously to be beyond our reach. Treatments not 
only for paralysis, but for ALS, multiple sclerosis, and similar 
diseases of the brain now seem possible.''
  The current Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias 
Zerhouni, has said that this research is ``a remarkable advance that 
can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great 
promise.''
  However, unless H.R. 810 becomes law and the number of stem cells 
lines eligible for Federal funding is expanded, this promising research 
could die on the vine.
  As Mr. Armstrong explains in his letter:

       The level of funding that will that will ultimately be 
     required to advance this field of science to human clinical 
     trials, however, suggests that federal funding will be 
     necessary. Yet, under current federal policy, the only stem 
     cell lines eligible for federal funding were created using 
     mouse feeder cells and could never be used in clinical trials 
     with humans. It is therefore crucial that current stem cell 
     policy be revised.

  The precise type of revision that the scientists at Johns Hopkins 
tell us is needed is precisely the change in Federal policy that H.R. 
810, the Castle-DeGette bill, will bring about.
  And the scientists at Johns Hopkins are hardly alone.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from Dr. Darrel Kirch, President of the Association of 
American Medical Colleges.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    Association of


                                    American Medical Colleges,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2006.
       Dear Senator: The Association of American Medical Colleges 
     (AAMC) urges you to vote in favor of the ``Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act of 2005'' (H.R. 810) when it is considered by 
     the Senate. The AAMC, which represents the nation's 125 
     accredited medical schools, some 400 major teaching 
     hospitals, and more than 105,000 faculty in 94 academic and 
     scientific societies, endorses this legislation to expand 
     Federal support for stem cell research while adhering to 
     strict federal oversight and standards. In accordance with 
     current law, the legislation ensures that no Federal funding 
     shall be used to derive stem cells or destroy embryos.
       The discovery of human pluripotent stem cells is a 
     significant research advance and Federal support to American 
     researchers is essential both to translate this discovery 
     into novel therapies for a range of serious and intractable 
     diseases, and to ensure that this research is conducted under 
     a rigorous and credible ethical regime. The therapeutic 
     potential of pluripotent stem cells is remarkable and could 
     well prove to be one of the important paradigm-shifting 
     advances in the history of medical science. These cells have 
     the unique potential to differentiate into any human cell 
     type and offer real hope of life-affirming treatments for 
     diabetes, damaged heart tissue, arthritis, Parkinson's, ALS 
     and spinal cord injuries, to name but a few examples. There 
     is also the possibility that these cells could be used to 
     create more complex organ structures that could replace 
     diseased vital organs, such as kidneys, livers, or even 
     hearts.
       We recognize the significant ethical issues that are raised 
     about embryonic stem cell research and we respect the view of 
     those who oppose such research, including some in our own 
     medical school community. However. we are persuaded otherwise 
     by what we believe is an equally compelling ethical 
     consideration, namely, that it would be tragic to waste the 
     unique potential afforded by embryonic stem cells, derived 
     from embryos destined to be discarded in any case, to 
     alleviate human suffering and enhance the quality of human 
     life.
       This legislation recognizes the need to expand Federal 
     support of research on pluripotent stem cells so that the 
     tremendous scientific and medical benefits of their use may 
     one day become available to the millions of patients who so 
     desperately need them. Again, we urge you to vote for this 
     bill, which will help ensure the potential of this research 
     is translated into treatments and cures.
           Sincerely,
                                           Darrell G. Kirch, M.D.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this organization represents our Nation's 
125 accredited medical schools, 400 teaching hospitals, and more than 
105,000 medical school faculty in 94 academic and scientific societies. 
This letter, sent to all Senators last Tuesday, call for us to support 
H.R. 810. The AAMC letter states:

       The therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cells is 
     remarkable and could well prove to be one of the important 
     paradigm-shifting advances in the history of medical science.

  Support for H.R. 810 is not confined solely to academicians. Last 
year, when the House took up and passed H.R. 810 on a bipartisan basis, 
over 200 organizations gave their wholehearted support for this 
legislation. This includes many leading patient advocacy organizations 
such as the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the 
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric 
Aids Foundation, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the American 
Association for Cancer Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research, 
to name a few.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of organizations that support the passage of H.R. 810.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 14, 2006.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups, 
     health organizations, research universities, scientific 
     societies, and other interested institutions and 
     associations, representing millions of patients, scientists, 
     health care providers and advocates, write you with our 
     strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
     Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of H.R. 
     810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.
       Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810 
     will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is 
     the bill which holds promise for expanding medical 
     breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative 
     Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and 
     the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT 
     substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810.
       H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and Pro-research bill. A vote 
     in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support 
     of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial 
     progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810 
     immediately.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Aging Research; Alliance for Stem Cell 
           Research; Alpha-1 Foundation; ALS Association; American 
           Association for Cancer Research; American Association 
           of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological 
           Surgeons; American Autoimmune Related Diseases 
           Association; American College of 
           Neuropsychopharmacology; American College of 
           Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Diabetes 
           Association; American Gastroenterological Association; 
           American Medical Association; American Parkinson's 
           Disease Association (Arizona Chapter); American Society 
           for Cell Biology; American Society for Microbiology; 
           American Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair; 
           American Society for Reproductive Medicine; American 
           Society of Hematology.
         American Thyroid Association; Association of American 
           Medical Colleges; Association of American Universities; 
           Association of Independent Research Institutes; 
           Association of Professors of Medicine; Association of 
           Reproductive Health Professionals; Axion Research 
           Foundation; Biotechnology Industry Organization; B'nai 
           B'rith International; The Burnham Institute; California 
           Institute of Technology; Californians for Cures; Cancer 
           Research and Prevention Foundation; Cedars-Sinai Health 
           System; Children's Neurobiological Solutions 
           Foundation; Christopher Reeve Foundation; Columbia 
           University Medical Center; Cornell University; 
           CuresNow.

[[Page 14620]]

         Duke University Medical Center; Elizabeth Glaser 
           Pediatric AIDS Foundation; FasterCures; FD Hope 
           Foundation; Genetics Policy Institute; Hadassah; 
           Harvard University; Hereditary Disease Foundation; 
           International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery 
           (IFADD); International Longevity Center--USA; 
           International Society for Stem Cell Research; Jeffrey 
           Modell Foundation; Johns Hopkins; Juvenile Diabetes 
           Research Foundation; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; 
           Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; National Alliance 
           for Eye and Vision Research; National Association for 
           Biomedical Research; National Coalition for Cancer 
           Research.
         National Council on Spinal Cord Injury; National Health 
           Council; National Partnership for Women and Families; 
           National Venture Capital Association; New Jersey 
           Association for Biomedical Research; New York 
           University Medical Center; Parkinson's Action Network; 
           Parkinson's Disease Foundation; Pittsburgh Development 
           Center; Project A.L.S.; Quest for the Cure; 
           Research!America; Resolve: The National Infertility 
           Association; Rett Syndrome Research Foundation; Robert 
           Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins; 
           Rutgers University; Sloan-Kettering Institute for 
           Cancer Research; Society for Women's Health Research; 
           Stanford University.
         Stem Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation; 
           Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Student Society 
           for Stem Cell Research; Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's, 
           Inc.; Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research; 
           Tourette Syndrome Association; Travis Roy Foundation; 
           University of California System; University of 
           Minnesota; University of Rochester Medical Center; 
           University of Southern California; University of 
           Wisconsin--Madison; Vanderbilt University and Medical 
           Center; Washington University in St. Louis; WiCell 
           Research Institution; Wisconsin Alumni Research 
           Foundation; Wisconsin Association for Biomedical 
           Research and Education.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, support for the passage of H.R. 810 is not 
limited to the not-for-profit sector. While it is sometimes typical for 
the private sector to keep out of some controversial issues, this is 
not the case with stem cell research.
  Last week, I received a letter of support for H.R. 810 from the 
Biotechnology Industry Organization. BIO represents more than 1,100 
biotechnology companies, state biotechnology centers, and academic 
institutions. The BIO letter notes:

       Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also 
     go a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed to 
     develop drugs because new chemical or biological compounds 
     meant to treat diseases could be tested in specific human 
     cells prior to their use in live human beings.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the July 12, 2006, letter from BIO calling for passage of H.R. 810.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Biotechnology Industry


                                                 Organization,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2006.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: As President & CEO of the Biotechnology 
     Industry Organization (BIO), I am writing to express BIO's 
     support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. 
     Other stem cell legislation being debated by the Senate has 
     merit, but only H.R. 810 expands the research that our 
     nation's leading scientists believe holds the promise of 
     finding cures and treatments for the millions of patients who 
     currently suffer from a variety of diseases and disabilities.
       BIO is the national trade association representing more 
     than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, 
     state biotechnology centers and related organizations in all 
     50 U.S. states and 33 foreign nations. BIO members are 
     involved in the research and development of health-care, 
     agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology 
     products.
       Our nation's top scientists agree that embryonic stem cell 
     research has the potential to lead to cures and treatments 
     for many of our society's most devastating diseases and 
     disabilities such as cancer, diabetes, ALS, Parkinson's 
     disease, Alzheimer's disease, and spinal cord injuries. 
     Embryonic stem cell research will further the development of 
     cell-based therapies by leading to greater scientific 
     understanding of cell differentiation--the process by which 
     our cells become specialized to perform certain functions--
     and proliferation--the process where cells expand, or 
     multiply for controlled use as a potential therapeutic.
       Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also 
     go a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed to 
     develop drugs because new chemical or biological compounds 
     meant to treat diseases could be tested in specific human 
     cells prior to their use in live human beings.
       Importantly, the legislation creates an ethical framework 
     for this research. It prohibits funding unless the cell lines 
     were derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization 
     clinics that were created for reproductive purposes and would 
     otherwise be discarded. It also requires voluntary informed 
     consent from the couples donating the excess embryos and 
     prohibits any financial inducements.
       H.R. 810 provides hope to millions of patients and their 
     families by expanding current federal policy regarding 
     federal funding of stem cell research. I urge you to support 
     its passage.
       If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or 
     Brent Del Monte, BIO's Vice President for Federal Government 
     Relations, at 202-962-9200.
       Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
           Sincerely,

                                           James C. Greenwood,

                                                  President & CEO,
                              Biotechnology Industry Organization.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, some aspects of this issue involve 
complicated scientific facts and complex moral questions. Elected 
officials and the American public alike have had much to learn and 
consider since this issue first arose on the scene in 1998.
  The more the American public thinks about this issue, the more it 
coalesces around the policy embraced by H.R. 810 which will 
significantly improve and expand taxpayer supported stem cell research.
  Public opinion polls show that U.S. citizens are squarely behind stem 
cell research and H.R. 810.
  For example, a poll commissioned by the Coalition for the Advancement 
of Stem Cell Research and taken in May of this year found that 72 
percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research and 70 
percent favor the Senate adopting H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. This finding of broad public support is consistent 
with other previously conducted polls. For example, a Harris poll taken 
in August 2004 found that 73 percent of Americans think stem cell 
research should be allowed and a June 2004 Wall Street Journal/NBC News 
poll placed public support for this research at 71 percent.
  Some may try to quibble about how particular poll questions were 
phrased in particular surveys, but few would question the fact that for 
some time most Americans have wanted the type of research that H.R. 810 
will help enable to go forward.
  I can tell you this. The poll results I have just cited are 
consistent with what I hear from my neighbors and constituents in Utah. 
I come from a conservative State. But whenever the issue of stem cell 
research comes up at one of my meetings in Salt Lake City or other 
places in my State, somebody will come up to me to tell me their 
personal story with the diseases of a loved one and tell me that I am 
doing the right thing on stem cell research.
  One of the reasons why I got involved with the issue of stem cell 
research in the first place was because of a little boy named Cody 
Anderson, whose family used to live in West Jordan, UT.
  Cody and his family came to visit me in Washington in 2001 to tell me 
their tragic family struggle with diabetes. Cody's grandfather 
succumbed to diabetes at age 47 after a series of painful amputation 
operations. Cody, his grandfather's namesake, never got the chance to 
meet or know his grandfather because of diabetes.
  Let me read you part of a letter that Cody and his family wrote me:

       I don't want other small children like me to have to go 
     through the things that I have already had to go through. I 
     do not want to suffer the effects that my grandfather did 
     throughout his life because of this disease. I want to grow 
     old and not have to worry about all the bad things that could 
     happen to me because of diabetes. We have seen what diabetes 
     can do to an innocent life. Please don't let this happen to 
     me in my life now. I hope you will take it in your hearts to 
     listen to us, the people who live with this disease for every 
     minute of every day for now and the rest of our lives.

  In a few hours we can pass a bill that can only help Cody and 
thousands of others suffering from diabetes and millions of others who 
suffer from other

[[Page 14621]]

diseases and conditions that may benefit from stem cell research.
  How do you think young Cody's parents felt when they learned of their 
son having the same diagnosis as his grandfather?
  How would you feel if you were told that your child would lead a life 
revolving around multiple daily blood tests, insulin injections, and a 
tightly regulated diet and constricted activity schedule that no child 
would relish?
  The answer of any parent is that you would want your government to 
leave no stone unturned in finding a cure for that disease. And you 
would want the cure found as soon as possible.
  Let me say a few sobering words about the immediacy of the promise of 
stem cell research. Cures are not around the corner. While stem cell 
research may prove in time to be a revolutionary advance in science 
such progress does not come quickly or on the cheap.
  If we start a vigorous program of federally funded stem cell research 
program progress will not likely be measured in hours and days. It will 
take years, perhaps 10 or 20 years, before American patients are 
administered a new class of products and treatments derived from stem 
cell research.
  In this regard I am reminded of an instance in which, when advised 
that a certain type of rare plant took years and years to bloom if 
placed in a certain hostile environment, a great French General simply 
said, ``Then we must not delay, we must plant today.''
  We have to proceed with stem cell research with a passion and urgency 
today precisely because we do not know how long it will take to find 
tomorrow's cure. But we do know that the sooner we start, the faster we 
will get there.
  Nor will this research be inexpensive. No doubt one reason why the 
biotechnology industry is supporting H.R. 810 is because since the end 
of World War II basic biomedical research in this country has primarily 
been funded by taxpayers through the programs conducted or supported by 
the National Institutes of Health. Today, about 80 percent of the $28 
billion NIH budget is invested in highly-competitive, peer-reviewed 
research that is undertaken by universities and research hospitals.
  There has been a continuum of effort between the public sector basic 
research and private sector applied research that attempts to translate 
the new basic knowledge gleamed from federally supported NIH research 
into tangible FDA-approved products or other treatments before they can 
reach even the first patient's bedside. Americans should take pride in 
the fact that virtually every major advance in the biological sciences 
in the last 50 years emanated in some way from our investment in the 
NIH.
  In my view, it would be in tragic and nearly incalculable mistake for 
our country to continue our present policy that materially constricts 
the cadre of investigators leading over 46,000 ongoing university 
based, NIH research grants from pushing the envelope of stem cell 
research. To cede our leadership in such a promising field of endeavor 
of biomedical research as stem cell research can only be shortsighted 
in the long run.
  For example, the University of Utah is the proud home of one of the 
world's foremost mouse stem cell researchers. His name is Dr. Mario 
Capecchi and he has already won one of the most prestigious awards in 
American science, the Lasker Award. A great deal of the support for Dr. 
Capecchi and other researchers at the University of Utah and other 
research universities across the country come from NIH grants and 
contracts.
  I want Dr. Capecchi to stay in Utah. I want the world's leading 
scientists to stay in the United States. It is critical to relax the 
current straitjacket on testing new stem cell lines if we are to keep 
the best stem cell researchers in this country.
  Some might say good riddance to this research and to stem cell 
researchers. Look what happened in South Korea when a group of stem 
cell researchers conducted unethical experiments, faked the results and 
lied to the public.
  I say that if the NIH is involved in this research and it is 
conducted in America, federally supported researchers will have to live 
within longstanding NIH ethical guidelines and principles as well as 
special rules that will apply only to stem cell research. In this way, 
as we have done so many times in the past with breakthrough research 
such as with recombinant DNA technology and organ transplants, the 
United States can help set a moral and ethical climate that our 
neighbors in the world community will emulate and follow.
  I hope we never reach the day when the best biomedical researchers 
trained in America must go elsewhere to conduct the most cutting-edge 
basic biomedical research. Once that happens, we could face the day 
when sick Americans must actually leave our country to get the latest 
in treatments. I sure would not want to see a day when a citizen of 
Salt Lake City has to go to South Korea or any place else to get the 
best medical treatment possible.
  Today, for all of its warts, the U.S.A. is widely recognized as the 
world's leader in developing and disseminating the latest in medical 
breakthroughs.
  Passage of H.R. 810 will help us keep it that way.
  The purpose of H.R. 810 is to expand the opportunities for the type 
of federally funded basic biomedical research that has proven so 
beneficial to the American public time and time again in the past.
  Having described how many experts and interested parties believe that 
the promise of stem cell research is so great, I want to spend the next 
few minutes describing why some are opposed to this research and why I 
think their opposition is misplaced.
  In order to do this, I feel compelled to spend a few minutes to 
define and discuss some technical scientific terms. I know that others 
have used many or all of these terms during the course of the debate 
but please bear with me if I am repeating some one or get too 
technical.
  Perhaps the best place to start a discussion of stem cell research is 
with a broader term that many scientific experts believe more 
accurately describes the field and what is at stake.
  The term is regenerative medicine.
  Regenerative medicine seeks to uncover knowledge about how healthy 
cells contained in tissues and organs are formed and how they are lost 
through normal wear and tear or impaired more extensively through 
injury or degenerative disease.
  The growing field of regenerative medicine is increasing our 
understanding of embryonic development, birth defects, organ 
transplantation, and the developmental biology of both healthy and 
diseased tissues. A key avenue of research of regenerative medicine 
involves stem cells. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has 
the unique capacity to renew itself and give rise to specialized cell 
types. These stem cells are called pluripotent because of this ability 
to develop into different kinds of specialized cells, perhaps into all 
or most of the 200 known types of tissues that comprise the human body. 
Stem cells have the ability to divide and replicate for long periods of 
time in a laboratory colonies called cell lines.
  The flexibility of these pluripotent stem cells is distinct from most 
cells in the body, because most cells are typically dedicated to 
performing a specific task such as heart muscle cells and specialized 
nerve cells. Scientists, like Dr. Kerr, the Johns Hopkins nerve cell 
researcher whom I talked about earlier, hope to be able to use stem 
cells to study how healthy and diseased cells work and, one day use 
this knowledge and use stem cell lines to treat or repair diseased 
tissues or organs. If this research is successful, many currently 
untreatable diseases and conditions may go the way of small pox and 
polio.
  There are several different sources of stem cells.
  Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are found in 
specialized adult tissues. These cells can renew themselves and, with 
certain limitations, can differentiate to yield all the specialized 
cells types of the tissue in which they are found, and perhaps others 
as well. Adult stem cells have been found in many tissues including 
bone

[[Page 14622]]

marrow, blood, the brain, skeletal muscle, dental pulp, liver, skin, 
eye, and the pancreas.
  There is no serious opposition to adult stem cell research. I fully 
support this research.
  There is, however, much debate over the potential limitations of 
adult stem cell research. For example, the seminal 2001 National 
Academy of Sciences study I mentioned earlier summarized the concerns:

       (I)t is not clear whether . . . adult stem cells . . . 
     truly have plasticity or whether some tissues contain several 
     types of stem cells that each give rise to only a few 
     derivative types. Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to 
     identify and purify, and when grown in culture, are difficult 
     to maintain in the undifferentiated state. It is because of 
     those limitations that even stem cells from bone marrow, the 
     type most studied, are not available in sufficient numbers to 
     support many potential applications of regenerative medicine.

  Although some opponents of H.R. 810 have taken exception to this 
characterization of the limitations of adult stem cells, it is my 
understanding that most experts in the field believe that embryonic 
stem cells offer advantages over adult stem cells because of the 
reasons I have just reported from the NAS study.
  Moreover, some proponents of adult stem cell research claim that many 
diseases have been effectively treated with adult stem cells. 
Unfortunately, the weight of evidence does not support many of these 
claims. Nor do most of the leading experts in the field agree with the 
notion that adult stem cell research exceeds the promise of embryonic 
stem cell research despite the fact that adult stem cell research has 
at least a 40-year head start on embryonic stem cell research and has 
enjoyed a sustained funding commitment from the NIH.
  The current issue of Science magazine contains a detailed letter 
written by three scientists, Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven 
Teitelbaum challenging claims made by a leading advocate of adult stem 
cell research, Dr. David Prentice. I understand that most experts come 
down on the Smith-Neaves-Teitlebaum side of the debate concerning the 
scientific limitations and opportunities of embryonic stem cells 
relative to adult stem cells.
  Additional sources of stem cells are those acquired from placental 
and umbilical cord blood. Last fall the Congress passed and President 
Bush signed into law legislation that I co-authored to expand the use 
of the valuable and proven source of stem cell therapy. Due to the work 
of pioneers like Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg from Duke University and Dr. 
Pablo Rubinstein of the New York Blood Center, cord blood has become an 
important mode of treatment for diseases like bone marrow disorders and 
has proven to be particularly useful in the African-American community 
where it is often difficult to find suitable bone marrow matches.
  Yet another source of stem cells is those derived from human embryos. 
Public debate and discussion have centered on two types of embryonic 
stem cells.
  First, stem cells may be derived from embryos created for, but no 
longer needed in, the in vitro fertilization process.
  Second, stem cells can potentially be derived from so-called cloned 
embryos through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer.
  Today's debate centers on the first source of embryonic stem cells--
excess embryos formed in fertility clinics slated for destruction.
  Under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement--and it is an 
agreement I fully support and commend Senators Frist and Reid for 
negotiating--the bills we debate today do not involve cloned embryos 
formed by somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is the process whereby 
the nucleus of an egg and its complement of 23 chromosomes is removed 
and replaced with the nucleus of one of the standard 46-chromosome 
containing somatic cells that constitute the 200-plus tissues of the 
human body.
  Senator Feinstein and others have developed legislation that would 
ban and criminalize the act of using the somatic cell nuclear transfer 
process to give birth to a cloned human being. In addition, our bill, 
the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act, S. 876, 
would set forth a tightly defined set of ethical restrictions and NIH 
oversight for anyone in the private sector that undertakes somatic cell 
nuclear transfer in order to produce new stem cell lines.
  Others, led by Senator Brownback, have offered legislation that would 
effectively ban somatic cell nuclear transfer altogether, even purely 
for research purposes and even with tight ethical controls that will 
govern wholly private sector funded experiments.
  One day we will have that debate. We will not have it today under the 
rules of this debate. As I will describe, those opposed to deriving 
additional stem cell lines through the somatic stem cell process also 
oppose using spare embryos as a source of additional stem cell lines 
and do so for the same basic argument.
  The great topic of today's debate is whether it is ethical and proper 
for taxpayer funded scientists to use stem cells derived from embryos 
no longer needed in fertility treatment.
  The process of in vitro fertilization consists of fertilizing a 
woman's egg in a laboratory and then placing the fertilized egg in a 
woman's womb so that gestation and childbirth can occur. This is what 
is done when couples have fertility problems. Although IVF procedures 
were very controversial when they were first developed and used back in 
1983, over 200,000 Americans have been born through this technique that 
is widely accepted today.
  Many had grave reservations about the IVF process when it was 
developed. Some of the fiercest opponents of IVF back then are also the 
most ardent opponents of S. 810. While I respect their views--and these 
are sincere and earnest individuals--I think they were wrong then and 
wrong now.
  As part of the fertility treatment process, it is inevitable that 
there will be some test tube embryos that will not be needed and will 
never be implanted in a mother's womb. And let me be clear here, I 
believe that the highest and best use of a human embryo is to be used 
by loving parents to add to their family. I wholeheartedly support 
adoption of spare embryos and would give adoption precedence over use 
for research. I think most would agree with me on this.
  But the fact of the matter today is that there may exist at any point 
in time more than 400,000 such unused embryos in the United States and 
each year tens of thousands of such spare embryos are routinely and 
unceremoniously discarded and destroyed. It is important to note that 
more than 11,000 of these embryos have already been used for research.
  It is from these embryos that scientists have derived stem cell 
lines.
  Here is how it works.
  During the first few days of embryo development, whether in a 
mother's womb or in a Petri dish inside a fertility clinic, the 
fertilized egg--called a zygote--begins to divide and transform into a 
sphere of cells called a blastocyst. Depending on its stage of 
development, a blastocyst is comprised of about 30 to 150 cells. It is 
from the inner layer of the blastocyst that scientists can derive the 
unspecialized but pluripotent stem cells that hold so much promise.
  As I said earlier, while there is some debate on this issue, the 
great bulk of the evidence and consensus view of leading experts is 
that, at this point in time, research on the embryonic stem cells holds 
at least as much, and probably a lot more, promise than research on 
adult stem cells and cord blood. That is because the experts believe 
that embryonic stem cells appear to be easier to identify and work with 
and appear to be more flexible than other sources of stem cells.
  The sole purpose of H.R. 810 is to expand the number of stem cell 
lines eligible for Federal funding. If H.R. 810 passes and is signed 
into law, Americans will finally get the vigorous program of federally 
funded stem cell research complete with a rigorous system of Federal 
oversight of the ethical protections that the National Institutes of 
Health will place on this research.

[[Page 14623]]

  The policy dispute that requires the legislative fix set forth in 
H.R. 810 revolves around the moral status of a spare embryo. Some, 
including President Bush and some in Congress, have reservations about 
using stem cells derived from embryos for research purposes. This 
concern is anchored in the perspective that human life begins at the 
moment of conception, be it in the womb or in the lab of a fertility 
clinic.
  While I respect this view and those who hold it, I do not agree with 
it.
  Let me say that I come into this debate as longtime, right-to-life 
Senator. I oppose abortion on demand. I think that Roe v. Wade was 
wrongly decided. I have worked to return the power to outlaw abortion 
from the courts to the states. In 1981, I proudly worked to report an 
anti-abortion constitutional amendment from the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  In the 108th Congress, I served as chairman of the House-Senate 
Conference Committee that finalized long-overdue legislation to outlaw 
the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. I was at the 
President's side when he signed this bill into law.
  When it comes to a right-to-life philosophy, I do not take a back 
seat to anyone in this Chamber or the House of Representatives. I will 
put my pro-life track record up against anyone inside or outside of 
Congress.
  When I considered the question of the moral status of stem cells 
created for, but no longer needed in, the in-vitro fertilization 
process, I did so from a long and fervently held pro-life philosophy.
  I have discussed this issue with many experts in science and ethics 
on all sides of this issue. I spoke to many Utahns and other citizens 
about their views on this matter. I consulted books ranging from 
medical texts and the Bible.
  I thought long and hard about this matter.
  Sometimes, I simply prayed to God for guidance.
  I take my pro-family, pro-life philosophy very seriously.
  I believe the worth of each soul is absolute.
  Accordingly, I reject any purely utilitarian argument that the 
promise of stem cell research is so great that the ends justify the 
means.
  I do not think that research can ever justify the taking of even a 
single human life, no matter how frail or defenseless that person may 
be.
  Let me just say that there is not a fairer or finer man in the U.S. 
Senate than my friend from Kansas, Senator Sam Brownback. As he has 
attempted to frame the issue:

       The central question in this debate is simple: Is the 
     embryo a person or a piece of property? If you believe . . . 
     that life begins at conception and that the human embryo is a 
     person fully deserving of dignity and the protection of our 
     laws, then you have to believe that we must protect this 
     innocent life from harm and protection.

  After much thought, reflection, and prayer, I concluded that life 
begins in, and requires, a nurturing womb. Human life does not begin in 
a Petri dish.
  I do not question that an embryo is a living cell.
  But I do not believe that a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic 
freezer constitutes human life.
  To my knowledge, as a matter of law, no member of the U.S. Supreme 
Court has ever taken the position in even a dissenting opinion, let 
alone a majority opinion, that fetuses, let alone embryos, are 
constitutionally protected persons.
  I cannot imagine, for example, that many Americans would view an 
employee of a fertility clinic whose job it is to destroy unneeded 
embryos as a criminal--and a murderer at that. Yet this is a task that 
is performed thousands of times each and every year by hundreds of 
fertility clinic employees.
  As well, the logical extension of Senator Brownback's life-begins-at-
conception view might be to criminalize the actions of a woman or her 
doctor from using, or recommending the use of, some longstanding forms 
of contraception that impede fertilized eggs from attaching onto the 
uterine wall.
  I simply do not believe that passing H.R. 810 and allowing federally 
funded researchers to use new stem cell lines derived from spare 
embryos from fertility clinics is somehow ethical.
  It seems to me that you would have to believe that the in vitro 
fertilization process was unethical to begin with if you believe that 
it is unethical to use spare embryos that would never be used for 
fertility purposes and were slated for routine destruction.
  I find both fertility treatment and embryonic stem cell research to 
be ethical.
  I believe that being pro-life involves helping the living.
  Regenerative medicine is pro-life and pro-family; it enhances, not 
diminishes human life.
  My friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, and I share a similar 
perspective on this important issue. Here is Senator Smith's eloquent 
response to the concerns raised by our friend, Senator Brownback:

        . . . when does life begin? Some say it is at conception. 
     Others say it is at birth. For me in my quest to be 
     responsible and to be as right as I know how to be, I turn to 
     what I regard as sources of truth. I find this: ``And the 
     Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed 
     into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living 
     soul.'' This allegory of creation describes a two-step 
     process to life, one of the flesh, the other of the spirit . 
     . . Cells, stem cells, adult cells, are, I believe, the dust 
     of the earth. They are essential to life, but standing alone 
     will never constitute life. A stem cell in a petri dish or 
     frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, 
     become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. An 
     ancient apostle once said: ``For the body without the spirit 
     is dead.'' I believe that life begins in the mother's womb, 
     not in a scientist's laboratory. Indeed, scientists tell me 
     that nearly one-half of fertilized eggs never attach to a 
     mother's womb, but naturally slough off. Surely, life is not 
     being taken here by God or by anyone else.

  I find much wisdom in Senator Smith's remarks and ask all of you to 
reflect upon his thoughtful and valuable perspective.
  When the roll is called on H.R. 810, I will vote yea. I urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  I applaud President Bush's decision to allow Federal funds to be used 
in connection with a limited number of stem cell lines that preexisted 
his August 9, 2001 speech. Frankly, I had hoped back in 2001 that 
President Bush would announce a more expansive policy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter I wrote to President Bush on this matter in June, 2001 on the 
issue of stem cell research as well as an accompanying letter to then 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 2001.
     The President George Walker Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I urge you to support federal funding 
     of human pluripotent embryonic stem cell research. Upon 
     substantial reflection, I find--and hope you will as well--
     that proceeding with this research is in the best interests 
     of the American public and is consistent with our shared pro-
     life, pro-family values.
       After carefully analyzing the factors involved, I conclude 
     that, at this time, research on human pluripotent embryonic 
     stem cells is legal, scientifically compelling, and ethically 
     sound. I want to emphasize that my support for such research 
     is contingent upon adherence to the applicable statutes, 
     regulations and guidelines. For your information, I have 
     provided a copy of my correspondence to Secretary Thompson 
     that more fully explains my reasoning on this important 
     matter.
       Mr. President, one of the great legacies of your father's 
     Presidency was the fall of the Berlin Wall which represented 
     the victory of democracy in a 50-year battle with 
     totalitarian regimes. Through sacrifice and love of country 
     ``the Greatest Generation'' prevailed over both fascism and 
     communism and proved more than equal to the challenges of the 
     times. As a result, today the United States is in a unique 
     position of leadership in the world. How America exerts this 
     influence and invests our resources and energies will be 
     observed closely by all of our global neighbors. It seems to 
     me that leading the way in finding new cures for disease is 
     precisely the type of activity that accrues to our benefit 
     both at home and abroad.
       In the opening days of your term in office, scientists have 
     completed the task of sequencing the human genome. While this

[[Page 14624]]

     acccomplishment--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.
       To accomplish this, all promising and proper avenues of 
     research must be explored. Throughout my career I have been 
     proud to have worked with patients and families struggling 
     with the daily realities of disabling high prevalence 
     illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. As 
     author of the Orphan Drug Act, I also am proud that over 200 
     drugs have been approved since this law was enacted in 1984 
     for such small population, but devastating diseases, as 
     Hemophilia, Cystic Fibrosis, and ALS. In my 25 years of 
     working to sustain and build America's formidable biomedical 
     research enterprise, I have rarely, if ever, observed such 
     genuine excitement for the prospects of future progress than 
     is presented by embryonic stem cell research.
       Mr. President, once you have considered the complexities of 
     the questions at hand, I hope you will conclude, as other 
     pro-life, pro-family Republicans such as Strom Thurmond, 
     Gordon Smith, Connie Mack, and I, that the best course of 
     action is to lead the way for this vital research.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 2001.
     Hon. Tommy G. Thompson,
     Secretary of Health and Human Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to express my views 
     regarding federal funding of biomedical research involving 
     human pluripotent embryonic stem cells. After carefully 
     considering the issues presented, I am persuaded that such 
     research is legally permissible, scientifically promising, 
     and ethically proper. Therefore, at this time, I support the 
     use of federal funds to conduct research involving human 
     pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos produced through 
     the in vitro fertilization process. My support is, of course, 
     conditioned upon such research being conducted in strict 
     accordance with the relevant statutes and the protections set 
     forth in the applicable regulations and guidelines, including 
     those issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
       I am mindful that this is a matter over which reasonable, 
     fair-minded persons may ultimately disagree. Despite this 
     likely outcome, I believe it constructive for public dialogue 
     to take place over this issue. For that reason, I recommend 
     that you convene the National Institutes of Health Human 
     Pluripotent Stem Cell Review Group (HPSCRG) or a similar 
     expert advisory body to help bring resolution to this matter. 
     The HPSCRG, to be chaired by Dr. James Kushner of the 
     University of Utah, can become a key forum to provide 
     information and advice for policymakers.
       At the outset, let me be clear about one of my key 
     perspectives as a legislator: I am pro-family and pro-life. I 
     abhor abortion and strongly oppose this practice except in 
     the limited cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of 
     the mother. While I respect those who hold a pro-choice view, 
     I have always opposed any governmental sanctioning of a 
     general abortion on demand policy. In my view, the adoption 
     of the Hyde Amendment wisely restricts taxpayer financed 
     abortions. Moreover, because of my deep reservations about 
     the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, I proposed--
     albeit unsuccessfully--an amendment to the Constitution in 
     1981 that would have granted to the states and Congress the 
     power to restrict or even outright prohibit abortion.
       In 1992, I led the Senate opposition to fetal tissue 
     research that relied upon cells from induced abortions. I 
     feared that such research would be used to justify abortion 
     or lead to additional abortions. It was my understanding that 
     tissue from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies 
     could provide a sufficient and suitable supply of cells. 
     Unfortunately, experts did not find these sources of cells as 
     adequate for their research needs. Subsequently, the 1993 NIH 
     reauthorization legislation changed the legal landscape on 
     this issue.
       Because of my strong pro-life beliefs, I am a co-sponsor of 
     the Unborn Victims of Violence legislation that makes it a 
     separate criminal offense to cause death of or bodily injury 
     to unborn children. I also support the Child Custody 
     Protection Act that addresses the problem of minors crossing 
     state lines to obtain abortions in avoidance of home state 
     parental consent or notification requirements. I have also 
     helped lead the effort to outlaw partial birth abortion, a 
     procedure I find to be particularly repugnant. I hope that 
     the l07th Congress will succeed in adopting, and transmitting 
     for the President's signature, legislation that will end late 
     term abortions unless necessary to save the life of the 
     mother.
       I am proud of my strong pro-life, anti-abortion record. I 
     commend the Bush Administration for its strong pro-life, pro-
     family philosophy. In my view research, on stem cells derived 
     from embryos first created for, but ultimately not used in, 
     the process of in vitro fertilization, raises questions and 
     considerations fundamentally different from issues attendant 
     to abortion. As I evaluate all these factors, I conclude that 
     this research is consistent with bedrock pro-life, pro-family 
     values. I note that our pro-life, pro-family Republican 
     colleagues, Senators Strom Thurmond and Gordon Smith, as well 
     as former Senator Connie Mack, support federal funding of 
     embryonic stem cell research. It is my hope that once you 
     have analyzed the issues, you will agree with us that this 
     research should proceed.


                          The Legal Framework

       After reviewing the relevant statutes and regulations, I 
     conclude that there is no mandatory legal barrier under 
     federal law to federal funding of research on human 
     pluripotent embryonic stem cells. On January 15, 1999, the 
     then-General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, Harriet Raab, issued a legal opinion regarding 
     federal funding for research involving human pluripotent stem 
     cells. This opinion summarized the applicable law as follows:
       ``The statutory prohibition on the use of funds 
     appropriated to HHS for human embryo research would not apply 
     to research utilizing human pluripotent stem cells because 
     such cells are not within the statutory definition. To the 
     extent human pluripotent stem cells are considered human 
     fetal tissue by law, they are subject to the statutory 
     prohibition on sale for valuable consideration, the 
     restrictions on fetal tissue transplantation research that is 
     conducted or funded by HHS, as well as to the federal 
     criminal prohibition on the directed donation of fetal 
     tissue. Research involving human pluripotent stem cells 
     excised from a non-living fetus may be conducted only in 
     accordance with any applicable state or local law. Finally, 
     the Presidential Directive banning federal funding of human 
     cloning would apply to pluripotent stem cells, only if they 
     were to be used for that purpose.''
       While some take exception to this reading of the law, I 
     believe that it sets forth a permissible interpretation of 
     the current state of the law with respect to research on 
     human pluripotent stem cells. I would also note that while 
     subsequent to the issuance of the HHS Legal Opinion in 
     January, 1999 attempts have been and are being made to change 
     the law, Congress has not passed a bill that has altered the 
     legal status quo. For example, Senator Brownback and others 
     have attempted to change the law to prohibit flatly such 
     research on fetal and embryonic stem cells. On the other 
     hand, Senator Specter and others have supported legislation 
     that would expand the range of permissible federally funded 
     research activities to include derivation of pluripotent stem 
     cells from totipotent stem cells. The considerable 
     disagreement over what the law in this area should be stands 
     in contrast to the common understanding of how the law has 
     been interpreted by the Department.
       It is worth noting that NIH has a carefully crafted network 
     of regulations and guidelines that govern stem cell research. 
     These guidelines, finalized in the Federal Register, on 
     August 25, 2000 (65 FR 51976) were the subject of over 50,000 
     public comments. Among the key provisions of these 
     requirements are:
       NIH funds may only be used for research on human 
     pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos, if such cells 
     were derived from frozen embryos that were produced for the 
     purpose of procreation but subsequently were not intended to 
     be used for that purpose.
       No financial or other inducements, including any promises 
     of future remuneration from downstream commercialization 
     activities, may be used to coerce the donation of the embryo.
       A comprehensive informed consent must be obtained that 
     includes recognition that the donated embryo will be used to 
     derive human pluripotent stem cells for research that may 
     include transplantation research; that derived cells may be 
     stored and used for many years; that the research is not 
     intended to provide direct medical benefit solely to a donor 
     and that the donated embryo will not survive the derivation 
     process; and, there must be a distinct separation between the 
     fertility treatment and the decision to donate the embryos 
     for research.
       The donation may not be conditioned on any restrictions or 
     directions regarding the individual who may receive the cells 
     derived from the human pluripotent stem cells.
       All recipients of NIH funds to conduct stem cell research 
     must comply with guidelines and all laws and regulations 
     governing institutional review boards.
       NIH funds may not be used to: clone a human being; derive 
     pluripotent stem cells from human embryos; conduct research 
     using pluripotent stem cells derived from a human embryo 
     created solely for research purposes; conduct research that 
     creates or uses pluripotent stem cells derived from somatic 
     cell nuclear transfer; or, combine human pluripotent stem 
     cells with an animal embryo.
       If there is a need to further strengthen the applicable 
     guidelines and regulations, this

[[Page 14625]]

     should be done. But let us recognize that there already 
     exists a thorough and thoughtful regulatory framework to 
     build upon. It should also be noted that these guidelines 
     build upon an extensive body of earlier work of the National 
     Bioethics Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee to the 
     Director, NIH, and a special Human Embryo Research Panel 
     convened by your predecessor. At this juncture, it appears 
     that NIH is developing its stem cell research policies in an 
     informed fashion within an area of its expertise, and is 
     operating within a statutory environment such that, once 
     finalized, the agency's actions will likely survive legal 
     challenge due to the deference the courts grant these types 
     of decisions.


                      The Scientific Opportunities

       Scientific experts believe that stem cells have tremendous 
     potential in benefiting human health. Stem cells are thought 
     to be a unique biological resource because these cells 
     apparently have the potential to develop into most of the 
     specialized cells and tissues of the body, including muscle 
     cells, nerve cells, and blood cells. As the American 
     Association for the Advancement of Science has characterized 
     the promise of stem cell research: ``Research on these cells 
     could result in treatments or cures for the millions of 
     Americans suffering from many of humanity's most devastating 
     illnesses, including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal 
     cord injury, and heart disease.'' Potentially, stem cell 
     research can help virtually every American family. It has 
     been estimated that over 28 million Americans are afflicted 
     with conditions that may benefit from embryonic stem cell 
     research.
       It is also worth noting in the pro-family context that stem 
     cell research is of particular interest to pediatricians. 
     Consider the views of Dr. Edward B. Clark, Chairman of the 
     Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of 
     Medicine:
       ``. . . I can assure you that the scientific promise of 
     stem cell research is extraordinary.
       ``In pediatrics, stem cell research offers therapy, and 
     indeed possibly a cure, for a wide variety of childhood 
     diseases, including neurologic disease, spinal cord injuries, 
     and heart disease . . .
       ``I can think of nothing that will provide as much 
     meaningful therapy for children and children's problems than 
     the promise offered by stem cell research.''
       ``We citizens of Utah are proud to be home of the Huntsman 
     Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. The medical 
     director of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Dr. Stephen 
     Prescott, advises me that in his expert opinion stem cells 
     research `is an incredibly promising area that has potential 
     application in many different fields of medicine. One of 
     these is in the treatment of cancer, particularly as a way to 
     control the side effects following standard treatments.'''
       I am also aware that some believe, including highly-
     respected scientists and many of my friends and colleagues in 
     the Right to Life community, that adult stem cells actually 
     hold greater promise than embryonic stem cells and that 
     research on adult stem cells should be pursued to the 
     exclusion of fetal or embryonic stem cells. It is my 
     understanding that, at the present time, the view that adult 
     stem cell research is sufficient or even scientifically 
     preferable to embryonic stem cell research is not the 
     predominant view within the biomedical research community.
       While I have great admiration for, confidence in, and 
     strongly support America's biomedical research enterprise, 
     and I believe that our policy should be made on the best 
     science available, I am hardly one who invariably follows the 
     lead of what some may term ``the science establishment.'' 
     With Senator Harkin, I authored the legislation that created 
     the Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CCAM) 
     at NIH and believe there is great benefit in encouraging 
     challenges to scientific orthodoxy. Similarly, I authored the 
     Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act that set 
     parameters on how the Food and Drug Administration may 
     regulate dietary supplements as well as establishing the 
     Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at NIH. To be sure, the 
     creation of CCAM and ODS had their fair share of critics at 
     NIH and among mainstream scientists. So be it.
       In parallel to funding research on human pluripotent 
     embryonic stem cells, I believe it is essential to carry out 
     significant research on adult stem cells. I strongly urge the 
     Administration to continue to provide sufficient resources to 
     investigate fully the utility of adult stem cells as well 
     cells derived from adipose tissue.
       Policymakers should also consider another advantage of 
     public funding of stem cell research as opposed to leaving 
     this work beyond the reach of important federal controls. 
     Federal funding will encourage adherence to all of the 
     safeguards outlined above by entities conducting such 
     research even when a particular research project is conducted 
     solely with private dollars.
       I also think it important to recognize explicitly that the 
     knowledge gained through biomedical research can be harnessed 
     for critical pro-life, pro-family purposes. When one of our 
     loved ones is stricken by illness, the whole family shares in 
     the suffering. The quality of life for America's families can 
     improve as strides are made in biomedical research. This is 
     why we are making good on the bipartisan commitment to double 
     the funding of the NIH research program by 2003. I commend 
     the Administration for its leadership in allocating resources 
     for this worthy pro-life, pro-family purpose.


                        Ethical Appropriateness

       While society must take into account the potential benefits 
     of a given technological advance, neither scientific promise 
     nor legal permissibility can ever be wholly sufficient to 
     justify proceeding down a new path. In our pluralistic 
     society, before the government commits taxpayer dollars or 
     otherwise sanctions the pursuit of a field of research, it is 
     imperative that we carefully examine the ethical dimensions 
     before moving, or not moving, forward.
       I would hope there is general agreement that modern 
     techniques of in vitro fertilization are ethical and benefits 
     society in profound ways. I have been blessed to be the 
     father of six children and the grandfather of nineteen 
     grandchildren. Let me just say that whatever success I have 
     had as a legislator pales in comparison to the joy I have 
     experienced from my family in my roles of husband, father, 
     and grandfather. Through my church work, I have counseled 
     several young couples who were having difficulty in 
     conceiving children. I know that IVF clinics literally 
     perform miracles every day. It is my understanding that in 
     the United States over 100,000 children to date have been 
     born through the efforts of IVF clinics.
       Intrinsic with the current practice of IVF-aidcd 
     pregnancies is the production of more embryos than will 
     actually be implanted in hopeful mothers-to-be. The question 
     arises as to whether these totipotent embryonic cells, now 
     routinely and legally discarded-- amid, I might add, no great 
     public clamor--should be permitted to be derived into 
     pluripotent cells with non-federal funds and then be made 
     available for research by federal or federally-supported 
     scientists?
       Cancer survivor and former Senator, Connie Mack, recently 
     explained his perspective on the morality of stem cell 
     research in a Washington Post op-ed piece:
       ``It is the stem cells from surplus IVF embryos, donated 
     with the informed consent of couples, that could give 
     researchers the chance to move embryonic stem cell research 
     forward. I believe it would be wrong not to use them to 
     potentially save the lives of people. I know that several 
     members of Congress who consider themselves to be pro-life 
     have also come to this conclusion.''
       Senator Mack's views reflect those of many across our 
     country and this perspective must be weighed before you 
     decide.
       Among those opposing this position is Senator Brownback, 
     who has forcefully expressed his opinion:
       ``The central question in this debate is simple: Is the 
     embryo a person, or a piece of property? If you believe that 
     life begins at conception and that the human embryo is a 
     person fully deserving of dignity and the protection of our 
     laws, then you believe that we must protect this innocent 
     life from harm and destruction.''
       While I generally agree with my friend from Kansas on pro-
     life, pro-family issues, I disagree with him in this 
     instance. First off, I must comment on the irony that stem 
     cell research--which under Senator Brownback's construction 
     threatens to become a charged issue in the abortion debate--
     is so closely linked to an activity, in vitro fertilization, 
     that is inherently and unambiguously pro-life and pro-family.
       I recognize and respect that some hold the view that human 
     life begins when an egg is fertilized to produce an embryo, 
     even if this occurs in vitro and the resulting embryo is 
     frozen and never implanted in utero. To those with this 
     perspective, embryonic stem cell research is, or amounts to, 
     a form of abortion. Yet this view contrasts with statutes, 
     such as Utah's, which require the implantation at a 
     fertilized egg before an abortion can occur.
       Query whether a frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a 
     clinic is really equivalent to an embryo or fetus developing 
     in a mother's womb? To me, a frozen embryo is more akin to a 
     frozen unfertilized egg or frozen sperm than to a fetus 
     naturally developing in the body of a mother. In the case of 
     in vitro fertilization, extraordinary human action is 
     required to initiate a successful pregnancy while in the case 
     of an elective abortion an intentional human act is required 
     to terminate pregnancy. These are polar opposites. The 
     purpose of in vitro fertilization is to facilitate life while 
     abortion denies life. Moreover, as Dr. Louis Guenin has 
     argued: ``If we spurn [embryonic stem cell research] not one 
     more baby is likely to be born.'' I find the practice of 
     attempting to bring a child into the world through in vitro 
     fertilization to be both ethical and laudable and distinguish 
     between elective abortion and the discarding of frozen 
     embryos no longer needed in the in vitro fertilization 
     process.
       In evaluating this issue, it is significant to point out 
     that no member of the United States Supreme Court has ever 
     taken the position that fetuses, let alone embryos, are 
     constitutionally protected persons. To do so would be to 
     thrust the courts and other governmental institutions into 
     the midst of

[[Page 14626]]

     some of the most private of personal decisions. For example, 
     the use of contraceptive devices that impede fertilized eggs 
     from attaching onto the uterine wall could be considered a 
     criminal act. Similarly, the routine act of discarding 
     ``spare'' frozen embryos could be transformed into an act of 
     murder.
       As much as I oppose. partial birth abortion, I simply can 
     not equate this offensive abortion practice with the act of 
     disposing of a frozen embryo in the case where the embryo 
     will never complete the journey toward birth. Nor, for 
     example, can I imagine Congress or the courts somehow 
     attempting to order every ``spare'' embryo through a full 
     term pregnancy.
       Mr. Secretary, I greatly appreciate your consideration of 
     my views on this important subject. I only hope that when all 
     relevant factors are weighed both you and President Bush will 
     decide that the best course of action for America's families 
     is to lead the way to a possible new era in medicine and 
     health by ordering that this vital and appropriately 
     regulated research proceed.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, although at one time it appeared that as 
many as 78 stem cell lines might qualify under the President's policy, 
as many had feared, the number of lines that might be practically 
accessed today is no more than around a dozen at best. Moreover, all of 
these cell lines were grown with so-called mouse feeder cells so could 
never pass muster with the FDA for use to make products for humans. 
Thus for the President's initial goals to be accomplished, new 
embryonic stem cell lines must be made available.
  It has been over a year since he House has taken its historic action 
of passing H.R. 810 by a bipartisan 235-to-189 vote. I commend the 
leadership of Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette for moving 
the bill through the House.
  I must pay special respects to Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom 
Harkin for their dogged determination in conducting a series of some 15 
oversight hearings on the issue of stem cell research since this 
breakthrough science was first reported in 1998. In fact, it was the 
work of the Specter-Harkin Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that 
developed the factual basis and legal analysis that resulted in the 
legislation that became H.R. 810.
  At long last, today the Senate will finally vote on this important 
legislation.
  I hope that it will pass and if it does, I will strenuously urge 
President to reconsider his position and sign this bill into law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. 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.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am awaiting the arrival shortly of 
Senator Lautenberg on our side, but in the meantime I thank Senator 
Hatch for the eloquent statement he made, to thank him for his long-
time support of this endeavor to open more stem cell lines for 
research. It shows clearly, as I said earlier today, this is not a 
partisan issue. I see no real partisan cleavage lines anywhere. It was 
passed with a bipartisan majority in the House. The leader in the House 
was Congressman Mike Castle, a Republican from Delaware. The Democrat 
was Congresswoman Diana DeGette from Colorado. Our leader here is 
Senator Specter, leader on the bill, and I am his counterpart on the 
Democrat side. We have had great support from both sides of the aisle 
on this legislation. I don't cast it in any type of partisan terms.
  There are those who obviously spoke yesterday very eloquently about 
their moral objections to using embryos. But, again, I point out this 
bill does not create any new embryos. All we are talking about is using 
the leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization and only if (a) the 
donors give their written, informed consent; (b) that no money changes 
hands; and (c) that the embryo will never be implanted in a uterus and 
will be discarded.
  Fifty thousand healthy babies were born last year to couples who went 
to fertility clinics. Obviously, there are some embryos left over after 
that. They are frozen. After the parents have the children they want to 
have, they call the clinic or the clinic calls them and asks, do you 
want to continue to pay to keep these embryos frozen; and they say, no, 
we have our family. The clinic will then discard them. That is all we 
are talking about. Those embryos are going to be discarded, and with 
the donor's written, informed consent. They can say, no, I don't want 
them used for that, and then we wouldn't. You cannot induce anyone to 
do that by saying we will pay you for it. This clearly has to be kept 
in mind, that this is what we are talking about in this legislation.
  Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey is here. I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I ask I 
be notified when 4 minutes 30 seconds has passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is one of those debates that 
makes the American people scratch their heads and ask, what are those 
people in Washington thinking about? From the perspective of everyday 
people, this should not even be a debate. Of course we should fully 
fund research with embryonic stem cells because it has the potential to 
save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. It is 
common sense.
  But our President is a captive of ideologs and extremists of his 
political party. Nearly 5 years ago President Bush enacted a policy 
that made no scientific contribution, only political fodder for another 
election. He put a stop to the development of new stem cell lines for 
research. It was a devastating blow to Americans suffering from 
diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and 
other injuries and diseases.
  For many years, I have met with children stricken with juvenile 
diabetes. We have established friendships, their parents and I, and the 
children and I. These children ask their parents, brothers, sisters, 
and me why the President won't allow research to move forward so their 
disease can be cured. There is no decent answer I can give them.
  When I ask them what the worst thing about living with diabetes is, 
they respond plaintively, begging for help, so they can stop drawing 
blood from their finger six times a day. They are pleading to live 
their lives like other kids. One child said he is forbidden something 
so simple--to sleep at other friends' houses--because of the fear that 
he will go into insulin shock.
  I promised these kids I would do everything I possibly could to get 
the message to the President of the United States, to help us find the 
cure for them. Today we have an opportunity, finally, to help these 
children.
  It has been over 1 year since the House passed this bill. Why the 
delay? There is no comprehensible reason. All we know is that people 
wanted to obstruct this discussion today. We can only wonder how many 
people have had their hopes dashed and their spirits broken during that 
wasted year.
  Americans in large majorities support stem cell research. I don't 
understand this ``fiddling while Rome burns'' policy. Seventy-two 
percent of Americans register support for embryonic cell research, a 3-
to-1 margin over opposition. One of the most outspoken supporters of 
stem cell research is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. She spent 10 
years watching her husband's memory fade from life, probably not even 
recognizing her. I have friends whose parents do not know who they are.
  Virtually every major medical, scientific, and patient group supports 
embryonic stem cell research. In my home State of New Jersey, support 
for stem cell research is overwhelming. We were the second State after 
California to authorize embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, 
President Bush has cut off Federal funding for those projects.

[[Page 14627]]

  My colleague Senator Menendez and I recently visited the Coriell 
Institute in Camden, NJ. They are not well known, but they were founded 
in 1953 and hold the world's largest collection of human cells for 
research. Coriell has everything in place to find cures and help 
millions of people. But there is one problem: President Bush is 
undermining their efforts with his irrational policy on stem cell 
research.
  Because of the scarcity of embryonic stem cell lines caused by his 
Executive Order, the Coriell Institute in New Jersey had to go overseas 
to the Technion Institute in Israel to get access to an embryonic stem 
cell line so they could continue their research.
  The President denies hope to millions of people based on his standard 
of ``ethics and morality.'' But what is ethical about denying a cure to 
children suffering from diabetes? What is moral about denying paralyzed 
people the chance to walk again?
  Any real, ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem cell 
lines will come from embryos donated by fertility parents under strict 
guidelines. There will not be embryos created for research.
  What we are talking about in this bill are embryos that would 
otherwise be disposed of--thrown away.
  I believe compassion and common sense must prevail over rigid 
ideology
  If we pass this bill, I understand that the President intends to veto 
it. That would be a terrible and tragic mistake.
  President Bush has never vetoed a bill. In the nearly 6 years of his 
Presidency--not one veto.
  What would it say to the American people if his first veto was of a 
bill that could save millions of lives?
  And I say to the American people: don't be fooled by the sleight of 
hand we are seeing today. There are three bills being considered but 
only one of them matters.
  The other two bills are part of a shell game. They are there to give 
President Bush something to sign.
  But will those two bills do much to help the American with a shaky 
hand from being cured of Parkinson's disease?
  Will those two bills make real strides toward relieving a child with 
diabetes from the constant shots of insulin? I don't think so.
  Only one bill can do that--the House stem cell bill. Let's vote to 
approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will look in the 
faces of their children and their grandchildren and say: We do not want 
them to be sick. And if they get sick, we want to help them. I hope 
this bill will pass overwhelmingly.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the 
Senator from Iowa for his real leadership on this issue.
  This Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act debate is one of the most 
important debates the Senate will have in this year and in this decade. 
I believe this is such a great opportunity to be able to save lives. I 
believe it is like when we announced the endeavor to map the human 
genome, like when we announced the national war against cancer. That is 
how important this issue is.
  I am a firm, unabashed supporter of stem cell research. It is a 
cornucopia of opportunity for new breakthroughs for some of the 
diseases that are the most devastating and costly conditions facing 
thousands of Americans, including Alzheimer's disease, from which my 
father died, diabetes, of which our family faces an inherent 
propensity, spinal cord injuries, which we see through accidents like 
Christopher Reeve had, and spina bifida, from which little children 
suffer.
  Stem cell research has the potential for saving lives, and we need to 
be able to pursue it. I also would urge that this research be done in 
the sunshine. One of the reasons we need a national framework is so it 
will not be done in dark corners of the world without the United States 
of America participating.
  We need a national framework to establish bioethical standards based 
on sound science and ethical principles. I fear that without national 
standards and national legislation, this could be conducted outside of 
the public eye, without national and international scrutiny, where dark 
and ghoulish things could occur.
  One of the reasons I came to the Senate was to help save lives. In my 
home State, we are the home to the National Institutes of Health, the 
Federal Drug Administration, the University of Maryland, and also Johns 
Hopkins University. I, every day, know that in my own home State they 
are working on new ideas for new cures. Whether it is to ensure that 
women have accurate mammograms to diagnose breast cancer, streamlining 
the drug approval process so that lifesaving drugs can reach patients 
more quickly, or fighting to double the budget at NIH, we have 
consistently fought to improve the lives and health of the American 
people.
  This is why I am such an advocate of stem cell research. It holds the 
potential to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases, such as Alzheimer's 
disease, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, all those autoimmune 
diseases, such as MS and spinal cord injuries.
  Just imagine if scientists could find a cure or the cognitive 
stretchout ability for Alzheimer's. Even giving individuals with a 
disease a longer mental capacity would be a big breakthrough. Eighty 
percent of Medicaid costs go to paying for long-term care for seniors. 
Eighty percent is primarily spent on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Think 
of just the financial savings we could have, let alone dealing with the 
tragedy in lives.
  I, along with Senator Bond, am the lead sponsor of the Ronald Reagan 
breakthrough legislation to sponsor breakthroughs. We have spoken 
personally with Nancy Reagan, and she has endorsed this legislation, 
just as Senator Lautenberg has talked about. We need this opportunity 
to pursue the opportunity.
  If we do not have national legislation, we are going to do it one 
State at a time. California has done it. My own home State of Maryland 
has done it. But do you know what. There is $30 million here and $30 
million there, but we do not have national standards, which means, can 
we replicate the research? Can we have international cooperation?
  For too long, this Federal health research has been operating with 
one hand tied behind its back. Scientists have been prohibited from 
doing embryonic stem cell research.
  Five years ago, President Bush restricted Federal funding for 
embryonic stem cells. He said: Oh, we have these little lines, these 
little stem cell lines.
  Those little stem cell lines did not turn out very well. The result 
is, federally funded research was almost halted. Stem cell research is 
conducted by private entities, and there are no national Federal 
bioethical standards.
  I want bioethical standards. I want to ban human cloning. I want to 
make sure the ghoulish is not done in laboratories.
  I support the other legislation. We should not turn this into 
financial opportunity. We should sign it into pure opportunity.
  What I like about this legislation is that it removes the 
restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, but it does provide 
for an ethical and medical framework and allows for sound science and 
sound ethics to be able to proceed. This ensures transparency and 
public accountability. But most of all, it ensures opportunity.
  When my father was in that nursing home and he could no longer 
recognize me or the woman to whom he had been married for 50 years, it 
did not matter that I was a Senator. There was no cure for Alzheimer's. 
It did not matter that I could get five Nobel Prize winners on the 
phone because they did not have the answer.
  My father, when he passed away, was a modest man. He would not have 
wanted big, lavish testimonials. What he would have liked to have had 
was the fact that I cared enough to look out that no family would go 
through what we went through. And whether

[[Page 14628]]

you were the First Lady of the United States, like Nancy Reagan, and 
the first caregiver, or my mother, who was by my father's bed when he 
passed away, we watched what that disease did. And now I will not stand 
patiently by and watch the opportunity to find a cure pass by.
  So let's remember President Reagan. Let's remember the little guys 
like Mr. Willy, who ran a grocery store in Highlandtown, and who looked 
out for his neighbors and for his girls, as he called his daughters. 
Let's look out for the American people and pass stem cell research.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I welcome this vote on such an important 
piece of legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As we 
have heard eloquently from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
stem cell research holds the promise of new cures and treatments for 
countless diseases and millions of Americans with chronic, incurable 
conditions.
  The wide range of applications for stem cells may lead to 
unparalleled achievements on behalf of research concerning Alzheimer's 
disease, as my friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, so passionately 
described with respect to her own family and her own experience; spinal 
cord injuries, like my dear friend Christopher Reeve; diabetes, and 
other conditions.
  For example, in my State of New York, research at Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Cancer Center has shown real promise for the use of stem cell 
research in bone, cartilage, and muscle replacement therapies. At 
Columbia University researchers have shown that stem cells can develop 
into neurons, special nervous system cells that would allow us to 
actually treat vision loss. Other scientists at Columbia University and 
at the University of Rochester Medical Center are working to cultivate 
stem cells into spinal cells that control motor function as possible 
treatments for ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease.
  And researchers from Rockefeller University, also in New York City, 
have explored ways in which stem cells can be used to develop dopamine-
producing cells which could help Americans living with Parkinson's 
disease who experience a decline in these types of important cells.
  A broad consensus in New York and across our country has brought us 
to this debate and vote. There has been an upsurge of demand. It has 
crossed every line we can imagine, certainly partisan lines, ethnic, 
racial, geographic lines. People in every corner of our Nation are 
demanding that we in Washington open the doors to this promising 
science.
  It is long overdue, but finally we are at this point. My friends, 
Christopher and Dana Reeve, whom we have lost in the last several 
years, were eloquent, passionate advocates for this research. 
Christopher, from his wheelchair, performed his greatest role. He may 
have been Superman in the movies, but he was a super human being after 
his accident which paralyzed him, consigned him to a wheelchair to help 
with his breathing and respiratory functions. But he never gave up.
  He launched his greatest battle to try to bring our Nation to the 
point where we would take advantage of the science that is there. He 
worked and struggled on behalf of all who might benefit from stem cell 
research and other scientific breakthroughs.
  His brave, beautiful wife Dana, who passed away just this past March, 
showed a devotion to her husband and her son that was just 
inspirational. She, too, continued Christopher's work through the Reeve 
Foundation. And I know that both of them are looking down upon this 
debate and so pleased and relieved that this day has come.
  As I travel around New York, I run into constituents who speak to me 
about this issue. They are living with type I diabetes or their 
children are. They are suffering from Parkinson's. They have a relative 
who is struggling with Alzheimer's. They are paralyzed from an 
accident, as Christopher was. And they believe that this holds promise 
for their lives, for their futures, and if not for them in their 
lifetimes, certainly for their children and their grandchildren.
  Yet we know that the work of researchers in New York and across our 
country has been stymied, has been held back by the ban on certain 
kinds of scientific research. In 2001, when President Bush put a stop 
to all Federal funding for this type of research, it was limited to 
using already existing stem lines, which has proven to be a barrier to 
scientific advancement. We only have 20 lines, not 70 as was 
advertised, that scientists can use. And the utility of these lines has 
been outstripped by the scientific advances made in the past 5 years.
  But the ban still stands, and we have to pass this legislation. The 
House already did. We are now joining with the House. We need to have 
additional stem cell lines in order to pursue the promising avenues for 
research. I am worried the President has signaled he intends to veto 
this legislation, the first veto he will use since he has been 
President.
  This research is not standing still around the world. We are looking 
at other countries putting billions of dollars into supporting stem 
cell science. They are creating establishments of all kinds, centers of 
research, special clinical centers because they know they can attract 
scientists from the United States who will come to pursue this 
research. We are losing ground instead of doing what Americans do best, 
leading the world in innovation, ingenuity, new ideas.
  We can send this legislation to the President's desk, as I anticipate 
us doing after our vote this afternoon. And then the President has a 
decision to make: Will he support the scientific community at this 
moment of unequaled optimism and discovery or will he set us back?
  I am going to support the other two bills that are going to be before 
us as well because I think we have to clearly put an ethical fence 
around this research, send a very clear message about what is permitted 
and what is not.
  Right now we have no Federal laws prohibiting the worst of some of 
this research. That is one of the results of the fact that we have an 
Executive order, but we don't have any legal prohibitions on some of 
the worst things people might decide to do. I think it is important 
that we have a strong ethical stand, a strong legal stand, strong 
prohibitions and penalties for people who don't pursue research in the 
way that we set forth.
  But we cannot make the progress that we need to make for the sake of 
new treatments, new discoveries, and new hope for countless millions of 
people who are alive today and are suffering, for those born with 
diseases and conditions that could be ameliorated or even cured.
  This is a delicate balancing act. I recognize that and acknowledge 
it. I respect my friends on the other side of the aisle who come to the 
floor with grave doubts and concerns. But I think we have struck the 
right balance with the legislation we will vote on this afternoon. I 
think we will make a serious mistake if the President vetoes this 
measure and sets this research back.
  Mr. President, I hope we will pass it with a large margin, and I hope 
that the President will allow it to become law so we can, once again, 
stand for those who need this help to face the suffering that they 
encounter while living day-to-day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the majority yields 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from Kansas will follow him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

[[Page 14629]]


  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 810, 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. First of all, I join with 
everyone in the Senate--in fact, everybody around the country--in 
saying that, of course, we want to further research and opportunity for 
the cure and the treatment of very serious illnesses. Of course, we 
want to do everything possible, within a strong ethical framework, to 
push for that scientific research and that progress. But at least I 
want to do that in a clear, certain, ethical framework. That is why I 
must oppose the details of the provisions of H.R. 810.
  Mr. President, I oppose it on two significant grounds. First of all, 
because one of my solemn duties in the Senate, I believe, is to protect 
and defend all human life--every case of human life, the beauty, the 
sanctity, and the importance of the individual which God has created.
  Secondly, I do this in particular focusing on the fact that we are 
talking about the use of taxpayer dollars. We are not merely talking 
about what is allowed and disallowed. We are talking about the use of 
taxpayer dollars for specific purposes, when some of these types of 
research are so utterly controversial in terms of the impact on 
individual human lives.
  Mr. President, a human embryo is a human life. I believe that to the 
core of my being. It is at the initial stages of life and development, 
of course; but an embryo is a human life. Each and every one of us 
began as an embryo. Therefore, I firmly believe neither Congress nor 
independent researchers, nor any human being, for that matter, should 
be allowed to, in effect, play God by determining that one life is 
inherently more valuable than another, determining that one life should 
essentially be sacrificed for some other purpose, to advance the 
welfare of other separate human lives.
  Of course, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this 
research only kills embryos that would be discarded anyway. But there 
are many cases that prove otherwise, where embryos have been adopted 
while still embryos or donated to infertile couples by their parents.
  We know that as many as 99 families have adopted and given birth to 
children from those very same frozen embryos. These kids are often 
referred to as ``snowflake babies.'' They are beautiful, they are 
miracles. They remind us that, of course, we are talking about human 
life. How can we justify killing these tiny humans by saying that these 
embryos would be discarded anyway, when there is proof that, in some 
cases, they are not discarded, they are adopted. They grow up to be 
full, mature, healthy children, human beings.
  Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this research 
is essential to curing many diseases and federally funding it is our 
only hope for curing diseases. I point out that there are many other 
alternatives. In fact, those alternatives are more promising, in many 
ways, than the type of research we are debating today. The facts show 
that adult stem cells have been used to perform at least 69 successful 
treatments for human patients. So we have 69 treatments in human 
patients using adult stem cells which do not require the taking of 
human life. These were clinical applications, successful applications.
  What is the experience in terms of embryonic stem cells? Zero 
successful treatments in human patients, zero direct clinical 
applications.
  There have been 25 years of this research, and there are still no 
successful direct human clinical trials, and there have been many stops 
and starts and complications with regard to other research.
  The following are some disorders and diseases with treatments from 
adult stem cell research that are worth noting: brain cancer, 
testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, acute heart damage, 
multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, spinal cord injury, stroke 
damage, Parkinson's disease, chronic liver failure, sickle cell anemia, 
end-stage bladder disease. Again, these were not just promising but 
successful in many cases--human clinical trials that directly focus on 
these very serious diseases.
  So if one weighs all of these factors in the balance, I truly believe 
that the thing to do is to respect all human life, to respect the very 
heartfelt feelings of millions upon millions, tens of millions of 
Americans who have fundamental problems with this sort of research. 
Again, it is worth underscoring that we are not debating whether this 
research can happen. We are debating if we are going to use taxpayer 
dollars to fund it, if we are going to forcibly take money from those 
Americans who, like me, have fundamental moral reservations with the 
research and spend it on that very research.
  I am happy to say that there is other legislation that we are 
considering today. I strongly support those two other bills. First of 
all, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, which prohibits the 
creation and gestation of human beings for the purpose of harvesting 
spare organs, body parts, and tissue. Many people think fetus farming 
sounds akin to something out of a science fiction movie, and it does. 
But it is already being explored in animals. This is something that is 
advancing scientifically. Congress must prevent science from subjecting 
human beings to organ, body part, and tissue harvesting before it is 
too late.
  The second bill which I proudly support today is the Alternative 
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754. It requires 
that the NIH support research into alternative methods, other than 
destroying human embryos, of creating pluripotent stem cells. These 
pluripotent stem cells are valuable for treating diseases because they 
are capable of forming most or all of the tissues of the adult body.
  So, again, this would forge a new path to make sure we explore other 
avenues to create these stem cells that do not involve the destruction 
of precious embryos, human beings, human life. I believe this 
alternative path is far more productive. I believe it is far more in 
keeping with upholding the values of our society, the very strongly 
held belief of tens of millions of Americans who, like myself, have 
fundamental moral reservations with the destruction of individual human 
life for these other purposes.
  So I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join me and others in 
supporting those two bills about ethical alternatives but in opposing 
this underlying bill, H.R. 810, because it would involve the 
destruction of individual, precious embryos, human life.
  Mr. President, I don't come to this conclusion quickly or easily or 
rashly. Similar to virtually every American family, mine has been 
touched by very serious diseases to which this research pertains. My 
dad had Parkinson's disease. He suffered with it for about 8 years. It 
was very debilitating and, of course, eventually, similar to most folks 
with Parkinson's disease, he passed from that and complications of it. 
With that personal history, of course, I want to advance research in 
every ethical way possible. But we must do it, again, in a strong, 
moral framework. We must do it within clear, reasonable bounds, 
particularly when we are talking about taxpayer funding of research.
  I believe that defeating H.R. 810--but also passing the two bills 
that set up alternative paths toward promising research--is the correct 
way to proceed. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in adopting that 
path.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I 
have 2 minutes left. I want to start with a picture of Dennis Turner 
because this is a real-life case of Parkinson's disease. The prior 
speaker, Senator Vitter, talked about his dad dying of Parkinson's 
disease; it is a terrible disease. It is incredibly debilitating. I met 
with a friend of mine last week who has something similar. It is not 
Parkinson's, but it is also debilitating.
  Dennis Turner testified at a hearing we had in the Senate Commerce 
Committee. He had been cured of his symptoms for 5 years. We had 
difficulty getting him in because he was out doing fun things such as 
safaris. After a period of 5 years, the symptoms started

[[Page 14630]]

to return. He had received an adult stem cell therapy, not embryonic 
stem cell therapy. His symptoms went away for 5 years, and then they 
started coming back. He needed to have another treatment; he could not 
get it. International doctors--to try to get their help and support, we 
need to fund that type of work, which is working, for people like 
Dennis Turner.
  My colleagues say we need to do this with embryonic stem cell 
research, that that is going to cure Dennis, Dennis Turner will be 
cured that way. I want to remind some of my colleagues that they said 
this about fetal tissue research about 10 years ago in this debate. In 
1993, this was a typical statement debate at that time:

       There is substantial evidence that fetal tissue research--

  Taking a human embryo, fetal tissue, and let's work and mold and work 
with this and put it inside a person, and let's deal with issues like 
Parkinson's this way.

     --will offer new hope of prolonged life, greater quality of 
     life, perhaps one day even a cure for many of these diseases, 
     and a tremendous economic and social cost-saving to the 
     country.
  So we funded fetal tissue research for a long period of time, like we 
are funding embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of half a billion 
dollars over the last 5 years in human and animal models.
  We funded fetal tissue research. Now, this is tissue and cells that 
are further developed than embryonic cells. They are further 
differentiated and they are more stabilized, so they go off in fewer 
tangents. So if they are put in some particular area of the body, like 
they come from the brain, from the fetal tissue, and you put them back 
in the brain, they are more stable. We did this research. We funded 
this. We even tried it in humans, to disastrous results--disastrous 
results.
  This is Parkinson's research set back by failure of fetal cell 
implants. Disastrous side effects are the quotes from the people who 
did the testing. Absolutely devastating. It was tragic, catastrophic. 
It is a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off. My 
goodness, this is strong wording that is taking place, to be 
catastrophic for fetal cell implants. Catastrophic? What happened? 
These cells, the fetal cells, formed tumors, and in some cases these 
tumors, they were implanted in the brain, the fetal cells implanted in 
the brain, and these tumors ended up being fingernail or hair that was 
in the brain, and we can't selectively turn it off.
  Think about this just for a minute, if we could. Everybody is saying 
we want to cure people. I want to cure people. If we have a route that 
is working in 72 different disease areas with the adult cord blood--and 
here is real research we funded. We tried it in humans even, with fetal 
cells. These are further developed cells than embryonic. They formed 
tumors, to disastrous results in Parkinson's patients.
  Yesterday, I entered into the Record a series of six one-page--this 
is the front-page summary of peer-reviewed articles on the formation of 
tumors using embryonic stem cells, and these were all articles saying: 
OK, we use embryonic stem cells; they formed tumors.
  Now, I am not a scientist, but it seems that if you got it in fetal 
tissue, which was further developed cells, and you found out that these 
are wild and they grow too fast and they form in other areas, and you 
back it up to embryonic stem cells and they are even younger, more 
malleable, and less formed, and we now have research saying they are 
forming tumors, you would look at that and say: Well, I don't think 
this is working particularly well.
  Now, it is interesting science. We may learn something of how the 
cell works in this process. I don't deny that at all. But if I am 
looking for a cure for Dennis, and I have--I want a cure for Dennis. I 
want something that works for him, and he has had a treatment that has 
worked for 5 years in him, in the adult field, and I have research that 
says, in the embryonic field, it is going to form tumors, and I have 
research earlier in fetal tissue that says it did form tumors in 
humans, how am I going to cure Dennis in this case by putting more into 
embryonic stem cell lines, taking precious dollars from adult stem cell 
work and cord blood and putting it into a speculative field, the 
embryonic field, which is producing no results and, in fact, the 
results it is producing are producing tumors? That doesn't seem to make 
much sense to me as far as how we would invest these sorts of dollars.
  People are talking about spinal cord injuries, and I think we should 
because we are going to deal with this area. I hope that in the next 10 
years we are going to see for people, once they get a spinal cord 
injury, there is an immediate therapy they have and it starts to knit 
that spinal cord back together, so they are not waiting years and 
letting it further atrophy but immediately there is a therapy.
  The therapy you see right here in Jacki Rabon--I have had her in to 
speak at a press conference. This was a spinal cord injury accident--
paraplegic from the hips down. Now she has feeling in her spinal cord. 
She had to go overseas to get this treatment. It should have been done 
in America. It wasn't. Adult stem cells from the base of the nose--
olfactory--taken, harvested, and put in. She is getting feeling. My 
guess is she is going to need several treatments.
  Now, one of the greatest dismays we have is that a number of people 
are citing a rat model that has been shown on television of embryonic 
stem cells helping a rat to walk again. And that is fine. I am glad 
people are showing it. But a lot more people know about this rat model 
than know about Jacki Rabon. It seems as if there has been a media 
blackout on the adult stem cell successes and treatments and cord 
blood, and this rat has gotten all the publicity, even though we know 
that if you do this in humans, you are going to form tumors. Why? Why 
wouldn't we embrace what is working and has no ethical problem?
  I wish to close this section with a letter from a child. This is the 
first snowflake baby. This was a frozen embryo that was adopted--
Hannah. She wrote this last year. It is her letter. She is a pioneer. 
She says: ``We're kids. I love you.'' X's and O's--hugs and kisses. I 
love these letters. When my youngest daughter Jenna does them, they are 
absolutely precious. Then she draws three faces. This is her face as an 
embryo. She is happy. She got adopted. She is no longer frozen. Here is 
a sad face as an embryo that is still frozen, and her explanation of 
this letter is he is sitting there frozen, hoping somebody adopts him. 
Here is a third face with a straight line, and her explanation is this 
is a young embryo saying: What, you are going to kill me?
  This is a child's explanation of a frozen embryo. A frozen embryo 
that is life, that is human life. If you destroy Hannah at this stage, 
you don't get any sweet letters from Hannah to her parents. And we have 
a lot of frozen embryos.
  We are saying: Well, let's make some utility out of them. Isn't that 
against human dignity, to say, We will just research on this, when this 
could be this child? This is this child? We don't need to do it. Even 
the research we are funding in this area isn't working.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to a lot of debate today, 
and I have heard a lot of statements. Let me just go through a few.
  Cures are not around the corner; that is right. Embryonic stem cell 
groups are now starting to realize they have years upon years upon 
years to offer any hope of cure of any disease using embryonic stem 
cells.
  Yesterday in the debate, I challenged those on the other side of this 
issue to deny the fact that the only way we will ever have a treatment 
will be that you will have to clone yourself to be able to get a 
treatment. Nobody has refuted that, and the reason they can't refute 
that is because that is the only way embryonic stem cells will ever be 
successfully used to treat a human condition. You will have to clone 
yourself.

[[Page 14631]]

That raises all sorts of other ethical conditions.
  The fact that cures are not around the corner with embryonic stem 
cells belies the fact that cures are here with adult stem cells, with 
cord blood stem cells, and it belies the fact that we are not 
recognizing the latest advance just available in the last 6 months, 
confirmed in Germany, of what is called germ cell pluripotent stem 
cells. They can make any type of cell, and it makes sense. What has 
been constant through the history of man that has survived? The ability 
to propagate and to repeat the species. And the unique thing about germ 
cell pluripotent stem cells is they come from both the testes and the 
ovaries of us, and we can capture from ourselves pluripotent stem cells 
that do all the things and have all the potential that an embryonic 
stem cell might have.
  The real question before us is, If there was a way for us to 
establish this research and avoid any ethical questions, wouldn't we 
all want to go there? And what I am putting forward today is that way 
is here today. That way is here. The scientific community, in terms of 
their money-raising and fundraising and grant-seeking, hasn't caught up 
with it. But mark my words: The real research in the pluripotent stem 
cells, those that can do anything and regenerate themselves and also 
have the advantage of not creating teratomas or tumors, are going to be 
the germ cell pluripotent stem cells. It is important for us to look at 
it.
  Another quote: It won't involve cloned embryos. The only way a stem 
cell therapy from an embryonic stem cell can work for you is in one of 
two ways: you either clone yourself, and you will still have some 
problems with rejection, or you will get from multiple, multiple lines 
a close match.
  I wanted to ask the leader yesterday--his biggest problem as a heart-
lung transplant surgeon is the availability of organs, No. 1, and 
rejection, No. 2. The wonderful thing about adult stem cells is there 
is no rejection because you are giving yourself your own cells. The 
same thing will be true of germ cell pluripotent stem cells. There will 
be no rejection because you are giving identical DNA to yourself. All 
the other treatments with embryonic stem cells will have rejection as a 
component of their treatment. So is it a wonder that we want to 
research the miracles of life and look at this? No. It is great 
research that should be going forward.
  But it is not true that there is not embryonic stem cell research 
going on in this country outside of the Government and around the 
world. The question is, Are we going to use taxpayer money to do 
additional research?
  The other question that I raised is, Where is the money up to now 
going? The people who are investing outside of Government grants, where 
is the money going in terms of research? It is not going into embryonic 
stem cell research. It is going into every other type of research where 
they can actually see treatments.
  Senator Hatch talked about heart disease. We now know that if you 
have had an infarct and you get a bypass and you are injected with your 
own stem cells, a good portion of your scar goes away and the 
generation of new blood vessels around the heart is accelerated and 
accentuated to the degree of about 70 percent more than your body would 
naturally do, if you are injected with your own stem cells at the time 
you get your bypass. We are curing heart failure with adult stem cells 
today. We are curing new vessels in the heart.
  There is recent research in the last 6 months where we are treating 
lung disease--pulmonary fibrosis. Charlie Norwood, a Congressman from 
Georgia, has had pulmonary fibrosis and has had a lung transplant. In 5 
years, somebody with pulmonary fibrosis will be cured with their own 
stem cells--not with embryonic stem cells, with their own stem cells--
and they won't have a problem with rejection. Yet Charlie has to take 
drugs to keep from rejecting the lung transplant that he has.
  Over time, we will recognize the value of what is really happening 
today in terms of treatments. We don't want the false promise. There is 
no question some great things will come out of embryonic stem cells. I 
don't deny that. But if we could do it a different way, if we could do 
it in a way where we didn't approach the ethical question, almost 
everybody would agree, let's do that. What I am saying is that is 
coming today.
  Other quotes: Researchers have been prohibited from doing research on 
embryos. That is not true. That is not true. There is research ongoing 
today, with $41 million of your money last year on embryos. We haven't 
prohibited the research. We have said it is going to be limited. This 
bill, H.R. 810, says: There is no limit. Whether you agree with it or 
not, your money is going to be used to go in this direction.
  I have not approached the ethical issues on pro-life--I am pro-life, 
but I am not claiming that as a defense on this issue. I am claiming 
that the smart science will avoid it and look at where the benefits 
are. There is no question.
  I wish to quote from Lord Winston, the most prominent fetal embryonic 
stem cell researcher in England: ``I view the current wave of optimism 
about embryonic stem cells with growing suspicion.''
  He says we have overpromised. He is right. It is going to be decades 
before a response comes from embryonic stem cells. There is not one 
viable treatment with embryonic stem cells in an animal model today, 
let alone a human model. There are hundreds in animal models and there 
are 72 in humans. To me, this is an easy question which doesn't have 
anything to do with ethics. Put the money where the results are. The 
results are here. I will promise you, germ cell pluripotent stem cells 
will be the end-all for our ethical question. It is just a shame that 
the politics isn't up with the science.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority still 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the minority is in control of the next 30 
minutes.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act of 2005, which is a bill that will expand the number of 
stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research 
ensuring that scientists at NIH and laboratories around the country 
have access to new, uncontaminated stem cell lines. America's best 
scientific minds have told us that harnessing the power of these cells 
could one day lead to a cure for a number of diseases that afflict 
families all across our country.
  Nearly every family in America has experienced the tragedy of 
watching a loved one suffer through a deadly or debilitating illness. 
Diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's take a terrible toll on 
families' lives and livelihoods. While we have made great strides in 
biomedical research in recent years, we still do not have all the keys 
to unlock the secrets of disease.
  Today the Senate has the opportunity to reach across partisan lines 
and touch the millions of individuals and families who suffer the 
ravages of diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. We are not 
researchers, but today we can give our best researchers the material 
they need to understand these diseases. We are not doctors, but today 
we can give our best doctors the weapons to fight back for their dying 
patients. And we are not patients--at least not yet--but today we can 
give patients hope for not just relief but a cure.
  The University of Wisconsin at Madison was the first to isolate the 
human

[[Page 14632]]

embryonic stem cells that have the ability to develop into virtually 
any cell type in the human body. They have stated unequivocally that 
they need H.R. 810 in order to continue their groundbreaking work. 
Without H.R. 810, they fear America will fall behind the rest of the 
world in medical and biotechnical research.
  We all understand that this research is not without controversy. I 
respect the concerns that some have about the use of embryonic stem 
cells. We must closely monitor this research to ensure that it is done 
ethically, and our passage today of S. 3504 and S. 2754 demonstrates 
the unanimous bipartisan commitment to do just that.
  We must step carefully, but we also must step forward, and that is 
what H.R. 810 is all about, opening new cell lines so we can move 
forward toward new understanding, new hope, and new cures.
  Last year, the House took that step forward decisively and in a 
bipartisan manner, and so this year it is our turn. It would be 
unconscionable for our Government to turn its back to the discoveries 
that expanding stem cell research promises. Now more than ever it is 
important to grasp this opportunity in an ethical manner by making sure 
that potentially lifesaving research does not slow or stall.
  We may not be in the laboratories where scientists are working around 
the clock to develop new vaccines, treatments, and cures. We may not be 
in the hospitals diagnosing and caring for the sick and the infirm. But 
today the Senate will openly decide to stand with the scientists, 
doctors, and patients. I urge my colleagues to look past the politics 
of this debate and embrace a promise of progress.
  With that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I, too, Mr. President, come to the floor today with tremendous 
respect for the sensitivity of this very critical issue that we in the 
Senate and in the Congress have worked so diligently to ensure--that we 
not only respect the sensitive nature but that we also look toward the 
possibilities of what we can do for the constituents we represent.
  I am very pleased that the Senate is debating stem cell research, and 
particularly H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and I 
thank the majority leader, Senator Frist, for scheduling a vote on this 
very important bill today.
  I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion bill, S. 471, because 
it offers new hope for patients, for grandmothers and grandfathers, 
children, daughters, mothers, fathers, and for their families who love 
them so dearly.
  Four years ago I watched my mother give her utmost of devotion to the 
man she had loved--and still loves--and shared her life with for more 
than 52 years. She had pledged to care for him and to honor his life 
until he departed this world, even if he no longer remembered her name 
or could recognize her face. My sweet father suffered from Alzheimer's 
disease. My sisters and my brother had been by his side helplessly for 
years watching as, first, he lost the most precious of all things, his 
memory, his ability to see his family and to remember the cherished 
moments that we had spent as family, and then, unfortunately, also, the 
dignity of life, in his ability to care for himself. My mother's 
commitment to my father during his long illness remains a tremendous 
source of inspiration to me and to the rest of our family.
  Unfortunately, my family's experience with the ravages of Alzheimer's 
is not unique. Millions of victims and their families are suffering 
from debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, 
diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord 
injuries. Fortunately, we have within our power the potential to 
relieve their suffering and the possibility of cure.
  I believe embryonic stem cell research conducted ethically and under 
Government supervision holds the potential to offer lifesaving 
treatments for many diseases that have frustrated the medical community 
for ages. I also believe that whenever we have the power to heal the 
sick we have the responsibility to do so. It is a commandment as old as 
the Scriptures themselves.
  In 2001, President Bush made the decision to use Federal dollars to 
fund embryonic stem cell research. By allowing embryonic stem cell 
research to move forward, the President signaled that he believed this 
was both a morally acceptable and potentially lifesaving form of 
research. Since the President's decision, we have discovered that in 
order for embryonic stem cell research to reach its fullest potential 
and for science to be accurate, it is essential to expand the number of 
stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. H.R. 
810 will allow Federal funding for research on an expanded number of 
embryonic stem cell lines according to strict ethical requirements. The 
bill would restrict Federal funding to only those stem cells from 
embryos that would otherwise be discarded. In addition, the bill 
requires that any individuals wanting to donate embryos do so with 
written consent and not receive any financial inducement.
  Also, the bill does nothing to change the current law banning the use 
of Federal money to destroy human embryos. H.R. 810 gives us the 
opportunity to expand lifesaving research with proper ethical 
safeguards. Furthermore, it will be a step forward in helping us to 
fulfill our moral obligation to heal the sick. And in the end, that 
obligation is one that we must keep.
  I thank the Chair. I yield my time back to Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 20 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. 
Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague for yielding. I am moved by the 
comments of Senator Lincoln, and I suspect we could go throughout the 
Senate Chamber from desk to desk, from Member to Member, and each of us 
could tell a personal story from our own family as moving as I found 
her description of the life of her father.
  In my own family, my grandfather, a wonderful role model as a butcher 
from West Virginia, had Parkinson's disease. He got up every morning 
and drove through the mountain roads to the butcher shop to cut meat. 
Every day I would watch him leave the House, his hands shaking, fingers 
shaking, wondering if he was going to chop one off, and he never did in 
all the years that he ran that butcher shop.
  I think of the time, looking at Senator Harkin and myself and some 
others in the Chamber who served in the House, we served with Mo Udall. 
I remember riding back and forth on the subway between the House 
buildings, the Rayburn Building, riding over to the Senate Chamber with 
Mo Udall and watching his body slowly deteriorate. I think of Ford 
King, my brother in law, now deceased, who was controlled by ALS over a 
decade or so ago and watching his life slowly fade away as ALS took its 
toll on him. I think of Alzheimer's and my own mom who passed away last 
year, her mom who was a victim of Alzheimer's, and the millions of 
others who die from that disease in our country.
  I think of my own healthy sons, thank God, 16 and 18 years of age, 
and I think of their friends having to prick their bodies or their 
fingers several times a day, as much as 10 times a day, to take insulin 
shots and know that is the way they are going to have to live for the 
rest of their life.
  Today is a day of tremendous opportunity. It is an opportunity to 
push for the kind of medical research that will make a difference in 
the lives of the people--not the people I just mentioned, 
unfortunately, for the most

[[Page 14633]]

part, but in the lives of their children and their grandchildren. It is 
an opportunity to help find treatment for diseases such as the ones I 
mentioned, Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes and autoimmune 
disorders and heart disease and even, if we are lucky, cancer.
  We know that stem cells hold great promise. Already stem cells have 
been used to help paralyzed rats regain the ability to move. Stem cells 
have been converted into motor neurons which could help treat spinal 
cord injuries or Lou Gehrig's disease--ALS.
  Stem cells have also been coaxed into becoming brain cells to one day 
help patients with Parkinson's disease, such as my own grandfather, 
such as our old colleague, Mo Udall.
  Today, though, is about more than just curing diseases. It is also 
about keeping America's research centers competitive and relevant. Stem 
cell research is likely to be an important area of science and medicine 
for a long time to come. Instead of treading water, as we have done 
under President Bush's stem cell policy, America should be leading the 
way and making other countries play catchup, instead of us playing 
catchup to them.
  We have done this in the past. The United States has always been a 
valuable contributor to the prevention and treatment of illness. We 
have developed vaccines and antibiotics that have saved literally 
millions of lives. We have made tremendous advances in the areas of 
biotechnology and pharmaceutical research.
  Now we have an opportunity to make a national commitment to expand 
the frontiers of medical research once again.
  If we focus our resources and attention today to find cures, we will 
save lives, and we will save money in the long run.
  H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which is before us 
today, was introduced in the House of Representatives by my own 
Congressman, Mike Castle. Here in the Senate, it has been shepherded by 
two of our finest colleagues, Senator Specter and Tom Harkin of Iowa. 
This bill would greatly expand our ability to take the next steps in 
stem cell research by expanding the number of stem lines eligible for 
Federal funding. It would also strengthen the ethical rules that govern 
stem cell research.
  Under the administration's current policy, the number of stem cell 
lines available for federally funded research has continued to shrink. 
There are now, I am told, only 22 lines available. What is more, many 
of those current lines are contaminated or have reached the end of 
their useful life.
  The Castle bill would allow new lines to be derived from excess in 
vitro fertilization embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. The 
choice seems clear, at least to me and I know to a lot of people in my 
State. Rather than allow these embryos to be discarded and thrown away, 
with the consent of the couple who want to donate those embryos, with 
their permission, we can use those embryos to further lifesaving 
research.
  These new stem cell lines will dramatically expand our ability to 
study and find treatments for a wide range of illnesses. The benefits 
will come not only from having more stem cell lines but from having 
better lines. By expanding our research policy, we can create stem cell 
lines that help us study specific diseases or create specific 
treatments.
  I urge all our colleagues to support H.R. 810. I know there are a 
couple on the brink, who are undecided. They know who they are. I 
encourage them to listen to the folks from their own States and their 
own families whose lives could have been enhanced, been lengthened--or 
in the future will be. Let's vote today to expand stem cell research so 
we, our children, our grandchildren, and a whole lot of people beyond 
them can benefit in the future.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the Senator 
from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his long leadership on this and other 
issues of importance to research and to people with disabilities.
  For each of us, and for millions of Americans, this is a very 
personal issue. It is impossible to separate it from our own 
experiences. I have heard colleagues on the floor talking about 
grandparents and other members of their family and the experiences they 
have had. I will never forget, personally, almost 2 years ago standing 
in an amphitheater in Denver, talking to many people--many of them in 
wheelchairs, many who had lost loved ones to disease, many who knew a 
cure would never come in time for them--who held out hope, 
nevertheless, that stem cell research might save a loved one, might 
save someone else in similar circumstances.
  What they wanted, above all, was leadership. They wanted someone back 
in Washington to fight for them. I promised them that I would do all 
that I could, and I will never forget the look of yearning and hope in 
their eyes, the pleading, if you will, that people would come to a 
place of common sense. They placed enormous hope in all of us in the 
Congress.
  When I think about them and I think about people all over the country 
who are so personally invested in this issue, I am deeply troubled to 
see that today we find ourselves in a place of division, where we could 
have been united. We are divided principally by the promise of 
President Bush to veto a bipartisan bill that funds stem cell research.
  In more than 5 years, President Bush has not vetoed a single bill--
not one. He signed 1,129 bills into law, without raising his pen to 
veto one--not a bill that overspent, not a bill that moved in any other 
direction that he disagreed with. Now he wants to use the first veto of 
his Presidency to stomp on the hopes of millions of Americans suffering 
from devastating illnesses.
  A veto now would send a profound message to all Americans that, on 
crucial issues, our differences are greater than our shared 
convictions. It would also tell the world that America no longer wants 
to be the country that leads the world in scientific knowledge and 
discovery.
  The bipartisan legislation before Congress shows that Congress has 
found a way to take the politics out of the debate on stem cell 
research. It is time that the White House does the same.
  Our current policy is eroding America's national advantage on stem 
cell research. We are tying our scientists' hands. We are holding back 
our doctors. We need a policy that is not driven by a narrow view but, 
rather a broader, consensus-driven approach to life and to science 
itself. We need a Federal policy that builds on the advances being made 
in our States, in our universities, in our private foundations, and 
research centers. I believe that Senate passage of H.R. 810, with 
vetoproof majorities, can put us on that path.
  What a tragedy it would be if the first veto of the Bush Presidency 
were used as a political wedge. This is something that Washington and 
the rest of America overwhelmingly supports, regardless of political 
party. It is a promise that offers hope to millions and could put 
America on the path to leading the world in the discovery of cures. 
This is not a wedge issue. This is about common sense and about 
people's lives.
  For all of us, the issue of stem cell research is personal, as I 
mentioned. Yes, it does raise profound moral questions and nobody 
should skip by those questions. I am not seeking to. But I do believe 
that any legitimate examination of conscience and any legitimate 
examination of the moral questions about life that are at stake can be 
resolved in a way that respects life and that properly puts morality on 
the side of the decision we are making.
  When it comes to stem cell research--and all scientific research--we 
ought to demand no less than that kind of effort. I acknowledge, yes, 
there are those moral and ethical issues. But I believe the legislation 
that was passed by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support 
does provide strong ethical guidelines, strong ethical safeguards, and 
it limits what this research

[[Page 14634]]

would do in a way that does respect those moral questions that are at 
issue.
  First of all, federally funded research with respect to embryos would 
only go to, or be limited to, those that are donated by in vitro 
fertilization clinics, so you don't create some new business or create 
some disrespectful effort that is outside the effort of reproduction 
and of life itself.
  Second, they would only be permissible when created specifically for 
fertility treatment--which is going to occur anyway, which does occur 
anyway--and which is in keeping with our efforts to respect life.
  In addition, we live in a situation today where those embryos that 
are created in the context of in vitro fertilization are either going 
to be used for the purpose of creating life or those numbers that are 
in excess are going to be discarded. That is the fact. That is what is 
going to happen. So this legislation limits the use of those embryos 
only that are donated by treatment-seeking individuals who provided 
written and informed consent and who were not offered financial 
inducements in order to do so.
  As the Los Angeles Times editorialized 2 years ago:

       The moral decision is between putting those few so-called 
     embryos in the trash or using them to possibly bring back 
     lost memory, keep people out of wheelchairs or free them from 
     the life of insulin injections. It is not a simple decision, 
     but it is also not a close call.

  Growing numbers of conservatives, from John McCain, Bill Frist, and 
Orrin Hatch to Nancy Reagan, have looked carefully at the scientific 
facts and searched their own consciences and arrived at the same 
conclusion: Opposing stem cell research, with the restrictions and the 
appropriate ethical guidelines that have been put in place, is the 
opposite of a pro-life policy. In the Senate and across the country, 
Americans are approaching an ethical consensus that bans human cloning 
while protecting stem cell research.
  The stakes could not be higher. More than 100 million Americans 
suffer from illnesses that one day might be cured with stem cell 
therapy. Stem cells could replace damaged heart cells or cells 
destroyed by cancer. They could offer a new lease on life to those with 
a diagnosis that once came as a death sentence. Research has the 
potential to slow the loss of a grandmother's memory, calm the hand of 
an uncle with Parkinson's, save a child from a lifetime of daily 
insulin shots or permanently lift a best friend or a colleague from a 
wheelchair.
  There is a young woman on the floor of the Senate who shares this 
hope. Her name is Beth Kolbe. She is a summer intern in my office, and 
she has followed the stem cell research debate very closely over the 
years and especially this week. Beth has spent the last 2 days watching 
the debate on the Senate floor, and her presence now is a silent, 
powerful reminder of what is at stake.
  At the age of 14, Beth was in a car accident and suffered a terrible 
spinal cord injury. In that instant, she was paralyzed from the chest 
down. After two neck surgeries, 2 weeks in intensive care, 2 months as 
an inpatient in a rehab hospital and 2 years as an outpatient in 
physical therapy, she is now living a very full life. She just told me 
that she is in the Paralympics as a swimmer, and she lives her life and 
loves her life as a junior at Harvard, studying biology and health 
care, navigating the campus in her wheelchair. But she told me also 
that it would be a lie to say that there are not challenges that she 
would like to have overcome.
  She wants more, not just for her but for others. Here is what she 
said:

       Since that day 6 years ago, my family and I have been 
     following stem cell research because it can help so many 
     people. I'm just one of the millions who can be helped. As a 
     person in the disability community, I've met so many people 
     whose main goal is just to get better, and stem cell research 
     is their one opportunity to find a cure. I hope to be a face 
     that the Senators can see, so that they can see what they are 
     voting for.

  Beth is here because she wants to see the Senate vote for hope. Some 
of the most pioneering treatments and miraculous cures could be at our 
fingertips, right around the next corner, but because of politics they 
could remain beyond reach. Every day we wait, more than 3,000 Americans 
die from diseases that might someday be treatable because of the 
discoveries made through stem cell research.
  Americans have been presented with a false choice between the 
sanctity of human life and the scientific knowledge that can save it.
  The President's veto rests on the false assumption that we have to 
choose between our dreams and our principles. I believe we can have 
both and we can protect both.
  We can support our scientists, help the sick, and ensure that our 
legal and ethical boundaries continue to reflect our unshakable sense 
of human dignity and the value of human life.
  If we get votes from 72 out of 100 Senators--then we can send the 
President a vetoproof message. Stop tying our scientists' hands, put 
down your veto pen, stop being part of the problem and become a part of 
the solution.
  The American people believe in stem cell research for many of the 
same reasons as a remarkable woman I met at a town hall meeting on stem 
cell research.
  She stood up in the back of the room. I will never forget it. Her 
body was shaking. She was petrified, but her body was also shaking 
because of the disease she had. She pleaded, with tears, for her 
government to embrace stem cell research.
  It was the moral clarity of her message that will stay with me 
forever. Many Americans know a woman like her--maybe it's a grandparent 
with Alzheimer's or a friend in a wheelchair. ``It's too late for me,'' 
she said, ``but we need to do this for those who still have hope.''
  It's too late for my and Tom Harkin's friend, Christopher Reeve, who 
passed away in 2004. But it's not too late for this President to change 
his mind before tying the hands of doctors, scientists, and ethicists 
with a preemptive veto. Chris would agree that it's not too late to 
give millions of Americans what they want most of all, which is hope.
  And in closing, I want to share one more story. It's from Lauren 
Stanford of Plymouth, MA. She is 14 years old and has suffered from 
juvenile diabetes for 9 years. She and her mother, Moira McCarthy, came 
down to Washington, DC each year as citizen lobbyists in support of 
stem cell research and finding a cure for diabetes.
  I want to read you a few passages from an essay she wrote as follows:

       For as long as I can remember, I've had to take a lot of 
     leaps of faith. I've had to believe my parents when they told 
     me taking four or five shots a day and pricking my finger 
     eight or more times a day was just ``a new kind of normal.''
       I've had to smile at the world and say I really don't mind 
     wearing the insulin pump that's now connected to my body 24 
     hours a day, seven days a week.
       Yes, in my nine years of life with Type 1 diabetes, I've 
     learned to accept a lot of it is and the way it things as 
     ``just the way it is and the way it has to be.''
       But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's 
     decision on Stem Cell research in the summer of 2001--and his 
     vows now to veto the bill--I just could not accept it.
       You see the one thing that has helped me accept all I've 
     had to accept these years is the presence of hope.
       When I feel like I might just scream if I have to live 
     another day fighting this endless disease, I think about all 
     the researchers out there working to help me be cured. Now, 
     it might seem corny to think of a teenage girl dreaming about 
     researchers in labs, but that's what kids who have incurable 
     diseases do.
       Stem cell research could mean I can go to college without a 
     machine attached to my belly keeping me alive. It could mean 
     I can have children just like anyone else; not with teams of 
     doctors working with me daily just to make it happen. . . . 
     It might mean my children won't even know what diabetes was.
       President Bush talks about protecting the innocent. I 
     wonder, what about me? I am truly innocent in this situation. 
     I did nothing to bring my diabetes on. . . . How, I ask 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?

  Her hopes are here today, and I hope the Senate will do the right 
thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority is 
recognized for 15 minutes.

[[Page 14635]]


  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, 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 Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this 
issue, as well as Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Kennedy. The work the 
six of us have done since the House considered embryonic stem cell 
research last May has helped keep the issue alive in the Senate.
  I also would also like to recognize Senator Frist, who helped 
negotiate the package of bills before us. His willingness to take up 
this important, yet divisive issue is very much appreciated.
  While all three bills are important to the advancement of ethical 
stem cell research, there is one that stands apart from the others. 
That is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act Simply, this 
bill would allow federal dollars to support research on stem cells 
derived from human embryos.
  The tension surrounding this issue, I believe, pits the benefits that 
all can see and the potential that may be derived against the ethical 
uncertainties or the religious convictions our colleagues have. I think 
it is very important to respect both perspectives--and I certainly do. 
But I believe their reservations are misplaced when a full 
understanding is made of this very important area of research.
  I think it is also important to point out as a show of respect for 
the differences of opinion that everyone in the Senate supports the 
bill's intent of furthering medical research--research that could 
possibly lead to a cure for a number of chronic diseases and 
debilitating health conditions.
  The promise of embryonic stem cell research is very real. But I think 
we must emphasis and admit it is but a promise. It has yet to be fully 
realized because of the current restrictions which we have placed on 
it. While I appreciate the President allowing research to move forward 
on existing stem cell lines, over time these lines have become degraded 
and we are in desperate need of new, uncontaminated lines.
  Stem cell science has the potential to cure dreadful illnesses such 
as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many 
cancers. But we can't expect scientists to make progress in developing 
treatments if we limit them to yesterday's science.
  I believe the Federal Government has a vital but a moral role to play 
in the development of stem cell science to ensure that the appropriate 
ethical guidelines are followed. To leave this to the private sector, 
with insufficient funding and no moral boundaries--we don't know where 
we will windup. But I do know the Federal Government can guide it in 
the right direction. I believe we will run into very serious problems 
if we do not as a Federal Government show up to work on this issue.
  The real issue that is troubling to so many of us in this Chamber is 
questions of morality. I am pro life and throughout my political career 
I have supported policies that respect the sanctity of all human 
beings. I realize that many pro-life advocates oppose embryonic stem 
cell research on the ground that it destroys a human life. But as I 
have consulted with scientists and reflected upon my own conscience, I 
have come to a different conclusion. I feel that embryonic stem cell 
research is a pro-life policy. The key question that looms over this 
debate is, When does life begin? For me it begins with mother, with the 
implantation of an embryo. I believe the Scriptures provide ample 
support showing that flesh and spirit become one with the mother. This 
is one of womankind's supernal gifts. I find these verses in the Old 
and the New Testaments--in Jeremiah, the Psalmist, Job, Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, John, and in the letters of Paul. All of these things lead me to 
feel comfortable with an ethical conclusion that life begins when flesh 
and spirit are united and not before.
  The embryos created as part of the in vitro fertilization process 
were intended to provide infertile couples the gift of life. Those 
embryos that go unused in fertility treatments should still have the 
opportunity to give the gift of life either by later implantation or to 
those living with debilitating diseases through this dramatic medical 
research.
  Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF embryo is a group 
of cells growing in a petri dish. But if those cells are left there for 
thousands of years, they have no possibility of developing into 
anything. They remain a group of cells, the dust of the Earth, one of 
the building blocks leading to life. It is the act of implantation 
within the mother that gives them life. So instead of storing or 
discarding unused embryos, we have the opportunity to allow them to be 
used to derive stem cell lines to advance much needed medical research.
  I believe it would be a tremendous loss to science and to all 
humanity if we choose to hold back the key to unlocking the mysteries 
that have long puzzled scientists and physicians. That is why it is so 
important that my colleagues cast a vote in favor of H.R. 810, a very 
pro-life vote.
  Some of the bill's opponents may claim that you can equally support 
stem cell research by voting for Senator Santorum's bill which 
authorizes a number of research alternatives. I support Senator 
Santorum's bill and plan to vote for it today, but it is by no means a 
substitute for H.R. 810.
  Alternative forms of stem cell research are in their very early 
stages--just like embryonic stem cell research. Considering the 
enormous medical benefits that may come from these emerging fields of 
science, we cannot afford to promote some methods while restricting 
others.
  After years of reflecting on this issue, it has become increasingly 
clear to me that being pro life requires protecting both the sanctity 
and the quality of 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 of some of mankind's most dreadful medical maladies.
  If only one life-improving application of stem cell science comes 
from this vote--from my vote--then I believe I have done my job and 
done it correctly, for on this issue I choose to err on the side of 
hope, healing, and health.
  I encourage all of my colleagues--even those who have some ethical 
reservations or religious feelings on this issue--to do the same.
  I heard on the radio last night a radio commentator describing 
embryonic stem cell research as a conflict between science and 
religion. I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict on 
this issue. I believe one of the great gifts of the United States--the 
best example of the United States to the world--is our pluralism, 
religious pluralism. It is something we see an absence of, tragically, 
in too many places of the world. You see blood running in the gutters 
of the Middle East as we speak because of sectarian views which are 
held to the point of murdering those with divergent views. Therefore, I 
do not believe we serve the public well by taking the narrowest 
theological position and trying to impose it on public policy. We 
should be open enough to include other considerations of ethical ideas, 
scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope.
  For me, as I consider issues of life and death, I often turn to the 
Good Book to try to discern wisdom that I do not have myself. What I 
find in the earliest pages of the Torah--or the Old Testament--is this 
statement. And I quote:

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

  I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. But as I use my 
agency to interpret this early description of the sanctity of mankind's 
life, what I read is that we are made of dust. We ourselves are dust. 
Unto dust we will return.
  Then you come to the conjunction in this verse, the conjunction 
``and.'' ``And breathed with his nostrils the breath of life.'' Then 
you come to another conjunction, ``and man became a living soul.''
  I believe that pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks 
of life.

[[Page 14636]]

Clearly they are. Even if you leave them in a petri dish for an 
eternity, they will remain cells, the dust of the Earth. I believe we 
are missing the understanding of the importance of the spirit, the 
breath of life--the spirit of mankind--as the essential ingredient as 
to when life begins.
  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.
  I urge President Bush not to veto H.R. 810. I believe it offers hope. 
It offers promise. We can't overpromise. But it opens the key to the 
future, to unlocking mysteries of science, to improve the quality of 
life now. What could be more pro life than that?
  Finally, my position is formed by my family history. 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, to find the cure if a cure can be found. 
We will all die but no one should have to die as they died.
  I appeal to my friend President Bush in the memory of my Udall 
ancestry, please, do not veto this bill. Do not deny them, people such 
as the Udalls, the hope that can come from this research. I believe 
this is an important debate. If this bill is vetoed, another election 
will occur, another chapter of American democracy will be opened, and 
ultimately the will of the American people will be reflected in our 
policy. I believe the sooner, the better. So, to my pro-life friend, 
President Bush, I urge in the name of life to let this bill become law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority still 
controls 1 minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH. I yield back the remainder of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the minority is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will soon yield 7 minutes each to Senators Feingold and 
Schumer, in that order.
  First, I had a meeting I was supposed to go to at noon. I am sorry I 
missed the meeting; people are waiting for me. I am not sorry that I 
was here to hear the profound statement made by my friend Senator 
Smith. It was one of the more touching, more profound, and more 
insightful statements made during these 2 days of debate. I thank the 
Senator for that.
  I yield 7 minutes to Senator Feingold, and at the end of 7 minutes, 
to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we debate this important legislation 
regarding stem cell research, we are reminded of the millions of 
patients and families across America who await treatment and cures for 
our most deadly and tragic diseases. As of Friday afternoon, over 
92,000 Americans were on waiting lists for organ transplant. Seventeen 
of these people will die every day waiting for a vital organ. 
Scientists believe that over half of Americans over 85 may suffer from 
Alzheimer's disease, and at least half a million Americans currently 
have Parkinson's disease. As we all know, these kinds of serious 
diagnoses affect not only the patient, but that patient's family, 
friends, and community. Illness is a burden we all share.
  Fortunately, over the past century, science has turned many of our 
worst medical fears into manageable chronic conditions, sometimes into 
mere nuisances, and, in some instances, has erased them entirely.
  Today we stand at the threshold of a new era of scientific 
achievement. Stem cell research has vast potential for curing diseases 
and saving lives. We must recognize the enormous potential of this 
research for discovering new cures and therapies for disease such as 
diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of 
patients and their families across the Nation cannot afford to wait any 
longer for enactment of this urgently needed legislation.
  I am a strong supporter and proud cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. I have heard from many of my constituents in Wisconsin 
in support of this legislation, and I am glad that the Senate is 
addressing this today and responding to the requests of millions across 
the country. As the Senator from Oregon eloquently said a few minutes 
ago, for many people this is a deeply personal issue. When an 
individual or loved one suffers from an incurable disease or medical 
condition, it can be devastating. Everyone knows someone who has 
suffered from diabetes, Alzheimer's Parkinson's, or another 
debilitating disease, and we all know the physical and emotional pain 
inflicted as a result. It is vitally important that we move this 
legislation into law as expeditiously as possible and provide the 
resources that scientists need to develop treatments and cures for 
these diseases.
  Researchers can unlock enormous potential in stem cell research if 
Congress will only give them the key. At the University of Wisconsin in 
1998, Dr. James Thomson became the first scientist to break into this 
new frontier by isolating human embryonic stem cells. Since then, 
researchers at the university have been able to coax embryonic stem 
cells to develop into mature blood cells, which could provide 
treatments and cures for people with a range of currently incurable 
diseases. By further examining the potential of stem cells, scientists 
at the University of Wisconsin have also successfully developed neural 
cells, and they have even transferred these cells successfully into 
mice, where the cells continued to thrive. The possibilities here are 
clear: If technology such as this is able to expand, those with 
neurological disorders and bleak prognoses may now have hope.
  Despite its incredible promise, this research has unfortunately been 
limited by the President since 2001. It is time for Congress to take 
the necessary action to provide more stem cell lines to scientists so 
that this research can go forward, without the Federal Government 
standing in the way.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federally funded 
research to be conducted on stem cell lines derived from excess embryos 
created for in vitro fertilization, IVF, that are no longer needed and 
are donated by couples for research. It is estimated that there are 
more than 400,000 embryos that were created for fertility treatments 
and are likely to be destroyed.
  There is much work that needs to be done to further understand the 
role that embryonic stem cells can play in providing answers to some of 
the most troubling medical diseases and conditions that affect so many 
Americans. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will help our 
Nation's researchers get closer to unlocking what this research holds 
by increasing the quantity and quality of stem cell lines available for 
research.
  Embryonic stem cell research is very important to me and to 
Wisconsin. I am proud that the University of Wisconsin has played a 
prominent role in stem cell research in this country. I know that my 
constituents, and Americans across the country, are eagerly awaiting 
the benefits that this research will provide.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this incredibly 
important science which would expand our research horizons and bring 
hope to so many people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Any one of us who has met people 
who have petitioned us for this act has to be moved. I have looked into 
the eyes of a mother who brought her beautiful 4-year-old daughter to 
my office and

[[Page 14637]]

said, Senator, please allow this research to go forward because I am 
worried my daughter will be blind at the age of 20 without it.
  I have met families whose patriarch is suffering from ALS, Lou 
Gehrig's disease. Again, they have pleaded with us, allow the research 
to go forward so maybe that person or his children, who might get the 
disease, will be able to be cured.
  I have met with so many people my age whose parents are suffering 
from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Again, they plead with us, allow stem 
cell research to move forward so that maybe my parent or other parents 
such as mine could be cured.
  Americans struggle with diseases every day. The confounding and 
amazing thing is, when scientists are on the edge of a breakthrough, 
the President stops them. Scientists are on the cusp of making 
incredible progress through stem cell research, a process that has the 
potential to cure diseases as widespread as diabetes and heart disease, 
but progress came to a grinding halt in 2001 when President Bush 
limited federally funded stem cell research to only 19 sources. With 
that Executive Order, President Bush shut the door on hope for millions 
of American families. With that one action, the President not only 
stopped current research in its tracks, he sent a message to future 
scientists that they should not pursue this line of work. As they see a 
limited funding stream for the work they do, fewer and fewer graduates 
are specializing in this kind of work. We need the best minds there.
  Substantively, there is no doubt this is the right thing to do. But I 
put it in a broader context. There is a group of people in America of 
deep faith. I respect that faith. I have been in enough inner-city 
Black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses 
of worship, and small Jewish synagogues, to understand that faith is a 
gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they 
want that faith to dictate what our Government does. That, in a word, 
is un-American. It is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers put down 
their plows and took up muskets to fight.
  If you do not like stem cell research, don't use it for yourself or 
your family, but don't tell millions of Americans who may not share 
your faith that they cannot use it, as well.
  We have seen this repeatedly with Schiavo, or the required teaching 
of creationism in the schools, and now with stem cell research. 
Unfortunately, the President and too many in this Chamber and too many 
in the other Chamber have gone along and said that faith, wonderful and 
noble as it is, should determine what our Government does.
  This administration is not pursuing what most Americans want, but 
following the dictates of the narrow few. Fortunately, we live in a 
democracy. In a democracy these issues are debated.
  I assure everyone in this Chamber, this issue will be debated and 
debated strongly in November. Those who have stood in the way of 
scientific progress and research, those who have told that wonderful 
mother that her child cannot get the research she needs so she might 
not be blind, will be held accountable. This will be one of the largest 
issues that will face us in November, and it should. That is what 
democracy is all about. All of those, including the President, who have 
tried to hide their actions with false promises or bills that 
accomplish nothing, will be held accountable.
  Thank God we have a democracy. Thank God that a narrow band of 
people, few in number, deep in conviction, cannot dictate what our 
Government does. The fact that H.R. 810 has come to the Senate, the 
fact that it will get a large majority of votes here as it did in the 
House, and the fact that the President and some of his allies in this 
Chamber and others have stood in the way of saving lives and of 
scientific progress because they believe their faith should dictate 
what the rest of us do--again, they will be held accountable for that.
  I hope this measure passes. It would be a miracle, a miracle that 
could save lives if it got a veto-proof majority in this Senate. I 
doubt that will happen. But one can always hope, because the hopes, the 
futures, of millions of Americans, born and unborn, rest on us pursuing 
this research, doing what science tells us it needs to do to enhance 
and preserve life, and not be blocked by a small group that wishes to 
impose its views on everyone else.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________