[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8554-8614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

   HOPE OFFERED THROUGH PRINCIPLED AND ETHICAL STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration en bloc of S. 5 and S. 30, which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 5) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

[[Page 8555]]

       A bill (S. 30) to intensify research to derive human 
     pluripotent stem cell lines.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I noted as the clerk reported the bill, S. 
5, she reported it as an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, 
and that is what this debate is all about and that is what this vote is 
going to be about. It is going to be about public health of people in 
this country and around the world and whether they are going to have 
hope that they will see a future in which modern medical science can 
actually overcome and cure things such as Parkinson's disease, 
Alzheimer's, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, and a host of other 
illnesses. That is what this debate is about. It is about hope. It is 
about health. So today begins 20 hours of Senate debate on a bill to 
lift the administration's restrictions on stem cell research and bring 
hope to millions of people in this country who are suffering from 
illnesses such as ALS, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord 
injuries, and so many other devastating diseases and conditions.
  Most Americans probably find it hard to believe we are still arguing 
about this issue. They want more stem cell research. They have listened 
to the scientists. They have watched the House and Senate vote 
overwhelmingly during the last Congress to expand the administration's 
policy. Then they went to the polls in November and more often than not 
elected candidates who support stem cell research. So why are we still 
debating this? The answer, unfortunately, is simple: President Bush 
used his first--and so far only--veto of his administration to reject 
last year's stem cell bill and dash the hopes of millions of Americans. 
So we are back once again.
  I thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked together on this 
issue, starting, of course, with my colleague Senator Arlen Specter of 
Pennsylvania. He chaired the very first hearing in Congress on 
embryonic stem cells in December of 1998. In all, our Labor, Health, 
and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee has held 
20 hearings on this research since then under the chairmanship of 
Senator Specter. I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell 
research, including Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Smith, and 
Senator Feinstein. So counting Senator Specter and me, there are three 
Republicans and three Democrats on that list, and this has truly been a 
bipartisan effort all the way. I thank our majority leader Senator Reid 
for scheduling this debate and making sure it is one of the first 
issues we vote on in the 110th Congress. I also thank our Republican 
leader Senator McConnell for working with us to schedule this debate 
and this vote tomorrow.
  Most of all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of families and 
patients who never gave up, who kept up the pressure to bring this bill 
to the floor and who were so eager to see S. 5 sent to the President's 
desk. They have kept the faith and now it is our job to see that they 
are not disappointed.
  There is probably one other entity I should thank and that is the 
House of Representatives, under the able leadership of Speaker Pelosi, 
which passed this bill earlier this year and sent it over to the 
Senate. I will talk a little bit later about how our bill differs from 
theirs, but nonetheless, the bill they passed is a bill that mirrors 
the same thing we are doing here, and that is to lift the restrictions 
on embryonic stem cell research.
  Under this unanimous consent agreement we have, for information, we 
will debate and vote on two bills. Make no mistake, however: The only 
one that matters is S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The 
other bill is S. 30. This is the one bill that at long last will 
unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern 
times. Think of it this way: S. 5, the bill we will be debating and 
voting on, will take the handcuffs off of our scientists. It will take 
the handcuffs off so they can now begin to do the research that will 
lead to miraculous cures and interventions.
  It is a good time to step back and ask: Why is there so much support 
for S. 5? Well, I have a letter signed by 525 groups endorsing this 
bill, including patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research 
universities, scientific societies, religious groups. There are 525 
groups in all. They all agree Congress should pass S. 5. Why is that? 
Because it offers hope. I have a series of charts here which I will 
point to. S. 5 offers hope. I think this chart illustrates many--not 
all but many--of the ailments which scientists tell us embryonic stem 
cells could lead to interventions and cures for, including Lou Gehrig's 
disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy, anemias, 
severe burns, leukemia, lymphoma, bone marrow disorders, diabetes, 
immune deficiencies, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries. That is 
just to name a few. There are many more, but my colleagues get the idea 
of how all encompassing the approach would be if we were to get into 
embryonic stem cell research. It is not just focused on one thing; it 
is broader than that. It encompasses so many illnesses and afflictions. 
All told, more than 100 million Americans have diseases that one day 
could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research.
  But it is not just Members of Congress saying that. No one should 
take our word alone. Three weeks ago Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the 
Director of the National Institutes of Health, appeared before our 
Appropriations subcommittee. I asked him whether scientists would have 
a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the 
administration's current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research 
were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said unequivocally: Yes. Now, Dr. Zerhouni is 
the Federal Government's top scientist in the area of medical research. 
President Bush appointed him to be the Director of the National 
Institutes of Health. So it took great courage on his part to say in 
public we need to change direction on stem cell research, but he did so 
because it is the truth.
  This is his quote. This is what the Director of the National 
Institutes of Health said before the subcommittee:

       It is clear today that American science would be better 
     served and the Nation would be better served if we let our 
     scientists have access to more cell lines.

  It is not only NIH scientists who believe this way. Dr. J. Michael 
Bishop, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine, wrote recently:

       The vast majority of the biomedical research community 
     believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the 
     source of key discoveries related to many debilitating 
     diseases.

  Dr. Harold Varmus, the former Director of the National Institutes of 
Health, who just preceded Dr. Zerhouni and who himself is a Nobel Prize 
winner, wrote in a letter dated yesterday:

       S. 5 represents an important step forward for human 
     embryonic stem cell research, a new field that offers great 
     promise for the replacement of damaged cells, the 
     understanding of the mechanics of disease, and the 
     development and testing of new drugs. Unfortunately, current 
     Federal policy has not kept pace with the speed of scientific 
     discovery and is today of limited value to the scientific 
     community.

  I could go on and on. We have a lot of scientists all over this 
country and the world who agree we should be pursuing embryonic stem 
cell research because it offers enormous hope for easing human 
suffering. Some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already 
supports embryonic stem cell research. Well, here we have an 
interesting situation in terms of Federal funding for embryonic stem 
cell research.
  I have to take my colleagues back in time to August 9 of 2001. In an 
evening address starting at 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, the President, 
in an address to the Nation, said we were going to permit Federal 
funding for embryonic stem cells only if they were derived prior to 9 
p.m. on August 9 of 2001. Any that were derived after that we could not 
fund research on. Well, at this time it was said there were 78 lines, 
78 stem cell lines we could use. We know that is less than 21 now and 
many of these are in bad shape, and every single one of them 
contaminated on mouse feeder cells, which I will talk about in a 
moment. I always thought it was kind of interesting and very curious 
that we had this hypocrisy--I call it stem cell hypocrisy--that before 
9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, it is morally acceptable

[[Page 8556]]

to use taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. So if 
the stem cells were derived before 9 p.m., it is morally acceptable, 
but if they were derived after 9 p.m. on August 9, it is morally 
unacceptable. Well, I ask, what is so significant about 9 p.m. on 
August 9? Why couldn't it have been 8:30 p.m., 9:15 p.m., midnight, or 
10 p.m? Well, I think my colleagues get the point. It is totally 
arbitrary--totally arbitrary. We have to ask ourselves: Why is it that 
Federal tax dollars can be used on embryonic stem cells derived before 
9 p.m.--that is OK--but after 9 p.m., it is not OK? Please, someone 
tell me why 9 p.m., August 9 is the moral dividing line. It is totally 
arbitrary.
  Even with that, we had hoped the President's policy would work, but 
it hasn't. Here is why. As I said earlier, on that date, the President 
said there were 78 stem cell lines available. We now know only 21 are 
eligible. It is not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity 
scientists need to develop treatments for everyone in the country. What 
is more, every single one--every single one of these approved lines--is 
contaminated by mouse feeder cells. What that means is when you take 
the stem cells and you propagate them, you get them to grow, you do 
them in a medium. You grow them in a medium. They were grown on mouse 
cells, mouse feeder cells, so they are all contaminated. Ask yourself: 
Would you want to take the possibility that somehow mouse cells are 
getting into your body because of stem cells? No. Many of the 21 lines 
are too unhealthy. They have degenerated. They are unhealthy. As a 
matter of fact, I have been told we are down to about right now only 
four.
  Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the Director of the NIH Heart, Lung and Blood 
Institute, said only 4 of the 21 federally approved lines are in common 
use by NIH-funded scientists. Only four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, another NIH 
Director, was a little more generous. He said there are six lines in 
common use. Well, four or six, you get the picture. It is not 78, it is 
only 4 or 6. Again, they are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. So 
some stem cell research is taking place, but our top scientists are 
working with one arm tied behind their backs because of these 
restrictions. It is having a chilling impact on the scientists who are 
thinking about entering the field.
  According to Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the NIH Drug Abuse 
Institute, the administration's policy is discouraging scientists from 
applying for NIH funding to conduct stem cell research. In a letter to 
me last year, she wrote:

       Despite general interest and enthusiasm in the scientific 
     community for embryonic stem cell research, the limited 
     number of available lines has translated into a general lack 
     of research proposals.

  So the President's policy, which we have had in effect since August 
9, 2001, is not a way forward; it is an absolute dead end for research. 
It only offers false hope to the millions of people across America and 
the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or 
treated through embryonic stem cell research. Meanwhile, hundreds of 
new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary 
time of August 9, 2001. The NIH estimates there are about 400 different 
stem cell lines worldwide. Many of those lines are uncontaminated and 
healthy, but they are totally off limits to federally funded 
scientists.
  Scientists in many other countries around the world don't face these 
kinds of arbitrary restrictions. We have talked to researchers in 
England, for example. Our policy makes no sense to them. They cannot 
understand why stem cell lines derived on one date are fine to use, but 
if they are derived on another date, they are off limits. I don't 
understand that, either. I have wrestled with that since August 9, 
2001.
  If you are going to take the position that this is totally morally 
unacceptable and there should be no Federal funding, then we should 
have no Federal funding, and there are four or five lines that are now 
being examined and studied that should not be allowed, either. But I 
have not seen any amendment from anyone here that would even overturn 
that policy. It is a shame that we don't open these stem cell lines. 
Think about it this way. We don't require astronomers to explore the 
skies with 19th century telescopes. We don't tell our geologists to 
study the earth with tape measures. If we are serious about realizing 
the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the 
best stem cell lines available.
  Again, don't take my word for it. Dr. Story Landis runs the Stem Cell 
Task Force at NIH. In January, she appeared before a joint hearing of 
the HELP Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, and my subcommittee. 
Senator Kennedy asked her whether scientists are missing out on 
possible breakthroughs under the administration's current policy, and 
this was her answer:

       Yes, we are missing out on possible breakthroughs. From a 
     purely scientific perspective, Federal funding of additional 
     cell lines is necessary to advance the field.

  This is Dr. Landis, head of the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH.
  So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers true, 
meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what this 
bill, S. 5, would do. Under our bill, federally funded researchers 
could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date a stem cell is 
derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met.
  I believe it is important to emphasize this: We have very strict 
ethical guidelines. First, stem cells must come from embryos that would 
otherwise be discarded. There are more than 400,000 embryos right now 
in the United States left over from fertility treatments that are 
currently sitting frozen in liquid nitrogen. If the contributors of 
those embryos--the parents, the moms and dads--have had all the 
children they want and they no longer need the embryos, what happens to 
them? Under the policy we have now, there are only two things: You can 
keep them frozen for the next 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 years, or 
however long, or you can discard them. That is what is happening every 
day at in vitro fertilization clinics across the country. Embryos are 
being discarded as hospital waste.
  Now, you might be a couple who says: We have had all our children, 
and we don't want any more. We don't want to keep paying forever and 
ever to have the embryos frozen. We would like to donate them to stem 
cell research to maybe help a young person with juvenile diabetes or 
someone with a spinal cord injury. We would like to contribute those 
embryos for that research. They cannot do it. It seems to me that at 
least we ought to be able to allow the couples to donate them if they 
wish. So the real question is, Do we throw them away or use them to 
ease suffering? Do we throw them away or allow them to be used with 
these strict ethical guidelines? I think it is the second choice that 
is truly moral and respectful of human life.
  You might even think about it this way. Embryos will be destroyed, 
people say. The embryo itself--about which, by the way, I will point 
out there is a lot of misconception. I didn't listen to it, but I read 
the debate in the House last year. One of the speakers--I think the 
former minority leader, Mr. Delay, talked about fetuses and about the 
protection of fetuses. A lot of people think we are talking about 
fetuses. We are not. We are talking about embryos. I often put a dot on 
a piece of paper and I say: Can anybody see what I put there? That is 
just how big an embryo is, which is a few dozen cells.
  Well, you have to get over this idea that somehow it is a fully 
formed fetus existing in a womb. That is not it at all. You might say 
it is alive, it has life--yes, it does--and you should not destroy that 
life. Well, you might destroy the embryo itself, but in taking the stem 
cells from it--the cells in the embryo give the embryo life. If you 
take the cells out and you propagate them and examine them and then 
maybe use those lines for curing diseases in the future, it seems to me 
that you are really propagating life, saving lives, and enhancing life 
by doing that. That is why giving people the choice of voluntarily 
contributing the cells is truly moral and respectful of human life.
  The second ethical requirement is that couples must provide written, 
informed consent. Now, I might point out

[[Page 8557]]

that some of the 21 federally approved lines that are now in 
existence--especially the ones from other countries--don't meet that 
requirement. So we need to pass S. 5 to tighten the ethical guidelines 
of stem cell research, so there is no question that the embryos were 
donated properly. Think of it this way. We have Federal money right now 
that could be going--and probably is--for research on some stem cells 
that were provided without written informed consent. So we need to 
tighten down on that. S. 5 does that.
  I read the debates of last year on the floor of the Senate and in the 
House. There was a lot of talk about setting up ``embryo farms,'' that 
there is going to be embryo farming so that women will take their eggs, 
or create embryos, and there will be embryo farms. I heard that a 
number of times. Well, S. 5 prohibits women from being paid to donate 
their embryos. There is no chance under this bill that women could be 
exploited to go through the donation process against their will. Under 
our bill, couples cannot receive money or other inducements to donate 
embryos. Under the present guidelines that now exist from the White 
House, it just says you cannot receive money. Well, there might be 
other inducements that may be provided to you to get you to donate. We 
want to cut that off and say it has to be purely voluntary. So you 
cannot receive money or any other inducements; you must have written, 
informed consent; it can only come from embryos that would otherwise be 
discarded; and there are very strict ethical guidelines.
  So, again, this year's bill, S. 5, has one significant change from 
last year's bill that we passed. We passed that overwhelmingly, with 63 
votes. But this bill has one difference. It includes the text of last 
year's Specter-Santorum bill, which passed the Senate unanimously but 
got tied up in the House and died at the end of the 109th Congress. 
That bill, which President Bush strongly endorsed, encouraged NIH to 
pursue alternative ways of deriving stem cells, in addition to our 
current method.
  As I have made clear, going back to December of 1998, I support any 
ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. I 
believe we should open every door we can in the pursuit of cures. So 
what we have done in the new version of S. 5 is combine the two bills 
the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year but did not become law. That 
was H.R. 810 and the Specter-Santorum bill. By voting for S. 5, the 
bill before us now, Senators can show they support all forms of stem 
cell research. Again, the Specter-Santorum bill says open it up and 
find out all other forms of stem cell research. That was amniotic, 
placental stem cells, adult stem cells, whatever. I have no problem 
with that. I think we ought to pursue all of them. But that is the key 
difference between S. 5 and S. 30--that is the other bill we will vote 
on tomorrow night, S. 30. That bill puts all its hopes in theories, 
alternative ways of deriving stem cells that might or might not work. 
At this point, nobody knows. We do know how to derive embryonic stem 
cells and how to propagate them. Some research in other countries and 
private research has already led to stem cells developing into nerve 
cells and things like that.
  We don't know about what S. 30 does. S. 30 says to scientists--that 
is the other bill before us--don't use any of the 400 existing stem 
cell lines already derived. Instead, put all of your effort into 
figuring out some new way of deriving stem cells that might take 10 or 
more years to pan out, or maybe not at all. For example, the proponents 
of S. 30 will talk a lot over today and tomorrow about stem cells that 
could allegedly be derived from ``dead embryos''--embryos that are not 
healthy and have stopped growing. I have to tell you, the idea that we 
can cure juvenile diabetes, ALS, and Parkinson's with something called 
``dead embryos'' doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence. 
Think about it. If you were treating somebody with embryonic stem 
cells, would you rather use stem cells that came from an embryo that is 
healthy, vibrant, and growing or would you rather have them coming from 
a dead embryo? Ask yourself that simple question. The dead embryo died 
for a reason: there was something wrong with it. Chances are that the 
stem cells which come from that embryo are not so great, either. So why 
does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to curing ALS or 
juvenile diabetes? S. 5, our bill, by contrast, would immediately make 
those hundreds of new lines eligible for Federal research, again, as 
long as they were derived under the strict ethical guidelines we have 
in our bill. So S. 30, the other bill, might not do any harm, but I 
don't think it does any good, either. Again, that is why we ought to 
keep our focus on S. 5.
  If this year's debate goes like last year's, then we will expect 
opponents of S. 5 to make a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem 
cells. I will listen closely and try to correct those mistakes people 
might make. There is a lot of stuff out there. Our committee looked at 
this, and we have had a lot of testimony from scientists at NIH. So 
there will be a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells.
  As I have said for the last several years, I am all for adult stem 
cell research and use. Adult stem cells are already being used 
successfully in treating several blood-related diseases, and that is 
great. I am all for it. Let's continue this area of research. But as we 
now know, and as scientists tell us, adult stem cells have limits. They 
can't do everything that embryonic stem cells can do. Again, don't take 
my word for it. Listen to what Dr. Zerhouni, the Nation's highest 
ranking medical researcher, has to say about adult stem cells. This is 
what he said before our committee:

       The presentations about adult stem cells having as much or 
     more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not 
     hold scientific water. . . . I think they are overstated. . . 
     . My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research 
     should be pursued.

  That is what S. 5 will allow us to do. Most people could care less 
what cells are used to develop a cure. They just want a cure. So I say 
let's examine them all.
  By the way, S. 30, the other bill we will be debating that focuses on 
deriving stem cells from naturally dead embryos, can be done under S. 5 
also or under the Specter-Santorum bill. There are no restrictions on 
that issue. It is just that S. 30 says that is all we will do. S. 5, 
our bill, says we will open the 400 lines as long as they meet the 
ethical guidelines we have established. We will open those 400 lines to 
federally funded research and everything else, too. They can look at 
stem cells from naturally dead embryos. They can look at them from 
adult stem cells, placental, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord--whatever. 
They can look at them all as long as they meet ethical guidelines.
  Lastly, we talk all about research, about science, about stem cells, 
using all the quotes from scientists and others. What it is really 
about is giving hope to people. It is about helping people who have 
devastating--devastating--illnesses.
  This is a picture of Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. Karli is one of 
the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. I 
met Karli for the first time last fall with her mother and her sisters. 
She just celebrated her 12th birthday. She has type 1 diabetes, also 
called juvenile diabetes. When people have this disease, their body 
stops making insulin, so they have to inject it either through needles 
or a pump.
  Here is a picture of Karli Borcherding, age 12, from Ankeny, IA, with 
1 month's worth of needles. Look at that picture. There are 120 
needles, 1 month. Ask yourself: How would you like to give yourself 
four shots a day at age 12? Imagine that, four times a day. As Karli 
says, she never gets a vacation from juvenile diabetes. It is with her 
wherever she goes--at school, at home, on field trips, on holidays. She 
told me:

       My dream is that one day we will find a cure for juvenile 
     diabetes, and I can just go back to being just a normal kid.

  If adult stem cells could bring Karli a cure, she would gladly take 
it. But scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years, and 
they still haven't provided the answer for juvenile diabetes. We can't 
keep telling people such

[[Page 8558]]

as Karli that embryonic stem cells might bring them a cure but, sorry, 
the Federal Government is not interested. Our premier institution of 
NIH can't be involved.
  We can't keep telling the millions of Americans who have Parkinson's, 
ALS, cancer, or spinal cord injuries: Sorry, we know that embryonic 
stem cell research might ease your suffering, but we would rather do 
nothing about it.
  Now is our chance to change that situation. I urge Senators to think 
about Karli Borcherding and all the people in their lives who could 
benefit from stem cell research and vote yes emphatically on S. 5 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend, and I say again, 
the person who started all of our hearings on this issue in December of 
1998. Under the chairmanship of Senator Specter, our subcommittee had 
the first hearing on stem cell research 1 month after they were 
derived. Under his chairmanship, we have had 20 hearings. I mentioned 
that earlier. There hasn't been a more stalwart, informed person in 
either body, or on the Hill, about embryonic stem cell research than 
Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it correct that 
I have 20 minutes allocated at this time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Harkin, for his leadership on this very important issue. I 
thank him for his very generous comments. It is true that he and I have 
worked together on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies for more than 20 years. He 
now chairs the subcommittee, and I am the ranking member.
  In the past, I have chaired the committee, and he has been the 
ranking member. We have had very close bipartisan cooperation. As we 
frequently say, there has been a seamless transfer of the gavel, 
looking out for the interests of the American people.
  Senator Harkin accurately notes that when stem cells first burst upon 
the American scene in November of 1998, our subcommittee moved 
immediately. It was actually December 2 of 1998. We have since had a 
total of 20 hearings on this important subject.
  Today I am speaking for 110 million Americans who suffer directly or 
indirectly, personally or through their families and loved ones, from 
debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, 
cancer, diabetes, and I also speak for myself.
  In 1970, President Nixon declared war on cancer. Had that war been 
prosecuted with the same diligence as other wars, my former chief of 
staff, Carey Lackman, a beautiful young lady of 48, would not have died 
of breast cancer. One of my very best friends, a very distinguished 
Federal judge, Chief Judge Edward R. Becker, would not have died of 
prostate cancer. All of us know people who have been stricken by 
cancer, who have been incapacitated with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, 
who have been victims of heart disease, or many other maladies.
  We now have an opportunity, with the breakthrough on stem cell 
research, to have the potential of curing these maladies.
  I sustained an episode with Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer 2 years ago. 
That trauma, that illness, I think, could have been prevented had that 
war on cancer declared by the President of the United States in 1970 
been prosecuted with sufficient intensity.
  We now know about stem cells. We now know from the leading scientists 
of the United States and the leading scientists of the world the 
potential of stem cells to deal with these dreaded maladies. The leader 
of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Zerhouni, has said:

       Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for 
     treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease, 
     as well as revealing important basic mechanisms involved in 
     stem cell differentiation and development.

  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to print in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks the testimonials from the Directors of the 
National Institutes of Health who have spoken out vigorously in support 
of embryonic stem cell research.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there are some 400,000 of those embryos 
which have been frozen and which will either be used potentially to 
cure disease or will be discarded. Embryos are created for in vitro 
fertilization. A few of them are used and the others are frozen. If any 
of these embryos could be used to produce life, none of us would 
advocate the research. But they will not be used to produce life.
  Our subcommittee took the lead in providing $2 million for embryonic 
stem cell adoption. As of April 5 of this year, the Night Life 
Christian Adoption Service reports that embryo adoption resulted in the 
birth of some 135 so-called snowflake children, and 20 babies are 
currently due. It is obvious by these statistics that we have enormous 
wasted resources available for scientific research.
  I have in my hand an hourglass. This hourglass was referenced by one 
of my constituents, a man named Jim Cordy, from Pittsburgh, PA, who 
suffers from Parkinson's. When I was in Pittsburgh years ago, Jim Cordy 
approached me with an hourglass. He said: Senator, the sands are 
slipping through this hourglass like my life is slipping away. There is 
the potential for curing Parkinson's, and you ought to be doing 
something about it.
  We have tried mightily. Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Hatch, Senator Smith, Senator Feinstein--many of us have tried 
mightily. Last year we passed a bill for stem cell research which would 
allow the use of Federal funds for research. But I think it is 
important to note that the Federal funds would not be used to kill 
embryos but would be used to conduct research on 400 existing lines. 
That bill, as we all know, was vetoed. The Senate passed the bill by 63 
votes. I believe it is accurate to say that there are more than 63 
affirmative votes in the Senate today. Whether there are 67 remains to 
be seen.
  I think it is also accurate to say that in the House of 
Representatives, we are not close to a veto override based on the votes 
in the House of Representatives last year. But we are not too far away 
either.
  It is my view that if we had sufficient mobilization of public 
opinion, that public opinion and political pressure, which is the 
appropriate process in a democracy, could provide enough votes for an 
override.
  As I see it, it is not a matter of whether there will be Federal 
funding for embryonic stem cell research but when that Federal funding 
will be present. The longer it is delayed, the more people will suffer 
and die from these maladies.
  I have encouraged the groups which come to Washington in large 
numbers to stage a massive march on the Mall. If we put a million 
people on the Mall, they would be within hearing distance of the living 
quarters of the White House, and with 110 million people who are 
affected personally or indirectly through their families, there is the 
potential for sufficient political pressure to provide enough votes to 
override a veto if, in fact, the President were to veto the bill.
  It is my hope the President will relent in light of the reconstructed 
statute which we are providing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the history of the 20 
hearings which the subcommittee has held on stem cells, the 
endorsements of the embryonic stem cell research by the Directors of 
the National Institutes of Heath, and my full statement on the stem 
cell bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Stem Cell History

       Hearings: 20 Labor-HHS Subcommittee hearings have been 
     convened on stem cell issues. 17 hearings have dealt 
     specifically with stem cells and 3 with cloning. Several 
     additional hearings have focused on diseases,

[[Page 8559]]

     such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, that relate to stem 
     cells.
       The first hearing, on December 2, 1998, focused on the 
     mechanics of this research and its potential medical 
     benefits.
       The second hearing, on January 12, 1999, focused on key 
     intellectual property issues surrounding stem cell research.
       The third hearing, on January 26, 1999, discussed the HHS 
     General Counsel's opinion.
       The fourth hearing was held on November 4, 1999, to explore 
     the findings of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission 
     and ethical issues surrounding Federal funding for human stem 
     cell research.
       The fifth hearing, on April 26, 2000, explored stem cell 
     research and its implications for medical treatment.
       The sixth hearing, on September 7, 2000, focused on the 
     final NIH human embryonic guidelines.
       The seventh hearing, on September 14, 2000 focused on the 
     promise and potential benefits of research using human 
     embryonic stem cells to treat and cure diseases, and provided 
     a forum about the ethical and right-to-life Issues.
       At the eighth hearing, on July 18, 2001, Senators Frist, 
     Hatch, and G. Smith testified in favor of embryonic stem cell 
     research, and a second panel compared adult and embryonic 
     stem cell potential.
       The ninth hearing, on August 1, 2001, focused on 
     intellectual property and the ethical dilemmas associated 
     with private embryonic stem cell research.
       The tenth hearing, on October 31, 2001, focused on NIH's 
     report outlining the status of the stem cell lines.
       The eleventh hearing, on Dec. 4, 2001 was the first hearing 
     on cloning, initiated after the announcement by Advanced Cell 
     Technologies (ACT) that it had cloned a human embryo.
       The twelfth hearing, on January 24, 2002, focused on the 
     National Academy of Sciences' Panel on Human Cloning.
       The thirteenth hearing on March 12, 2002 focused on 
     prohibiting human cloning and the implications for medical 
     research.
       The fourteenth on September 25, 2002 focused on the 
     implementation of the President's stem cell policy.
       The fifteenth hearing on May 22, 2003 investigated the 
     recent acknowledgment that 16 stem cell lines in Sweden had 
     not been developed enough to have been exposed to mouse 
     feeder cells.
       The sixteenth hearing on July 12, 2005 was the first 
     hearing to investigate alternative methods for obtaining 
     pluripotent stem cells.
       The seventeenth hearing on October 18, 2005 explored the 
     potential of embryonic stem cell research and nuclear 
     transplantation in treating several specific diseases and 
     featured Mr. Anthony Herrera.
       The eighteenth hearing on June 27, 2006 was the second 
     hearing investigating alternative methods for obtaining 
     pluripotent stem cells and it featured testimony by Senator 
     Rick Santorum.
       The nineteenth hearing on September 6, 2006 investigated 
     the claim by Advanced Cell Technology Inc. that it had 
     succeeded in deriving stem cell lines without destroying 
     embryos. This was the third hearing specifically discussing 
     alternative methods for deriving stem cells.
       The twentieth hearing on January 19, 2007 is a joint 
     hearing with the HELP Committee that is reviewing the science 
     of stem cell research and asking the question ``Can Congress 
     Help Fulfill the Promise of Stem Cell Research?''
                                  ____


                Floor Statement of Senator Arlen Specter

       Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the stem cell 
     bills that are being debated today: S. 5--the ``Stem Cell 
     Research Enhancement Act'' of which I am an original co-
     sponsor, along with Senators Harkin, Hatch, Kennedy, 
     Feinstein, Smith and Reid and S. 30, the HOPE Act introduced 
     by Senators Coleman and Isakson. S. 5 is a combination of two 
     bills that I introduced in the previous Congress and of which 
     I have been a strong proponent for eight years.


                     support of biomedical research

       I believe medical research should be pursued with all 
     possible haste to cure the diseases and maladies affecting 
     Americans. In my capacity as Ranking Member and at times--
     Chairman--of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have backed up this 
     belief by supporting increases in funding for the National 
     Institutes of Health. I have said many times that the NIH is 
     the crown jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the only 
     jewel of the Federal government. When I came to the Senate in 
     1981, NIH spending totaled $3.6 billion. In FY2007, NIH will 
     receive approximately $29 billion to fund its pursuit of 
     life-saving research. The successes realized by this 
     investment in NIH have spawned revolutionary advances in our 
     knowledge and treatment for diseases such as cancer, 
     Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, 
     diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, ALS and many others. 
     It is clear to me that Congress' commitment to the NIH is 
     paying off. This is the time to seize the scientific 
     opportunities that lie before us, and to ensure that all 
     avenues of research toward cures--including stem cell 
     research--are open for investigation.


                               stem cells

       I first learned of the potential of human embryonic stem 
     cells in November of 1998 upon the announcement of the work 
     by Dr. Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin and Dr. 
     John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins University. I took an 
     immediate interest and held the first Congressional hearing 
     on the subject of stem cells on December 2, 1998. These cells 
     have the ability to become any type of cell in the human 
     body. Another way of saying this is that the cells are 
     pluripotent. The consequences of this unique property of stem 
     cells are far reaching and are key to their potential use in 
     therapies. Scientists and doctors with whom I have spoken--
     and that have since testified before the Labor-HHS 
     Appropriations Subcommittee at 20 stem cell-related 
     hearings--were excited by this discovery. They believed that 
     these cells could be used to replace damaged or 
     malfunctioning cells in patients with a wide range of 
     diseases. This could lead to cures and treatments for 
     maladies such as Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
     Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular diseases, and spinal cord 
     injury. In all, well over 100 million Americans could benefit 
     from stem cell research.
       Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that would 
     otherwise have been discarded. During the course of in vitro 
     fertilization (IVF) therapies, sperm and several eggs are 
     combined in a laboratory to create 4 to 16 embryos for a 
     couple having difficulty becoming pregnant. The embryos grow 
     in an incubator for 5 to 7 days until they contain 
     approximately 100 cells. To maximize the chances of success, 
     several embryos are implanted into the woman. The remaining 
     embryos are frozen for future use. If the woman becomes 
     pregnant after the first implantation, and does not want to 
     have more pregnancies, the remaining frozen embryos are in 
     excess of clinical need and can be donated for research. 
     Embryonic stem cells are derived from these embryos. The stem 
     cells form what are called ``lines'' and continue to divide 
     indefinitely in a laboratory dish. In this way, the 21 lines 
     currently available for federal researchers were obtained 
     from 21 embryos. The stem cells contained in these lines can 
     then be made into almost any type of cell in the body--with 
     the potential to replace cells damaged by disease or 
     accident. At no point in the derivation process are the 
     embryos or the derived cells implanted in a woman, which 
     would be required for them to develop further. The process of 
     deriving stem cell lines results in the disruption of the 
     embryo and I know that this raises some concerns.


                            embryo adoptions

       During the course of our hearings in this subject, we have 
     learned that over 400,000 embryos are stored in fertility 
     clinics around the country. If these frozen embryos were 
     going to be used for in vitro fertilization, I would be the 
     first to support it. In fact, I have included $2,000,000 in 
     the HHS budget each year since 2002 to create and continue an 
     embryo adoption awareness campaign. But the truth is that 
     most of these embryos will be discarded. I believe that 
     instead of just throwing these embryos away, they hold the 
     key to curing and treating diseases that cause suffering for 
     millions of people.


                      the current stem cell policy

       The President opened the door to stem cell research on 
     August 9, 2001. His policy statement allowed limited federal 
     funding of human embryonic stem cell research for the first 
     time. There is a real question as to whether the door is open 
     sufficiently.
       A key statement by the President related to the existence 
     of approximately 60 eligible stem cell lines--then expanded 
     to 78. In the intervening 5 years, it has become apparent 
     that many of the lines cited are not really viable, robust, 
     or available to federally funded researchers. The fact is 
     there are only 21 lines now available for research. Perhaps, 
     most fundamental is the issue of therapy. It was not 
     addressed in the President's statement, but it came to light 
     in the first weeks after the President's announcement that 
     all of the stem cell lines have had nutrients from mouse 
     feeder cells and bovine serum. Under FDA regulations, these 
     lines will face intense regulatory hurdles before being 
     useful in human therapies. In the intervening years, new 
     technology has been developed so that mouse feeder cells are 
     no longer necessary for the growth of stem cells. It only 
     makes sense that our nation's scientists should have access 
     to the latest technology.
       Since August 9, 2001, new facts have come to light and the 
     technology has moved forward to the extent that the policy is 
     holding back our scientists and physicians in their search 
     for cures. I have a friend and constituent in Pittsburgh 
     named Jim Cordy who suffers from Parkinson's. Whenever I see 
     Jim, he carries an hourglass, to remind me that the sands of 
     time are passing and that the days of his life are slipping 
     away. That is a pretty emphatic message from the hourglass. 
     So it seems to me that this is the kind of sense of urgency 
     which ought to motivate Congress and the biomedical research 
     community.

[[Page 8560]]




             testimony of nih director, dr. elias zerhouni

       On March 19, 2007, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, President Bush's 
     appointee to lead the National Institutes of Health, 
     testified before the Senate Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the NIH budget and stem 
     cells. At that time he stated, ``it is clear today that 
     American science would be better served and the nation would 
     be better served if we let our scientists have access to more 
     cell lines . . . To sideline NIH in such an issue of 
     importance, in my view, is shortsighted. I think it wouldn't 
     serve the nation well in the long run.'' His testimony 
     clearly shows that the time has come to move forward.


              s. 5--the stem cell research enhancement act

       S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, lifts the 
     August 9, 2001 date restriction, thus making stem cell lines 
     eligible for federally funded research regardless of the date 
     on which they were derived. Expanding the number of stem cell 
     lines would accelerate scientific progress towards cures and 
     treatments for a wide range of diseases and debilitating 
     health conditions. The bill puts in place strong ethical 
     requirements on stem cell lines that are funded with Federal 
     dollars. In fact, several stem cell lines currently funded 
     with Federal dollars would not be eligible under the policies 
     put in place by this bill. The requirements include:
       (1) embryos used to derive stem cells were originally 
     created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of 
     clinical need;
       (2) the individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom 
     the embryos were created have determined that the embryos 
     will not be implanted in a woman and will otherwise be 
     discarded;
       (3) the individuals for whom the embryos were created have 
     provided written consent for embryo donation; and
       (4) the donors can not receive any financial or other 
     inducements to make the donation.
       Importantly, the bill does not allow federal funds to be 
     used for the derivation of stem cell lines--the step in the 
     process where the embryo is destroyed.


              alternative methods for deriving stem cells

       S. 5 further includes authorization for NIH to pursue 
     research toward alternative methods for deriving stem cells 
     that do not result in the destruction of embryos. The 
     approach is identical to that promoted by former Senator 
     Santorum and myself in the last Congress, which passed this 
     body by a vote of 100 to 0. Unfortunately, that legislation 
     did not clear the House of Representatives.
       When the President's Council on Bioethics reported on 
     several theoretical methods for deriving stem cells without 
     destroying embryos, I immediately scheduled a hearing to 
     investigate these ideas. On July 12, 2005, the Labor-HHS 
     Subcommittee heard testimony from five witnesses describing 
     several theoretical techniques for deriving stem cells 
     without destroying embryos. The stem cells would 
     theoretically have the key ability to become any type of 
     cell. We discussed these techniques at a second hearing on 
     June 27, 2006. I must emphasize that none of these techniques 
     is a proven technology, and in some cases they are only being 
     pursued because of the restrictions in place.
       The legislation, which former Senator Santorum and I 
     introduced, was meant to encourage these alternative methods 
     for deriving stem cells without harming human embryos. That 
     language has now been incorporated into S. 5 making it a 
     stronger bill. Those provisions in S. 5 amend the Public 
     Health Service Act by inserting a section that:
       (1) Mandates that the Secretary of Health & Human Services 
     shall support meritorious peer-reviewed research to develop 
     techniques for the derivation of stem cells without creating 
     or destroying human embryos.
       (2) Requires the Secretary to issue guidelines within 90 
     days to implement this research and to identify and 
     prioritize the next research steps.
       (3) Includes a `Rule of Construction' stating: Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to affect any policy, 
     guideline, or regulation regarding embryonic stem cell 
     research, human cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or 
     any other research not specifically authorized by this 
     section.


               the two sections of s. 5 are complementary

       Understanding that scientists never know exactly which 
     research will lead to the next great cure; I have always 
     supported opening as many avenues of research as possible. 
     Based on that line of reasoning, I have always supported 
     human embryonic, adult, and cord blood stem cell research. My 
     goal is to see cures for the various afflictions that lower 
     the quality of life--or end the lives--of Americans. S. 5 is 
     the only bill under consideration that supports the funding 
     of ALL types of stem cell research.


                    the coleman/isakson ``hope'' act

       The Coleman/Isakson HOPE Act focuses attention on only 
     alternative avenues of research. This bill promotes research 
     on alternative ways of deriving stem cells--as does S. 5. It 
     emphasizes a particular alternative using so-called ``dead 
     embryos'' that is unproven and highly speculative. It does 
     not lift the President's restrictions on stem cell research. 
     Unfortunately, it also attempts to codify scientific terms 
     that would be better left to definition by the scientific and 
     medical community. Despite these shortcomings, this bill 
     deserves support because it highlights the need for further 
     research.
       I must emphasize that this bill is not a substitute for 
     support of human embryonic stem cell research or support for 
     S. 5. A vote in favor of the HOPE Act and against S. 5 will 
     not advance the search for cures. The two bills are 
     compatible in their scope and together will advance our 
     understanding of biomedical science and bring us another step 
     closer to the cures and treatment that we all desire.


                               conclusion

       The two bills before us are both worthy of passage. S. 5 
     stands out as it will allow real progress towards cures. I 
     strongly believe that the funding provided by Congress should 
     be invested in the best research to address diseases based on 
     medical need and scientific opportunity. Politics has no 
     place in the equation. Throughout history there are numerous 
     examples of politics stifling science in the name of 
     ideology. Galileo was imprisoned for his theory that the 
     planets revolve around the sun. The Institute of Genetics of 
     the Soviet Academy of Sciences opposed the use of hybrid 
     varieties of wheat because it was based on the science of the 
     West. Instead, they supported a doctrine called ``acquired 
     characteristics,'' which was made the official Soviet 
     position. This resulted in lower yields for Soviet wheat 
     throughout the former Soviet Union in the first half of the 
     twentieth century. These historical examples teach us that we 
     must make these decisions based on sound science, not 
     politics. I urge you to vote in favor of S. 5, so that this 
     Congress does not look as foolish in hindsight as these 
     examples.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 1


                        letters to nih directors

       On July 10, 2006, you and Senator Harkin wrote to Dr. 
     Zerhouni and 18 other NIH institute directors asking that 
     they answer questions in preparation for the upcoming stem 
     cell debate. We asked that the responses ``be submitted 
     directly to us without editing, revision, or comment by the 
     Department of Health and Human Services as required by'' the 
     fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. The questions and a 
     summary of their answers are listed below:
       Question 1. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell 
     research holds promise for treating, curing and improving our 
     understanding of diseases? If so, please describe some of the 
     most promising potential applications of this research. Would 
     access to additional and newer stem cell lines hasten 
     progress towards these basic and clinical applications?
       Dr. Zerhouni (Director, NIH): ``Yes, embryonic stem cell 
     research holds great promise for treating, curing, and 
     improving our understanding of disease, as well as revealing 
     important basic mechanisms involved in cell differentiation 
     and development.''
       ``. . . from a purely scientific standpoint, it is clear 
     that more cell lines would be helpful in ensuring expeditious 
     progress in this important field of science.''
       Dr. Fauci (Director, Allergy Institute): ``The National 
     Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) believes 
     that research on embryonic stem cells could potentially 
     increase scientific understanding of the biology of human 
     diseases and also lead to improvements in the treatment of 
     many human diseases.''
       ``NIAID believes that embryonic stem cell research could be 
     advanced by the availability of additional cell lines. 
     Individual stem cell lines have unique properties. Thus. we 
     may be limiting our ability to achieve the full range of 
     potential therapeutic applications of embryonic stem cells by 
     restricting research to the relatively small number of lines 
     currently available.''
       Dr. Battey (Director, Deafness Institute): The National 
     Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders 
     believes embryonic stem cell research holds promise for 
     increased understanding of an possible treatments for 
     diseases and conditions especially within the research 
     mission areas of the Institute.''
       ``The more cell lines available for study, the more likely 
     a cell line will be maximally useful for a given research, 
     and potentially clinical, application. . . . the scientific 
     community would be best served by having a greater number of 
     human embryonic stem cell lines available for study.''
       Dr. Nabel (Director, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute): 
     ``Embryonic stem cell research has vast potential for 
     addressing critical health needs in a number of areas 
     relevant to the mission of the National Heart, Lung and Blood 
     Institute.''
       ``. . . we recognize that the limitations of existing cell 
     lines are hindering scientific progress among a community 
     that is very eager to move forward in this promising area. We 
     support the creation and dissemination of newer stem cell 
     lines in the expectation that it will advance this field and 
     hasten progress in basic and clinical research.''
       Jeremy Berg (Director, General Medical Sciences Institute 
     (NIGMS): ``The National Institute of General Medical Sciences 
     firmly

[[Page 8561]]

     believes that embryonic stem cell research holds enormous 
     promise for treating, curing and improving our understanding 
     of many diseases.''
       ``Access to additional and newer cell lines could be 
     beneficial to this basic research endeavor in several ways. . 
     . . a limited number of embryos may restrict the ability to 
     compare fundamental processes that differ as a function of 
     genetic variability.''
       Dr. Alexander (Director, Child Health Institute--NICHD): 
     ``The NICHD believes that human embryonic stem cell research 
     holds exceptional promise for treating, curing and improving 
     our understanding of diseases.''
       ``Access to more and newer stem cell lines would benefit 
     basic and clinical research applications . . . it is 
     necessary to be able to derive new embryonic stem cell lines 
     (ESC) from embryos of high quality in order to know whether 
     those embryonic stem cell lines would possess any 
     capabilities or behave differently than the ESC from the 
     discarded embryos.''
       Dr. Sieving (Director, Eye Institute): ``Yes, it is my 
     professional opinion that human embryonic stem cell research 
     holds considerable promise for treating, curing, and 
     improving our understanding of ocular diseases. . . . better 
     access could hasten progress by increasing the number of 
     investigators willing to work in this area.''
       Dr. Schwartz (Director, Environmental Health Institute): 
     ``I believe that human stem cell research represents one of 
     the most exciting opportunities in biomedical research. 
     Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for 
     improving our understanding of disease etiology, prevention, 
     and therapy.''
       Dr. Hodes (Director, Aging Institute): ``Embryonic stem 
     cell research holds promise for helping us find more 
     effective ways to prevent or treat a number of age-related 
     conditions in which cell loss plays a critical role . . . 
     Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, and the damage and cell 
     death related to heart diseases and diabetes.''
       Dr. Li (Director, Alcohol Abuse Institute): ``As with other 
     stem cell types, embryonic stem cells may hold great promise 
     for the treatment of certain diseases.''
       ``It is possible that the ability of researches to access 
     newer human embryonic stem cell lines might serve to enhance 
     our goal to understand cellular processes that govern 
     regeneration which has the long-term potential to clinically 
     translate our research findings.''
       Dr. Alving (Acting Director, Center for Research 
     Resources): ``Embryonic stem cell research holds promise for 
     treating, curing, and improving our understanding of diseases 
     . . . From a scientific standpoint, access to additional and 
     new stem cell lines has the potential to advance the field of 
     medical research . . . newer lines can be derived in the 
     absence of animal products . . . genetic background of the 
     current lines is very limited.''
       ``. . . additional and newer stem cell lines would enable 
     the research enterprise to overcome . . . major limitations . 
     . . spontaneous mutations that can arise after any cell line 
     is maintained long-term . . . the human embryonic stem cell 
     lines in the NIH Registry were derived using animal cell 
     feeder layers . . . and the limited genetic diversity of the 
     current NIH Registry lines.''
       Dr. Tabak (Director, Dental Institute): ``The currently 
     available stem cell lines have provided the first step in our 
     understanding of their basic biology. However, due to 
     limitations . . . newer and improved stem cell lines could 
     unleash the full potential of stem cells for clinical 
     utility.''
       ``. . . unless conditions are determined to better maintain 
     them, the current lines will become exhausted. This 
     instability also leads one to think that the ways in which 
     the currently available human embryonic stem cell lines were 
     derived may not have been optimal.''
       Dr. Volkow (Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse): 
     ``Yes, embryonic stem cells are promising research tools that 
     can be used to identify and investigate a variety of 
     therapeutic approaches.''
       ``Access to a wider array of embryonic stem cell lines 
     would definitely increase scientific opportunity and the 
     chances of breakthrough discoveries, as well as their 
     eventual application in the form of novel therapies for many 
     diseases . . . the translation of any discovery into clinical 
     research and practice can be expected to be severely hindered 
     by the fact that the cells now available for research are 
     likely to be rejected by a patient's immune system.''
       Dr. Collins (Director of the Human Genome Institute): 
     ``Stem cell research has tremendous potential for therapeutic 
     advances in diseases affecting many Americans.''
       ``Access to newer and more varied stem cell lines would 
     benefit researchers not only because modern cultural 
     techniques have increased the utility of stem cell lines, but 
     also because newer lines would provide greater genetic and 
     cellular diversity.''
       Dr. Neiderhuber (Director, Cancer Institute): ``Embryonic 
     stem cells are important research tools that may provide 
     important knowledge about key processes in cancer metastasis, 
     new blood vessel development, and the regulation of cell 
     replication and programmed death.''
       Dr. Rodgers (Acting Director, Diabetes and Digestive 
     Disease Institute): ``Access to additional and newer stem 
     cell lines is likely to hasten progress towards basic and 
     clinical applications.''
       Dr. Landis (Director, Neurology Institute): ``For 
     neurological disorders, embryonic stem cells present 
     considerable promise as an agent of therapy, in the 
     development of therapeutics, and for advancing our 
     understanding of disease.''
       ``Access to newer lines, however, would hasten progress, 
     particularly as therapies move toward human testing.''
       Question 2. Have researchers reported difficulties in 
     obtaining any of the 21 lines currently available to NIH-
     funded researchers? If so, please provide examples. In 
     practice, how many of the 21 lines are in common use by NIH-
     funded researchers?
       Dr. Zerhouni (Director, NIH): ``. . . all of the human 
     embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines listed on the NIH Human 
     Embryonic Stem Cell Registry are privately owned and many are 
     from foreign sources. The private owners are under no 
     obligation to make their hESC lines widely available for 
     research in other laboratories. Many scientists expressed 
     concern that access to these cell lines was a major obstacle 
     hindering hESC research eligible for Federal funding.''
       Dr. Nabel (Director, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute): ``. 
     . . only four cell lines were in common use . . . we believe 
     that the availability of additional cell lines would be of 
     great service to NHLBI-funded researchers.''
       Dr. Landis (Director, Neurology Institute): ``The NIH unit 
     that is systematically characterizing the approved lines and 
     making that information available now has 18 of the 21 lines, 
     and the others are on order.''
       Jeremy Berg (Director, General Medical Sciences Institute 
     (NIGMS): ``Although NIGMS grantees have purchased 13 of the 
     21 approved human embryonic stem cell lines, only 6 lines are 
     in common use.''
       Dr. Hodes (Director, Aging Institute): ``. . . one National 
     Institute on Aging intramural investigator involved with 
     human embryonic stem cell researching using approved cell 
     lines identified genetic abnormalities and contaminations 
     from mouse feeder cells in the embryonic stem cells that made 
     them unusable for his research. In part because of his 
     inability to continue his research with approved cell lines. 
     he has left the Institute.''
       Mr. Volkow (Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse 
     (NIDA): ``. . . obtaining these lines has been procedurally 
     complex and expensive. Despite general interest and 
     enthusiasm in the scientific community for embryonic stem 
     cell research. the limited number of available lines has, the 
     NIDA's case. translated into a general lack of research 
     proposals.''

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much of my 20 minutes remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator has about 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Specter are printed in the Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 9 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we started a little late, so I will yield 
back the remainder of my time on this segment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next 60 minutes 
is under the control of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we are going to reverse the order for a 
second.
  Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished Senators from Iowa 
and Pennsylvania on their passion for stem cell research, which is 
shared by virtually all the people whom I know.
  I also wish to ask unanimous consent that Senators Chambliss, Cornyn, 
and Burr be added as cosponsors of S. 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, at the outset of my remarks I thank Tyler 
Thompson and Brittany Espy for the 2 years she devoted to this issue 
prior to Tyler taking over and Joan Kirchner and Chris Carr of my staff 
for their invaluable work and an intern and distinguished scholar from 
the University of Georgia named Nick Chammoun who introduced me to a 
man for whom I have the greatest admiration, Dr. Steven Stice, an 
eminent scholar and eminent stem cell researcher at the University of 
Georgia.
  I have introduced, in concert with Senator Coleman, S. 30, which has 
been referred to by the Senator from Ohio as

[[Page 8562]]

containing theories--and I know he is getting ready to leave, but I 
want him to hear one part before he leaves.
  Mr. HARKIN. Iowa.
  Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator from Iowa, I sincerely apologize. His man 
just won the Masters in Augusta. I should remember that.
  This bill is not about a theory when it comes to naturally dead 
embryos. Five of the existing 21 lines funded by NIH, grandfathered 
under the President's directive in August 2001, were derived, and are 
active today, from naturally dead embryos. So we are not talking about 
a theory, we are not talking about hope, and we are not talking about 
speculation. We are talking about a way to address the concern of the 
ethics of destruction of viable embryos with the promises and the hope 
of embryonic stem cell research.
  Now, I was a real estate broker before I was elected to Congress, and 
since I have been in Congress, I have been anything but a scientist or 
anyone knowledgeable of medicine, but I care deeply and compassionately 
about those who suffer, and I share the concerns of not the question of 
``when'' but the question of ``if'' that was expressed by Senator 
Specter. So I began researching this entire issue to see if there 
wasn't a way, and that is when I stumbled onto the fact that there were 
already ways that embryonic stem cells were being derived without the 
destruction of viable embryos.
  I went to the University of Georgia and I met Dr. Stice for the first 
time and he walked me through that process. For the edification of all 
those here, as well as those who are concerned about that issue, I wish 
to talk about it for a second because it is clear and it is precise and 
it threads the ethical needle and addresses the concern for the 
furtherance of scientific research.
  In the process of in vitro fertilization, there are three principles, 
known as the Gardner principles, by which physicians and doctors grade 
embryonic byproducts of the fertilization to determine the embryos that 
are implantable, the embryos that are freezable, and the embryos that 
are clinically or naturally dead.
  Level I embryos, after in vitro fertilization, are created within the 
first 3 days. They are viable embryos with a cluster of eight cells 
ready for implantation and can develop into a human being. After 4 
additional days, additional embryos develop that contain the essential 
eight cells, and they are viable for freezing or for implantation. But 
after 7 days, the natural process of the cells dividing no longer takes 
place, and there are level III Gardner principle materials that are 
left that contain embryonic stem cells but cannot be implanted and 
cannot become a human being. Five of those lines were in existence in 
2001 and were invested in by NIH and are active today.
  So it is absolutely possible for further embryonic stem cell research 
to take place today without destroying a viable embryo and to have a 
plethora of available stem cells for researchers and for scientists. 
That, by the way, has been certified by any number of learned doctors 
and physicians and researchers and I wish to share some of those quotes 
at this time.
  There was an article written, ``A Comparison of National Institute of 
Health-Approved Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines,'' by Carol Ware, 
Angelique Nelson, and Anthony Blau. In that, they compared 15 of the 22 
lines that at the time were active under the August 2001 Presidential 
executive directive, and I quote:

       They compare stem cell markers, and growth characteristics 
     of and ease of genetic manipulation of all lines. Only 10 of 
     the lines were easily tested and our 3 lines again were one 
     of those 10 lines derived from naturally dead embryos. None 
     of the 10 lines were statistically different in any way when 
     7 different growth and characteristics experiments were 
     conducted. The take home message is that there is no 
     difference between our 3 lines, the 3 lines derived from 
     naturally dead embryos, and the other 7 lines which were 
     derived from donated embryos.

  So there you have it clearly and precisely stated that we have active 
embryonic stem cell lines under research and funded by the NIH derived 
from a naturally dead embryo that did not involve the destruction of a 
viable embryo.
  With the passage of S. 30, you immediately have the opportunity, and 
NIH is directed, to develop those guidelines for the furtherance of 
additional embryonic stem cell research on stem cells derived from 
those lines.
  Now, there are a number of other distinguished and learned people who 
have written extensively about these lines and their viability, among 
them Sandii Brimble and Yongquan Luo. Mr. Luo is at the Laboratory of 
Neuroscience, National Institute of Aging, Department of Health and 
Human Services, in Baltimore, MD, who wrote:

       Lines BG01, BG02, and BG03, which are the three lines NIH 
     currently is investing in that were derived from naturally 
     dead embryos, are therefore independent, undifferentiated, 
     and pluripotent lines that can be maintained without 
     accumulation of karyotypic abnormalities.

  It took me a long time to practice saying those last two words, but I 
finally got through it. The point being that they are equally as viable 
as pluripotent and as rich for scientific research as those cells that 
would have been derived from a destroyed embryo.
  In addition, I wish to quote from an article called Embryonic Death 
and the Creation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, written by Dr. Donald 
W. Landry and Howard A. Zucker of Columbia University. I read as 
follows:

       We propose herein a paradigm for research involving embryos 
     that protects human life, is consistent with Federal policy, 
     and yet advances the interests of biomedical science and 
     therapeutic innovation.

  That is precisely quoting the definition of natural death for embryos 
as the threshold for which that should go forward.
  In terms of making ``naturally dead'' a term that is understandable, 
this bill defines ``natural death'' in regard to embryos as the same 
acceptable way that death is defined in all 50 States of the United 
States of America. In my 30 years of public life, I have been through a 
number of ethical debates--the ``living will'' debates of the 1970s and 
the ``durable power of attorney,'' where we tried to legislate how you, 
Mr. President, or I could give an advanced directive of what a doctor 
could or could not do to me when I came to be in an incapacitated 
state, and we finally decided that an irreversible cessation of brain 
waves would be a clinical definition upon which that threshold can take 
place.
  A ``naturally dead'' embryo is an embryo that, after the seventh day, 
has a cessation of the division of cells. It no longer can be implanted 
and become an embryo, but the cells that remain are viable, just as my 
heart, liver, kidneys, or lungs remain alive while I have an 
irreversible cessation of brain waves. It is that precedent which 
established all the organ transplants we do in America today--the gift 
of life that is given after the loss of life and the irreversible 
cessation of brain waves. This is, clinically, as Dr. Landry and Dr. 
Zucker have said, precisely the exact way to deal with the ethics and 
the morality of embryonic stem cell research because it is the same 
thing for that embryo that cannot become a human being to donate cells 
to become pluripotent embryonic stem cells as it is for a predirective 
to determine that organs can be transplanted from someone who has 
suffered an irreversible cessation of brain waves. It is scientific. It 
is ethical. And it is precise.
  I submit the President of the United States has said he would--
actually did last year--veto a bill similar to the one introduced by 
Senator Harkin. The President said he will veto it again. Senator 
Specter, in his compassionate remarks and passionate remarks, 
acknowledged that the number of votes necessary to override a veto did 
not exist in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  If, in fact, it is a matter of not if but when, with the adoption of 
S. 30, we can make the when now. We can see to it that the promise of 
embryonic stem cell research goes forward and the ethical lines that 
cause the dilemma that exists today in the United States of America are 
not crossed.
  There is a human face on the desire to further that research. It is 
the face like that of a friend of mine, like former Senator Kip Klein, 
who suffers

[[Page 8563]]

from Parkinson's and who has been an inspiration to me to find methods 
like this; and Cindy Donald, a beautiful lady who tragically was 
injured in an automobile accident and lost her ability to walk. There 
is hope and promise in centers such as the Shepherd Spinal Center in 
Atlanta which deals with those terrible injuries to the spinal cord. 
There is the hope to see to it that those who suffer from diabetes and 
juvenile diabetes can, in fact, find a cure that is possible and within 
our reach.
  To that end, at the University of Georgia today, which I have already 
referred to a number of times, that research on embryonic stem cell 
research for the curing of diabetes is taking place. It is taking place 
in a laboratory and under the direction of eminent scholars, one of 
whom is Dr. Steven Stice, one of America's leading scholars today and 
one of the embryonic researchers who himself introduced to me this 
method, given his recognition of the ethical considerations and his 
desire and hope to bring promise and hope to the future of those who 
suffer.
  I submit that the Coleman-Isakson bill, S. 30, is a road for us to 
walk proudly down, that enhances and advances, immediately, research 
into embryonic stem cell cures while at the same time respecting the 
ethical, scientific, and moral concerns that exist in the medical 
community today. It is not always possible in the body politic for 
solutions to be win-win, but I submit that S. 30, the Coleman-Isakson 
bill, is a win-win. It is a win for hope, it is a win for research, and 
it is a win for promise.
  I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, 
Mr. Norm Coleman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I thank my colleague from Georgia, who shares the 
passion of the Senator from Iowa, shares the passion of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. We want to see scientific breakthroughs. We want to 
see cures for those kids who suffer from juvenile diabetes and friends 
who have ALS. I have a brother-in-law who suffers from Parkinson's.
  How do we get there? Senator Specter noted that, as he filled an 
hourglass and said: The clock is ticking--and it is. The question 
becomes how do we move forward, not just in the debate but action. I am 
a former mayor. If it snowed in St. Paul and the streets weren't 
plowed, I heard about it. That is what you do--take action.
  If we look at the amount of research going on in stem cell research, 
human embryonic stem cell research--they are pluripotent. What we are 
talking about is an ability of stem cells to--they have apparently an 
incredible elastic ability to be perhaps transformed to a heart or a 
liver, an incredible capacity--in theory. But clearly, scientists, I 
think uniformly, believe there is great hope and great opportunity 
there.
  The reality today is that there is a certain amount of Federal 
dollars. What we are talking about is Federal dollars. We are not 
talking about the sum of all research but simply, What does the Federal 
Government do? What do we do with taxpayer dollars? Where do we put 
them?
  In terms of human embryonic, pluripotent, the President said--I think 
it was in 2001--he talked about a series of lines that would be 
available, just that. He was drawing the line there in terms of 
embryonic stem cells. Of those lines, originally there were 60 or 70, 
and there are now about 20 lines.
  There is about $132 million being spent in Federal money in human 
embryonic stem cell research and over $1 billion in human nonembryonic 
cord blood stem cell, bone marrow, other kinds of research--all of 
which is promising. In some areas, there are actually therapies going 
on.
  It is fascinating. Scientists are also very passionate. I am not a 
scientist, but I have been listening to them. There are those 
scientists who are advocates of embryonic stem cell, and they are 
passionate that this is the way. Clearly, in theory, in terms of 
pluripotency, embryonic stem cells have more pluripotency than adult 
stem cells, but the critics say you have the process of embryonic stem 
cells, that they have the rejection because when you have organ 
transplants, you put another genetic material into somebody, and there 
are problems of rejection. You have the problem of tumors growing from 
them. They say we have to support adult stem cell because that is where 
the work is being done, that is where the breakthroughs are happening. 
Of course, other scientists come back and say, rightfully so, that 
adult stem cells do not have the elasticity, the pluripotency of 
embryonic, and so that is not the way. The question is, Is there a 
third way? Is there a way to get past the culture wars, to get past the 
great divide we have?
  There are many in this country who believe passionately that Federal 
dollars should not be used for research which involves the destruction 
of a human embryo, who believe very passionately about that. There are 
others who say the cause of science is so great, the size of this 
embryo is so small, the hope we have to offer is so great, we need to 
move forward. There is a divide.
  The reality today is, with policy as it is, if the Harkin-Specter 
bill passes--which I presume it will, probably overwhelmingly it will 
pass--and a similar bill is passed in the House and ultimately we work 
out the language and the President then vetoes it and, as my colleague 
from Pennsylvania recognizes, there are not enough votes to override 
the veto, at the end of the day of January 1, 2008, there will still 
not be more than $132 million spent on human embryonic pluripotency 
research.
  The question is, Is there another way? Senator Isakson has talked 
about another way. He talked about dead embryos. My colleague from Iowa 
dismissed it: Dead embryos, what does that mean?
  My colleague explained it well, that embryonic stem cells produced by 
that method have the same pluripotency, the same capacity as other 
embryonic stem cells, but they do not cross the moral line.
  Within S. 30, there is the point of doing other kinds of research 
that does not cross the moral line. One is called altered nuclear 
transfer. Later I will, perhaps, put up some charts to show how it 
works, but very simply, if you think about it, science 101, take an egg 
and sperm, they come together, create an embryo, become a person--one 
of the pages here or a Senator or mom and dad sitting somewhere. Then 
what we do with altered nuclear transfer--actually, by the way, if you 
relate it to cloning, it is not cloning, but if you think of the 
concept of cloning, you take an egg, put some genetic material from an 
adult in there, and it becomes a person. Practically, we had Dolly the 
sheep, so we know that works. Altered nuclear transfer basically says 
take that egg, take some genetic material, and before you put it in 
there, you program the egg so it doesn't create an embryo but creates a 
tissue mass which has the same pluripotency, the ability to do all the 
other things any other embryonic stem cell would do.
  I have a series of letters from scientists who say this should work. 
I will quote:

       Research results suggest that Altered Nuclear Transfer may 
     be able to produce human pluripotent stem cells--the 
     functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells--in a manner 
     that is simpler and more efficient than current methods.

  That is by Hans Schoeler, chairman of the Department of Cell and 
Developmental Biology at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

       Recently, multiple labs in the United States and around the 
     world have published or reported experiments in which adult 
     cells were converted, not to embryos, but directly to 
     pluripotent ``embryonic-like'' cells. The resulting cells 
     were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells 
     derived from embryos. The techniques used have included 
     altered nuclear transfer, cell fusion and chemical 
     reprogramming. The results were obtained from the top 
     scientists in the field and published in the best journals.

  That is by Markus Grompe, M.D., Oregon Stem Cell Center.
  One last quote:

       I think that current scientific evidence and reasonable 
     expectations make it likely that altering a donor nucleus to 
     preclude normal organization of any subsequent blastocyst is 
     technically feasible and consistent with the scientific and 
     medical goals of embryonic stem cell research.


[[Page 8564]]


  That is by Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, Ph.D., Department of Cellular and 
Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
  Much of the work is from a doctor, Dr. William B. Hurlbut, over at 
Stanford, the Neuroscience Institute at Stanford. I worked with him. He 
has published a lot on this issue. I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a presentation by Dr. Hurlbut entitled ``Stem 
Cells, Embryos and Ethics: Is There a Way Forward?''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Stem Cells, Embryos and Ethics: Is There a Way Forward?

  (By William B. Hurlbut, M.D.,University of Notre Dame, Neuroscience 
                 Institute at Stanford, Apr. 18, 2006)

       We are at a crucial moment in the process of scientific 
     discovery. The dramatic advances in molecular biology 
     throughout the 20th century have culminated in the sequencing 
     of the human genome and increasing knowledge of cell 
     physiology and cytology. These studies were accomplished by 
     breaking down organic systems into their component parts. 
     Now, however, as we move on from genomics and proteomics to 
     discoveries in developmental biology, we have returned to the 
     study of living beings. When applied to human biology, this 
     inquiry reopens the most fundamental questions concerning the 
     relationship between the material form and the moral meaning 
     of developing life.
       The current conflict over ES cell research is just the 
     first in a series of difficult controversies that will 
     require us to define with clarity and precision the moral 
     boundaries we seek to defend. Human-animal Chimeras, 
     parthenogenesis, projects involving the laboratory production 
     of organs--and a wide range of other emerging technologies 
     will continue to challenge our definitions of human life. 
     These are not questions for science alone, but for the full 
     breadth of human wisdom and experience.
       The scientific arguments for going forward with this 
     research are strong.
       --The convergence of these advancing technologies is 
     delivering unprecedented powers for research into the most 
     basic questions in early human development.
       --Beyond the obvious benefit of understanding the 
     biological factors behind the estimated 150,000 births with 
     serious congenital defects per year, it is becoming 
     increasingly evident that certain pathologies that are only 
     manifest later in life are influenced or have their origins 
     in early development.
       --Furthermore, fundamental developmental processes 
     (including the formation and functioning of stem cells), and 
     their disordered dynamics, seem to be at work in a range of 
     adult pathologies including some forms of cancer.
       Yet from the moral and social perspective there are serious 
     concerns. (This is an eight-cell embryo on the sharp tip of a 
     pin.)
       It is important to acknowledge the many scientific projects 
     for which human embryos could be used. Beyond their 
     destruction for the procurement of embryonic cells, some fear 
     the industrial scale production of living human embryos for a 
     wide range of research in natural development, toxicology and 
     drug testing.
       Lord Alton, a member of the House of Lords in the UK told 
     me that they estimate over 100,000 human embryos have already 
     been used in scientific experimentation in Britain.
       Beyond that, there is concern about the commodification and 
     commercialization of eggs and embryos, and worry about the 
     implications of ongoing research to create an artificial 
     endometrium (a kind of artificial womb) that would allow the 
     extracorporeal gestation of cloned embryos to later stages 
     for the production of more advanced cells, tissues and 
     organs.
       Furthermore, from a social perspective, do we really want 
     to have red state medicine/blue state medicine? The emerging 
     patchwork of policies on the state level threatens to create 
     a situation in which a large percentage of patients will 
     enter the hospital with moral qualms about the foundations on 
     which their treatments have been developed. What was 
     traditionally the sanctuary of compassionate care at the most 
     vulnerable and sensitive moments of human life is becoming an 
     arena of controversy and conflict.
       Clearly, both sides of this difficult debate are defending 
     important human goods--and both of these goods are important 
     for all of us. A purely political solution will leave our 
     country bitterly divided, eroding the social support and 
     sense of noble purpose that is essential for the public 
     funding of biomedical science. While there are currently no 
     federally legislated constraints on the use of private funds 
     for this research, there is a consensus opinion in the 
     scientific community that without NIH support for newly 
     created embryonic stem cell lines, progress in this important 
     realm of research will be severely constrained.
       The current conflict in the political arena is damaging to 
     science, to religion and to our larger sense of national 
     unity. The way this debate is proceeding is, in my opinion, 
     completely contrary to the positive pluralism that is the 
     strength of our democracy.
       What is needed is to draw back from the polarized positions 
     of political rhetoric and to respectfully reflect on the 
     meaning of the moment we are in.
       In the spirit of such a dialogue, and in the hope that it 
     might lead us toward a resolution of our difficult national 
     impasse over embryonic stem cell research, I offer the 
     perspective that follows.


                     moral meaning of emerging life

       Any evaluation of the moral significance of human life must 
     take into account the full procession of continuity and 
     change that is essential for its development. With the act of 
     conception, a new life is initiated with a distinct genetic 
     endowment that organizes and guides the growth of a unique 
     and unrepeatable human being.
       The gametes (the sperm and egg), although alive as cells, 
     are not living beings: they are instrumental organic agents 
     of the parents. The joining of the gametes brings into 
     existence an entirely different kind of entity, a living 
     human organism. With regard to fundamental biological meaning 
     (and moral significance), the act of fertilization is a leap 
     from zero to everything.
       In both structure and function, the zygote (the one cells 
     embryo) and subsequent embryonic stages differ from all other 
     cells or tissues of the body; they contain within themselves 
     the organizing principle for the full development of a human 
     being. The very word organism implies organization, an 
     overarching principle that binds the parts and processes of 
     life into a harmonious whole. As a living being, an organism 
     is an integrated, self-developing and self-maintaining unity 
     under the governance of an immanent plan.
       For an embryonic organism, this implies an inherent 
     potency, an engaged and effective potential with a drive in 
     the direction of the mature form. By its very nature, an 
     embryo is a developing being. Its wholeness is defined by 
     both its manifest expression and its latent potential; it is 
     the phase of human life in which the `whole' (as the unified 
     organismal principle of growth) precedes and produces its 
     organic parts. The philosopher Robert Joyce explains: 
     ``Living beings come into existence all at once and then 
     gradually unfold to themselves and to the world what they 
     already but only incipiently are.'' To be a human organism is 
     to be a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens, with 
     a human present and a human future evident in the intrinsic 
     potential for the manifestation of the species typical form. 
     Joyce continues: ``No living being can become anything other 
     than what it already essentially is.''
       It is this implicit whole, with its inherent potency, that 
     endows the embryo with continuity of human identity from the 
     moment of conception and therefore, from this perspective, 
     inviolable moral status. To interfere in its development is 
     to transgress upon a life in process. The principle of this 
     analysis applies to any entity that has the same potency as a 
     human embryo produced by natural fertilization, regardless of 
     whether it is the product of IVF, cloning, or other 
     processes.
     Accrued moral status
       The major alternative to the view that an embryo has an 
     inherent moral status is the assertion that moral status is 
     an accrued or accumulated quality related to some dimension 
     of morphology or function.
       The three arguments currently given in support of a 14 day 
     limit on embryo research--lack of differentiation, lack of 
     individuation and pre-implantation status--are based on a 
     kind of `received tradition' that dates back to the 1986 
     Warnock Commission in the UK. But this commission explicitly 
     acknowledged the continuous nature of embryonic development, 
     stating: ``There is no particular part of the developmental 
     process that is more important than any other.'' In a recent 
     memoir, Mary Warnock discussed the utilitarian grounding of 
     her commission's analysis acknowledging that her committee's 
     task was ``to recommend a policy which might allow the sort 
     of medical and scientific progress which was in the public 
     interest.'' Indeed, recent advances in embryology do not 
     support this commission's conclusions.
       The argument on differentiation is based on the idea that 
     before gastrulation (which begins around the 12th to 14th day 
     with the formation of the primitive streak), the embryo is an 
     inchoate clump of cells with no actuated drive in the 
     direction of distinct development.
       It is argued that the undifferentiated quality of the 
     blastocyst (the 4-5 day embryo) justifies its disaggregation 
     for the procurement of stem cells, while the evident 
     organization at gastrulation reveals an organismal integrity 
     that endows inviolable moral status to all subsequent stages 
     of embryological development.
       Scientific evidence, however, supports the opposing 
     argument--that from conception there is an unbroken 
     continuity in the differentiation and organization of the 
     emerging individual life, the anterior-posterior axis appears 
     to be already established within the zygote (the one-cell 
     stage); the earliest embryonic cell divisions (at least at by 
     the 4

[[Page 8565]]

     cell stage) exhibit differential gene expression; the unequal 
     cytoplasmic concentrations of cell constituents in the early 
     embryo suggest distinct cellular fates.
       All this implies that the changes at gastrulation do not 
     represent a discontinuity of ontological significance (a 
     change in the nature of being), but merely the visibly 
     evident culmination of more subtle developmental processes at 
     the cellular level that are driving in the direction of 
     organismal maturity.
       These new scientific perspetives were documented in a July 
     2002 article in Nature: ``The mammalian body plan starts 
     being laid down from the moment of conception . . . a 
     suprising shift in embryological thinking.''
     Twinning
       Another argument for accrued moral status is that as long 
     as an embryo is capable of giving rise to a twin it cannot be 
     considered to have the moral standing of an individual.
       Yet monozygotic twinning, which occurs in just one in 240 
     births, does not appear to be either an intrinsic drive or a 
     random process within embryogenesis. Rather, it results from 
     a disruption of normal development by a mechanical or 
     biochemical disturbance of fragile cell relationships. This 
     provokes a compensatory repair, but with the restitution of 
     integrity within two distinct trajectories of embryological 
     development.
       In considering the implications of twinning for 
     individuation, one might better ask the question from the 
     opposite perspective. What keeps each of the cells of the 
     early embryo from becoming a full embryo? Clearly, crucial 
     relational dynamics of position and intercellular 
     communication are already at work establishing the unified 
     pattern of the emerging individual.
       From this perspective twinning is not evidence of the 
     absence of an individual, but of an extraordinary power of 
     compensatory repair that reflects more fully the potency of 
     the individual drive to fullness of form even in the earliest 
     stages of embryonic human life.
     Implantation
       Some have argued that the implantation of the embryo within 
     the uterine lining of the mother constitutes a moment of 
     altered moral status.
       Fertilization occurs in the fallopian tubes.
       The embryo floats down into the uterus and begins to 
     implant in the uterine wall around the 6th-7th day. All along 
     this journey the diffusion of essential nutrients and growth 
     factors sustains the life and nourishes the growth of the 
     developing embryo. Implantation and the development of the 
     placenta simply extend this relationship between mother and 
     embryo with an internal circulation as the embryo gets too 
     large to be nourished by direct diffusion.
       Implantation, then, must be viewed as just another step in 
     a continuum of ongoing intimate dependence, all occuring 
     along the trajectory of natural development that begins with 
     conception and continues into infancy. This continuity 
     implies no meaningful moral marker at implantation.
     Function
       Most other arguments relate in some way to the onset of a 
     specific function or capacity. Arguments for a change in 
     moral status based on function are at once the most difficult 
     to refute and to defend.
       The first and most obvious problem is that the essential 
     functions (and even their minimal criteria and age of onset) 
     are diverse and arbitrarily assigned. Generally they relate 
     to the onset of sentience, awareness of pain, or some 
     apparently unique human cognitive capability such as 
     consciousness.
       This approach raises a number of disturbing ethical 
     questions.
       --If human moral worth is based on actual manifest 
     functions, then does more of that function give an individual 
     life a higher moral value?
       --And what are we to make of the parallel functional 
     capacities in animals that we routinely sacrifice for food 
     and medical research?
       --Furthermore, what becomes of human moral status with the 
     degeneration or disappearance of such functions? While we 
     might argue that our relational obligations change along with 
     changes in function, such as occur with senile dementia, we 
     would not sanction a utilitarian calculus and the purely 
     instrumental use of such persons no matter how promising the 
     medical benefits might be.
       More fundamentally, from a scientific perspective, there is 
     no meaningful moment when one can definitively designate the 
     biological origins of a human characteristic such as 
     consciousness. The human being is an inseparable psycho-
     physical unity. Our thinking is in and through our bodily 
     being, and thus the roots of our consciousness reach deep 
     into our development. The earliest stages of human 
     development serve as the indispensable and enduring 
     foundations for the powers of freedom and self-awareness that 
     reach their fullest expression in the adult form.
       With respect to fundamental moral status therefore, the 
     human being is an embodied being whose intrinsic dignity is 
     inseparable from its full procession of life and always 
     present in its varied stages of emergence.
       This conclusion is consistent with 2,500 years of medical 
     science--as recently as 1948, the Physicians Oath in the 
     Declaration of Geneva, echoing the enduring traditions of 
     Hippocratic medicine, proclaimed: ``I will maintain the 
     utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.''
       As we descend into an instrumental use of human life we 
     destroy the very reason for which we were undertaking our new 
     therapies; we degrade the humanity we were trying to heal.


                     In Vitro Fertilization Embryos

       This brings us to the dilemma of the moral status of an 
     estimated one million embryos left over from in vitro 
     fertalization (IVF). Created to give life, they are now 
     suspended in time and space and the uncertainty of a 
     conflicted fate.
       In this canister in the Assisted Reproduction Technologies 
     clinic at Stanford are 300 embryos. The water in their cells 
     has been replaced with glycerol and they are immersed in 
     liquid nitrogen at a temprature of minus 200 degrees Celsius. 
     (I joke with my friend, the director of the lab, that this 
     must be the densest population in human history.)
       But the future of these embryos is a poignant problem. In 
     some cases, such embryos have been implanted as long as 
     twelve and a half years after freezing, including one born 
     seven and a half years after its twin. In other cases, there 
     have been custody battles over the frozen embryos after 
     divorces and even a dispute over inheritance when a wealthy 
     couple died in an airplane crash and left several embryonic 
     hiers with numerous couples stepping forward and offering to 
     adopt them. But most of these one million frozen embryos do 
     not have such privileged prospects. They are castoffs, 
     destined to be discarded or disaggregated in the service of 
     medical science.
       And this is a warning to us of how even the best intentions 
     of our science, unconstrained by the forethought of moral 
     consideration, slips slowly along the gradient of utility. 
     Each of these embryos, once the precious promise of a happy 
     baby, is now relegated to the category of mere matter, raw 
     material in a larger program of scientific progress.
       However much we may agree or disagree with the process that 
     put them there, we should acknowledge that this is a 
     difficult dilemma. Produced with a healing purpose, the good 
     intentions of overcoming the sorrow of infertility, they are 
     now abandoned to a project of a completely different 
     character. Some say that if there is a moral problem it is 
     upstream, in the process that put them there and that now, 
     since they are destined to die, what further harm can be 
     done? As a pragmatic people, many Americans feel the weight 
     of this argument. And, if we fail to develop a morally 
     acceptable alternative source of embryonic stem cells, I 
     suspect that is where our national policy may settle.
       Yet even if use of these embryos becomes accepted policy 
     and practice, we should be aware of something more 
     complicated that is below the surface: there has been a slow 
     but steady shift in our underlying attitude toward human 
     life. As we gain the powers of comprehension and control over 
     our most basic biology, there is a transformation, not just 
     in our physical being, but in our whole sense of who we are, 
     and of our place and purpose within the natural order.
       As we take increasing instrumental control over natural 
     life processes our attitude changes and we lose the sense of 
     cautionary reverence and respect. With each step, however 
     benevolent the initial intention, there is a moral danger, a 
     fracturing of matter and meaning that breaks the coherence 
     and natural connections of life. With each step, the original 
     radiance and vitality of the cosmos, its order, beauty and 
     coherent moral meaning, are obscured by the conviction that 
     all of living nature is mere matter and information, to be 
     reshuffled and reassigned for the projects of the human will.
       This instrumental use of life reaches its most ominous 
     extension as we relegate the human embryo to the status of a 
     resource, as raw material in the service of our project in 
     the mastery over nature. Such an instrumental use of early 
     human life opens a doorway down a long corridor indeed.
       For one thing, many of these embryos are not at the 
     developmental state for harvesting embryonic stem cells and 
     would have to undergo further laboratory culture to the 
     blastocyst stage. Will we not want to use some for 
     experiments to perfect the culture medium? And while we are 
     at it, there are many other studies that could be done on 
     early embryos to help perfect IVF.
       Thirty years ago, when IVF first came on the scene there 
     was a difficult debate in congress over support of research 
     that involves the destruction of human life. This debate 
     culminated in 1996 with the passage of the Dickey Amendment 
     that forbids federal funding for projects that endanger or 
     destroy human embryos. As with abortion, IVF, involving the 
     creation and implantation or disposal of embryos, would be a 
     matter of personal choice done with private funds.
       Will we now retreat and override this decision--or is only 
     embryonic stem cell research urgent enough to justify an 
     exception to this long-standing federal policy? Furthermore, 
     even if we endorse this course of action, the 14-day limit on 
     the use of human embryos will not hold since it does not 
     stand up to logical argument. As discussed above,

[[Page 8566]]

     the designation of fourteen days as the moral boundary for 
     embryo experimentation is in the category of a `received 
     tradition,' almost a superstition in the sense that it is a 
     belief in a change of state without a discernible cause. As a 
     moral marker, fourteen days makes no sense, it is arbitrarily 
     set and therefore vulnerable to transgression through the 
     persuasive promise of further scientific benefit.


                              Beyond cells

       And it is becoming increasingly apparent that the promise 
     of stem cells lies beyond simple cell cultures and cell 
     replacement. The technological goal is to produce more 
     advanced cell types and even tissues, organs, and possibly 
     limb primordia. Producing such complex tissues and organs may 
     require the intricate cell interactions and microenvironments 
     now available only through natural gestation.
       During embryogenesis, differentiation and organ formation 
     unfold within the fragile spatio-temporal induction of a 
     highly specific sequence of cell signaling--different signals 
     coming from different sides and in a perfect synchrony of 
     process.
       Consider the formation of the human hand. It begins as a 
     small bud induced off the trunk of the embryo, then through 
     an extraordinary orchestration of cell interactions it 
     progressively unfolds toward its functional form. But once 
     initiated (after about the 5-6th week of embryogenesis), the 
     limb bud can actually be severed from the embryo and, given 
     the right environment, will continue its momentum of 
     development as an independent unit.
       I have seen just such a hand in the bottom of a test tube. 
     The tiny limb bud, snipped from the fetal remains of a 5 week 
     old aborted fetus, was implanted into the abdominal cavity of 
     a SCID mouse (a special kind of mouse that won't reject the 
     tissue), and grown till it was about \1/4\ inch wide. I 
     looked down on that little hand and I thought to myself--this 
     is fantastic, one day we may grow limbs for people with 
     congenital malformations or injuries and amputations. But at 
     the same time I thought--this was going to be someone's 
     little hand, that tender little newborn hand that lays across 
     his mother's breast while nursing.
       But if we might one day grow human limbs, we might even 
     more easily grow other organs--kidneys, livers and hearts. 
     Scientists in Isreal have already established that human 
     kidney primordia taken from 7-8 week old aborted fetuses can 
     be successfully grown in mice--a feat proclaimed as ``a 
     breakthrough that might one day help save thousands of 
     patients waiting for transplants.'' (There are 50,000 people 
     in the U.S. alone on dialysis, waiting for kidney 
     transplants--an estimated 17 deaths a day are due to the 
     inadequate organ supply.) Furthermore, several years ago it 
     was announced that a scientist in China successfully 
     sustained in vitro a human heart severed from its source in a 
     7 week old aborted fetus.
       The benefits of implanting embryos in order to employ the 
     developmental dynamics of natural embryogenesis for the 
     production of limb and organ primordia seem self-evident.
       The implantation of cloned embryos (either into the natural 
     womb or possibly an artificial endometrium) for the 
     production of patient specific tissue types to bypass 
     problems of immune rejection would further extend the logic 
     of the instrumental use of developing life.
       The public pressure that has already been brought to bear 
     on the politics of stem cells and cloning by patient advocacy 
     groups has provoked such a sense of promise that it may 
     propel the argument for allowing such gestation of cloned 
     human embryos.
       Over the past four years, I have talked with hundreds of 
     people, including many scientists, who say that they would 
     find such a practice, (that is, the implantation of a cloned 
     embryo) acceptable to save the life of a dying child.
       Different people have different limits to the duration of 
     gestation they find morally acceptable, but in light of the 
     current sanction of abortion up to and beyond the end of the 
     second trimester, it is difficult to argue that creation, 
     gestation and sacrifice of a clone to save an existing life 
     is a large leap in the logic of justification. The argument 
     is made that if abortion is legal, that is, if a developing 
     life can be terminated with no reason given, then why not 
     for a good reason? One must admit there is a certain 
     perverse logic to this argument.


                              white paper

       In light of the arguments given above that human moral 
     worth is based on a continuity of embodied form from 
     fertilization to natural death, it would seem that we are at 
     an irresolvable impasse. If embryonic stem cells can be 
     obtained only by the destruction of human embryos this may, 
     in fact, be the case. But last May a White Paper by the 
     President's Council on Bioethics suggested otherwise. This 
     report describes four proposals put forward as possible means 
     of obtaining embryonic stem cells without the creation and 
     destruction of human embryos.
       As the author of one of the proposals, Altered Nuclear 
     Transfer, I would like to draw on this to discuss the 
     scientific advances and moral reasoning that may lead us to a 
     technological solution to our national conflict.


                        altered nuclear transfer

       As described above, natural conception signals the 
     activation of the organizing principle for the self-
     development and self-maintenance of the full human organism. 
     In the language of stem cell biology, this capability is 
     termed ``totipotency,'' the capacity to form the complete 
     organism. A naturally fertilized egg, the one cell embryo, is 
     totipotent.
       In contrast, the term ``pluripotency,'' designates the 
     capacity to produce all the cell types of the human body but 
     not the coherent and integrated unity of a living being. 
     Embryonic stem cells are merely pluripotent. This is a 
     difference between the material parts and the living whole.
       Altered Nuclear Transfer would draw on the basic technique 
     of SCNT (popularly known as ``therapeutic cloning'') but with 
     an alteration such that pluripotent stem cells are produced 
     without the creation and destruction of totipotent human 
     embryos.
       In standard nuclear transfer the cell nucleus is removed 
     from an adult body cell and transferred into an egg cell that 
     first has its own nucleus removed. The egg then has a full 
     set of DNA and, after it is electrically stimulated, starts 
     to divide like a naturally fertilized egg. This is how Dolly 
     the sheep was produced.
       Altered Nuclear Transfer uses the technology of nuclear 
     transfer but with a preemptive alteration that assures that 
     no embryo is created. The adult body cell nucleus or the 
     enucleated egg's contents (or both) are first altered before 
     the adult body cell nucleus is transferred into the egg. The 
     alterations cause the adult body cell DNA to function in such 
     a way that no embryo is generated, but pluripotent stem cells 
     are produced.
       There is natural precedent for such a project. In normal 
     conception, fertilization signals the activation of the 
     organizing principle for the self-development of the full 
     human organism.
       But without all of the essential elements--the necessary 
     complement of chromosomes, proper epigenetic configuration 
     and the cytoplasmic factors for gene expression--there can be 
     no living whole, no organism, and no human embryo. Recent 
     scientific evidence suggests incomplete combinations of the 
     necessary elements--`failures of fertilization'--are the fate 
     of many, perhaps most, of early natural initiations in 
     reproduction.


                       failures of fertilization

       It is important to realize that many of these naturally 
     occurring failures of fertilization may still proceed along 
     partial trajectories of organic growth without being actual 
     organisms. For example, certain grossly abnormal karyotypes 
     (including haploid genomes, with only half the natural number 
     of chromosomes) will form blastocyst-like structures but will 
     not implant.
       Even an egg without a nucleus, when artificially activated 
     has the developmental power to divide to the eight-cell 
     stage, yet clearly is not an embryo--or an organism at all. 
     The mRNA for the protein synthesis that drives these early 
     cell divisions is generated during the maturation of the egg 
     and then activated after fertilization. Like a spinning top, 
     the cells contain a certain biological momentum that propels 
     a partial trajectory of development, but unlike a normal 
     embryo they are unable to bootstrap themselves into becoming 
     an integrated and self-regulating organism.
       Some of these aberrant products of fertilization that lack 
     the qualities and characteristics of an organism, appear to 
     be capable of generating ES cells or their functional 
     equivalent. Mature teratomas are benign tumors that generate 
     all three primary embryonic cell types as well as more 
     advanced cells and tissues, including partial limb and organ 
     primordia--and sometimes hair, fingernails and even fully 
     formed teeth. (The white opacities in this x-ray are adult-
     size molars.) Yet these chaotic, disorganized, and 
     nonfunctional masses are like a bag of jumbled puzzle parts, 
     lacking entirely the structural and dynamic character of 
     organisms. Neither medical science nor the major religious 
     traditions have ever considered these growths to be `moral 
     beings' worthy of protection, yet they produce embryonic stem 
     cells.
       These benign ovarian tumors, appear to be derived by 
     spontaneous development of activated eggs. The disorganized 
     character of teratomas appears to arise, not from changes in 
     the DNA sequence, but from genetic imprinting, an epigenetic 
     modification that affects the pattern of gene expression 
     (keeping some genes turned off and others on). In natural 
     reproduction the sperm and egg have different, but 
     complementary, patterns of imprinting, allowing a coordinated 
     control of embryological development. When an egg is 
     activated without a sperm, the trophectoderm (the outer layer 
     in a natural embryo--sometimes called the trophoblast) and 
     its lineages fail to develop properly. In the absence of the 
     complementary genetic contribution of the male, the activated 
     egg is simply inadequately constituted to direct the 
     integrated development characteristic of human embryogenesis.


                            Systems Biology

       This example points to another new dimension of our 
     advancing knowledge. Through

[[Page 8567]]

     systems biology, we are beginning to recognize how even a 
     small change of one gene can affect the entire balance of an 
     enormous network of biochemical processes necessary to 
     initiate and sustain the existence of a living being.
       Systems biology offers us the view of an organism as a 
     dynamic whole, an interactive web of interdependent processes 
     that express emergent properties not apparent in the 
     biochemical parts. Within this dynamic self-sustaining system 
     is the very principle of life, the organizing information and 
     coordinated coherence of a living being. With the full 
     complement of coordinated parts, an organismal system 
     subsumes and sustains the parts; it exerts a downward 
     causation that binds and balances the parts into a patterned 
     program of integrated growth and development. Partial organic 
     subsystems (cells, tissues and organs) that are components of 
     this larger whole, if separated or separately produced, may 
     temporarily proceed forward in development. But without the 
     coherent coordination and robust self-regulation of the full 
     organism, they will ultimately become merely disorganized 
     cellular growth.
       ANT proposes that small, but precisely selected alterations 
     will allow the harnessing of partial developmental 
     trajectories apart from their full natural context in order 
     to produce ES cells.


                                  CDX2

       Altered nuclear transfer is a broad concept with a range of 
     possible approaches; there may be many ways this technique 
     can be used to accomplish the same end.
       One variation involves the deletion or silencing of a gene 
     essential at the most primary level of coordinated 
     organization. As described in a January 2006 paper in the 
     journal Nature, stem cell biologist Rudolf Jaenisch has 
     established the scientific feasibility of this approach in a 
     series of dramatic mouse model experiments in which he 
     procured fully functional embryonic stem cells from a 
     laboratory construct that is radically different in 
     developmental potential than a normal embryo.
       Using the technique of RNA interference, he was able to 
     reversibly silence the gene Cdx2 in the donor nucleus before 
     nuclear transfer to the enucleated egg. And a study just two 
     months ago in the journal Science suggests that it may be 
     possible to achieve the goals of ANT through the preemptive 
     silencing of Cdx2 in the egg even before the act of nuclear 
     transfer, thereby producing the biological (and moral) 
     equivalent of an inner cell mass tissue culture. This article 
     showed that in mice, m-RNA for Cdx2 is present in the egg and 
     asymmetrically distributed in the first cell division after 
     fertilization. This asymmetric distribution of Cdx2 directs 
     the cells at the two-cell stage to form two distinct cell 
     lineages. One of the cells at the two-cell stage goes on to 
     become the trophectoderm and forms the outer layer of the 
     embryo (and later the extra-embryonic membranes, including 
     the placenta). The other cell forms the `inner cell mass' 
     which is the source of embryonic stem cells. By selective 
     silencing of Cdx2, the authors were able to produce an 
     unorganized mass composed exclusively of cells with the 
     character of inner cell mass.
       This is the organic equivalent of a model airplane kit 
     without the glue, you have parts but no capacity to form a 
     coherent whole. The gene Cdx2 has been shown in mouse models 
     to be essential for the early integration of organismal 
     function. In the absence of expression of this gene, as with 
     a teratoma, the trophectoderm fails to grow and there is only 
     partial and unorganized cellular process. Lacking one of the 
     two essential cell types, it is the equivalent of trying to 
     sing a duet with only one voice. The coordinated interactions 
     that are essential for embryonic development are simply not 
     possible. Nonetheless, an inner cell mass is produced from 
     which functional embryonic stem cells can be extracted.
       It is important to recognize that the improper development 
     of the trophectoderm is not reasonably considered a defect 
     within a part but rather a failure in the formation of the 
     whole. An early embryo does not have parts in quite the same 
     sense as an adult organism or even as a later-stage embryo 
     just a few days or weeks later. Natural embryogenesis is, by 
     definition, the period during which the whole, as the unified 
     principle of growth, produces the parts. The differentiation 
     of parts during early embryogenesis lays down the fundamental 
     axes, body plan, and pattern of integrated organogenesis. An 
     embryo does not have a central integrating part like the 
     brain; rather, the essential being is the whole being. At 
     this stage, a critical ``deficiency'' is more rightly 
     considered an ``insufficiency,'' not a defect in a being, but 
     an inadequacy at such a fundamental level that it precludes 
     the coordinated coherence and developmental potential that 
     are the defining characteristics of an embryonic organism. In 
     testimony to a U.S. Senate subcommittee on stem cell 
     research, Dr. Jaenisch stated: ``Because the ANT product 
     lacks essential properties of the fertilized embryo, it is 
     not justified to call it an `embryo.'
       Many scientists, moral philosophers and religious 
     authorities (including some of the most conservative 
     evangelical and Catholic leaders) have expressed strong 
     encouragement for further exploration of this project. Of 
     course additional animal studies, including some with non-
     human primates must precede any translation of these findings 
     into practice with human cells.


                           Advantages of ANT

       ANT, in its many variations, could provide a uniquely 
     flexible tool and has many positive advantages that would 
     help advance stem cell research.
       --Unlike the use of embryos from IVF clinics, ANT would 
     produce an unlimited range of genetic types for the study of 
     disease, drug testing and possibly generation of 
     therapeutically useful cells.
       --By allowing controlled and reproducible experiments, ANT 
     would provide a valuable research tool for a wide range of 
     studies of gene expression, imprinting, and intercellular 
     communication.
       --Furthermore, the basic research essential to establishing 
     the ANT technique would advance our understanding of 
     developmental biology and might serve as a bridge to 
     transcendent technologies such as direct reprogramming of 
     adult cells.
       --Moreover, as a direct laboratory technique, ANT would 
     unburden embryonic stem cell research from the additional 
     ethical concerns of the ``left over'' IVF embryos, including 
     the attendant clinical and legal complexities in this realm 
     of great personal and social sensitivity.
       The one remaining link with IVF, the procurement of 
     oocytes, is a subject of intense scientific research and 
     there appear to be several prospects for obtaining eggs 
     without the morally dubious and expensive hormonally induced 
     super-ovulation of female patients. These include the use of 
     eggs left over from IVF, the laboratory maturation of eggs 
     cultured from ovaries obtained after surgical removal or from 
     cadavers, and possibly the direct production of eggs from 
     embryonic stem cells (a feat already accomplished with mouse 
     cells).


                               Conclusion

       We are at a crucial moment in the progress of science and 
     civilization. Advances in biology have delivered new powers 
     with extraordinary potential for positive application in both 
     basic research and clinical medicine. Yet, at the same time, 
     these new possibilities challenge the most fundamental moral 
     principles on which our society is based. Clearly, both sides 
     of this difficult debate over embryonic stem cell research 
     are defending something important to all of us. Without a 
     resolution that sustains social consensus, there will be a 
     series of continuing conflicts as our science challenges us 
     with further dilemmas at the boundaries of human life.
       The English author G.K. Chesterton had a metaphor that may 
     inform our current situation. Little boys are playing soccer 
     on an island, but at the very edges of the field cliffs go 
     down hundreds of feet to the waves crashing against the rocky 
     shore. The boys are playing, but only in the middle twenty 
     yards--no one wants to do a corner kick. Then someone comes 
     and builds a sturdy fence right at the edges of the field: 
     now they can play within the full field without fear of 
     falling off the cliff.
       Our current conflict is like this: science is stalled 
     across a broad front. If we can define with clarity and 
     precision the moral boundaries we are trying to defend, we 
     might open a wider arena of legitimate study without fear of 
     the grave dangers posed by breach of the basic moral 
     principles that sustain our civilization. In provoking just 
     such reflection and clarity of definition, the proposal for 
     Altered Nuclear Transfer sets the foundation for a positive 
     future of scientific advance.
       Yet, some will say, ``how can such a tiny clump of cells 
     hold such significance?''
       But size is not a measure of moral meaning. It is true, 
     from here these cells are barely visible.
       But from here one cannot see the people.
       And from here one cannot see the earth.
       And from here one cannot even see our galaxy.
       Three hundred years ago the French philosopher-
     mathematician Blaise Pascal noted that human existence is 
     located between infinities--between the infinitely large and 
     the infinitely small. He went on to say ``By size the 
     universe surrounds and swallows me up like a dot: by thought 
     I encompass the universe.''
       But what kind of thought could encompass the universe? That 
     thought must be a moral thought--that thought must be love.
       C.S. Lewis once said that we should answer all of our 
     problems with more love, not less love.
       That precious love that nourished and sustained each one of 
     us in the early dawn of our unfolding form.
       Now, as we prepare to enter the future with the new powers 
     of our scientific understanding, we should remember the words 
     of St. John of the Cross: ``In the evening of life, we will 
     be judged by love.''

  Mr. COLEMAN. We are all aware of how divisive this issue has been. I 
believe that there are areas of common ground where people can come 
together and reconcile what appear to be two opposing opinions. This is 
the ground on which I have built my legislation.

[[Page 8568]]

  The HOPE Act is the only bill up for debate which would not be in 
danger of a Presidential veto. This means that my bill is the only way 
we can actually move the science forward for at least the next two 
years.
  What this debate is really about is what the American public gets at 
the end of the day. When all the votes are cast, what can we say to the 
patients who visit us who want cures for terrible diseases? Some 
members would focus on adult stem cells and some would leave all the 
promise with embryonic stem cells. But a balanced and measured approach 
would give the Federal Government the opportunity to support both.
  At the end of the day, one bill is destined for the garbage bin. It 
sounds harsh, but it's a fact that the President will veto it. Maybe it 
can be dusted off in 2009 with a new administration, but in the 
meanwhile, we're wasting time. The HOPE Act actually has a chance of 
becoming law and putting the force of Federal support into pluripotent 
stem cell research that can benefit patients in the very near future.
  My bill incorporates all of the most promising current scientific 
advancements which adhere to ethical principles, induding methods using 
adult stem cells and some using embryonic stem cells.
  Since 2001, the Federal Government has funded human embryonic stem 
cell research using only lines created before August 9, 2001. No 
embryonic stem cell lines created after 2001 were eligible for funding. 
Although the White House could change their policy at any time, they 
haven't. Currently, only 20-21 lines are eligible, down from an 
original 60.
  There are already several methods proposed for deriving pluripotent 
cells without harming human embryos.
  Research involving ANT, naturally dead embryos or single cell biopsy 
has never before received Federal funding. Our bill would allow these 
methods to be considered for Federal funding and specifically direct 
the NIH to establish guidelines to carry out this research. Similiar 
guidelines or requests for research proposals, RFPs, do not currently 
exist.
  Additionally, my bill provides funding to start the process of 
developing a stem cell bank. By opening banks to store amniotic and 
placental cells, this bill will make available a greater variety of 
stem cells. Different types of stem cells are used in different types 
of treatments. Anthony Atala has told us that ``So far, we've been 
successful with every cell type we've attempted to produce from these 
stem cells. The AFS cells can also produce mature cells that meet tests 
of function, which suggests their therapeutic value.''
  Bottom line--This bill moves the United States one step further 
towards widespread use of stem cells for treatments for a variety of 
diseases.
  Opponents tell us that this bill doesn't do anything new. This is 
just not true. In addition to what I've mentioned above, there is 
scientific proof that these alternatives can create quality, new 
embryonic stem cell lines.
  In fact, one of these methods, using naturally dead embryos, has 
already produced at least one new embryonic stem cell line which is 
currently available in a stem cell bank and under your bill would now 
be eligible for Federal funding. Donald Landry, Chief of the Division 
of Experimental Therapeutics at Columbia University, says that 
increasing the number of stem cell lines created this way would be just 
a matter of effort.
  According to this well-respected researcher, there could be a 
continuous supply of new embryonic stem cell lines using stem cells 
derived from naturally dead embryos. The same could be said for other 
methods:
  When the dust clears, The HOPE Act is the only bill up for 
consideration which will give the American public new research for 
their tax dollars. Under The HOPE Act, a continuous supply of 
pluripotent stem cell lines would be available for Federal funding.
  We are at a point where there is this great debate in this country 
over, not the issue of stem cell research but, simply, the source of 
the stem cells and then the Federal funding of the stem cells. That is 
the reality. That is where we are today. What Senator Isakson and 
myself and other colleagues are offering is what we believe is a way 
forward, a way to move the science forward, a way to avoid the culture 
wars. It is not everything my colleagues who support S. 5, if that 
would have passed and become law, would have, but S. 5 for many crosses 
that line, so we can't support it, but we want the research to move 
forward.
  The reality is the science is moving so much faster than the politics 
here. The science is putting us in a position where we could and should 
explore the benefits of embryonic research and pluripotent stem cell 
research without having to cross the moral line. So if S. 30 is passed, 
the President has said he will not veto S. 30. If S. 30 becomes the 
law, then, in fact, the amount of Federal dollars available for human 
embryonic pluripotency research will be far greater than what we have 
today.
  For those out there who are looking for hope--and that is what we 
call our bill, HOPE--it is hope offered through principled ethical stem 
cell research. For those who are looking for hope, we are offering some 
hope. It is not everything. It is not everything that all desire in the 
area of stem cell research. But the reality of so much of what we are 
dealing with in stem cell research is about theory. It is about hope.
  Let's offer the hope. There is hope of what embryonic stem cells can 
do. My colleague from Iowa, when he was discounting dead embryo 
research, said it may take 10 year for that to pan out. Stem cell 
research of any kind, I have to tell the folks out there, may take 10 
year or more. I am not hearing scientists telling me that within the 
next couple of years we are going to have those therapies which will 
cure juvenile diabetes or cure ALS or change the situation. We are 
talking about looking down the road. We are talking about looking at 
research opportunities in which we want to provide hope. We believe 
that is the right thing to do.
  So my message to my colleagues who support S. 5--my colleague from 
Arkansas and from Iowa, who talked about he wants to open every door we 
can--I think we need to push all of them. Well, S. 30 opens a door. It 
opens a door without crossing the cultural line. It opens the door 
without being involved in the midst of the battle between those who 
support embryonic stem cell research and those who support only adult 
stem cell research. It offers a third way: It offers real dollars and 
real hope and real opportunity to see if we can make progress. That is 
our goal.
  To my colleagues who support S. 5, at the end of the day if all you 
do is vote for S. 5, you will cast a vote I am sure in your heart you 
will feel will be principled, the right message, the right thing to do. 
But the reality is at the end of the day, there are going to be no more 
dollars going into Federal research, you are not going to be offering 
real hope, you will have offered a political statement, but we need to 
do more.
  What Senator Isakson and I have tried to do is offer the opportunity 
to do more, to say, yes, we will move the science forward. There are 
going to be critics who say it can't be done. Science is fascinating. 
Oftentimes it is ``my way or the highway.'' Embryonic stem cells, that 
is the way; adult stem cells, that is the way; autonuclear transfer, 
that is the way.
  I am not a scientist; I just want to move it forward. I understand we 
are operating in a world where it is about hope. Let's open this door. 
Let's put aside the cultural battles and the cultural wars.
  One last observation, if I may. The Senator from Iowa talked about 
trying to put this in context, and said, you know, look at the size, 
what we are dealing with. This embryo--this is a pin. That is small. 
What is the value of that? I take this, by the way, from Dr. Hurlbett's 
work. I can show you the next picture here. You know, if you are on the 
Moon and you are looking at this from there, this would be kind of 
small. Then if you are standing--by the way, from here, these people 
would be about the size of a pin.
  Now we are kind of looking at the Earth from far away. If you are 
looking at that, by the way, from the galaxy,

[[Page 8569]]

boy, that would be very small. If you are looking at the galaxy from 
the universe, this would be very small. It is not about size. We are 
dealing with the human embryo, and there is a moral question some of us 
want to ask and say that there is a line, but in doing that we want the 
research to go forward, we want to offer hope, we want to offer 
opportunity, we want to use science as best we can.
  S. 30 offers that opportunity. I would hope all of my colleagues on 
all sides of this issue would come forward. Some would say, it is not 
all we want, but we are moving the science forward. Let's do that. And 
in the end, hopefully real hope will be given and real cures ultimately 
will be found, and we will have done it in a way that does not engage 
the cultural ways, does not cross the line that some do not want to 
cross, but in the end makes real progress with real science.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to explain to my colleagues why I 
will vote against S. 5 in its present form, and I believe it will 
probably be in its present form as we vote on it.
  We in Congress are petitioned every day by individuals, by families, 
by companies, by interest groups, and other entities that have a stake 
in what the Federal Government does. We were elected to this great body 
to represent people back home, and to provide reasonable solutions to 
everyday problems that we confront here in the Congress.
  I meet people in Iowa every week who seek cures for different 
diseases and different disorders. They seek results, and we fight to 
provide them results so that life is better, life expectancy is longer. 
Americans want Congress to fund medical research, and we do it in a big 
way. That is why we provided nearly $30 billion annually for the 
National Institutes of Health, which is the leading organization on 
health-related research.
  We all know and love someone who has suffered from a devastating 
disease or disorder. My wife is a breast cancer survivor; my brother 
died of a stroke; my sister died of an aortic aneurysm. I have friends 
with diabetes, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's disease. I have known many 
who have lost a battle to cancer, and others who face a long struggle 
with Alzheimer's disease.
  I want cures as well as everybody else wanting cures. I want to 
believe that the pain and suffering will end as much as anyone wants it 
to end. But I cannot in good conscience support a bill that forces 
American taxpayers to fund research that requires the destruction of 
innocent human life. This is a slippery slope.
  I wish to address six key points that have been put forward by Robert 
George and by Thomas Berg. They were made in an op-ed piece from the 
Wall Street Journal on March 13, this year.
  These authors state that responsible and productive debate is often 
lost amidst confusion and misperceptions surrounding the issue of 
embryonic stem cell research. Both sides of this debate have reasonable 
arguments. But these authors, including this Senator, believe 
embryonic-destructive research cannot be morally justified.
  First, Professor George and Reverend Berg rightly point out there is 
not a ban on human embryonic stem cell research in the United States. 
Yet I believe people in this body leave that impression. More 
importantly, it has left the impression--whether from Members of 
Congress or other people in our society--there is a Federal ban on 
human embryonic stem cell research. They leave out the fact we are 
already doing some through the Federal Government. They leave out the 
fact that the private sector and State governments are doing a lot of 
embryonic stem cell research as well. So there is embryonic stem cell 
research going on. The issue is whether the Federal taxpayers ought to 
be paying for something that would destroy life at the beginning.
  What people have forgotten in this debate, then, is George W. Bush 
was, in fact, the first President to provide Federal dollars for 
embryonic stem cell research. Throughout the Clinton administration, 
not one penny of taxpayer dollars was allowed for this sort of 
research. So there is no Federal ban. In fact, companies and 
researchers can and are doing it now. There is no legal barrier to 
prohibit the private financing of it. In fact, we will continue to fund 
the lines President Bush authorized in 2001. Since the President 
announced his decision in August 2001, the Federal Government has 
provided almost $130 million for embryonic stem cell research. Eighty-
five percent of the embryonic stem cell research studies in the world 
use these lines that President Bush's decision in August 2001 allowed.
  Because of this funding and the investment in the National Institutes 
of Health, America, our country, remains one of the global leaders in 
medical research. Why then do some generate the false impression that 
the Federal Government is not involved in stem cell research?
  Well, that brings me to the second point. The authors say we are a 
long way away from seeing the therapies the other side promises. 
Embryonic stem cell research may not be the magic potion many make it 
out to be. Even the most ardent pro-embryonic stem cell research 
experts have stated its benefits are years, if not generations, away. 
George and Berg quote a prominent British expert who is not entirely 
convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in his life and possibly 
anyone's lifetime, be holding quite the promise that some desperately 
hope they will.
  One expert from the University of Wisconsin fears a backlash because 
the cures the public expects could be decades away. I know many of my 
colleagues and many of my constituents believe embryonic stem cell 
research holds potential. They believe the hope and the promise of this 
research will save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. But I 
cannot support the expanded use of taxpayer dollars to invest in 
something that is generations away--even if possible--when proven 
therapies through adult stem cell research, with no moral strings being 
attached, no lives being taken, are right in front of us.
  Third, the authors explain that a human embryo is deserving of at 
least some degree of special moral status. Most people would agree the 
embryo being destroyed has the potential to be developed into human 
life. It is a fact. Therefore, it is only right that a heightened 
degree of sensitivity and consideration be paid to this life at this 
stage of development, the embryo.
  This bill then plays with human life. The other side's promise of 
cures disregards the fact that this bill will allow researchers to kill 
embryos, and pay for that killing, with American taxpayer dollars.
  The bill before us says we should fund research using embryos that 
were on the brink of being thrown away anyway. Thrown away? What about 
the many children who have been adopted through this process? They were 
not thrown away or they obviously would not have been here to be 
adopted.
  What about making sure that couples are not exploited and forced to 
create extra embryos so that industry can make a profit? Think how 
China makes a profit from harvesting organs from prisoners that they 
execute, or who knows how they die? Tourist medicine is what it is 
called. Do we want that sort of ethic in our research? I do not think 
so.
  What about ensuring those so-called leftover embryos are not being 
created through cloning? How do we ensure human cloning is not made 
more attractive, and that researchers are limited to how they create 
and destroy life? Where do we draw the line?
  Point number four: There are noncontroversial methods that are worth 
exploring if you want to do something for curing maladies with stem 
cells. Other noncontroversial methods of cutting-edge research, those 
which do not destroy human embryos, offer near equal promise for future 
medical benefit. Those methods are treating people this very day. Stem 
cells derived from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, 
have opened the doors to many therapies. Adult stem cells

[[Page 8570]]

have already proven effective in treating over 70 diseases and 
disorders, not something anybody interested in embryonic stem cells can 
point to. This alternative research has proven effective. We are 
investing taxpayers' money in research that people are reaping benefits 
in today.
  Last year, I talked about an acquaintance of mine by the name of 
David Foege whom I happen to know from the years when he was a page in 
the Iowa Legislature in the 1960s. He grew up in Iowa and now resides 
in Florida. Four years ago, David Foege was told that he had little 
chance of survival. His heart was losing all function, and there was 
little that doctors could do. David turned to stem cell therapy. He 
found doctors in Bangkok who would harvest his own stem cells and 
inject them back into his own heart. This year, 25 million of his own 
stem cells were taken from his blood and injected into his heart. He 
went from a life-threatening situation to a nearly normal heart 
function. He went from a life expectancy of 90 days to 10 or 15 more 
years. He is fighting that death warrant that he received years ago. 
David Foege is evidence that adult stem cells work, that the investment 
we have made in adult stem cells is paying off, and it is evidence that 
we ought to put our money where product is received as opposed to the 
quandary of when will we get therapies or when will we get maladies 
fixed by the research in adult stem cells.
  I wish I could list the advances with embryonic stem cell research, 
but I cannot. There aren't any. There are no treatments for human 
patients derived from embryonic stem cells. So there is no evidence on 
which to argue that this research should be expanded with public 
resources; in other words, tax dollars being used. We in Congress have 
to realize that there is a difference between hope and hype.
  The fifth point these authors make, moral concerns are not 
exclusively religious in nature. Everybody thinks that anyone who is 
fighting this research is some religious fanatic.
  Nobody says it better than Charles Krauthammer, a highly regarded 
columnist and former member of the President's Council on Bioethics. 
Mr. Krauthammer doesn't believe that life begins at conception, as many 
who have a feeling about embryonic stem cells and the destruction of 
life at that stage. But Mr. Krauthammer says that ``many secularly''--I 
emphasize secularly; I didn't say religious--``inclined people have 
great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted 
manipulation''--to the point of dismemberment--``of human embryos.'' 
Mr. Krauthammer says that we don't need religion to simply ``have a 
healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in the pursuit of 
doing good.''
  Mr. Krauthammer knows firsthand what it is like to live with a 
debilitating disease. He suffers from spinal cord injury. He spends 
every day of his life in a wheelchair. Even he knows that it is cruel 
to play on the hearts of those who suffer by saying that a cure is 
within reach. He said:

       There's nothing less compassionate than to construct a 
     political constituency of sufferers by falsely and cruelly 
     intimating that their disease is on the very cusp of cure if 
     only the President would stop playing politics with the 
     issue.

  We aren't playing politics. Reasonable people can disagree on the 
moral or fiscal consequences of this bill without being labeled 
religiously minded obstructionists.
  The sixth and final point that Berg and George make is that medical 
advancements are not the only interest of stem cell researchers. 
Because the benefit of embryonic stem cell research is only speculative 
and many years from producing results, most scientists have 
acknowledged that the primary interest of this type of research is to 
enhance the basic knowledge of early human development. S. 5 does not 
ban human cloning, and it doesn't help draw the line on what 
researchers should or should not do with so-called leftover embryos. 
This puts us on a very slippery slope. I urge my colleagues to think 
long and hard about this issue before casting their vote.
  S. 5 disregards respect for human life at the expense of prolonging 
the pain of those who seek a cure. We in Congress and across the 
country need to think rationally and to make tough choices. The right 
choice is to invest in what works. I have spent a great deal of time 
explaining that I thought that was adult stem cell research. I urge my 
colleagues to join in defeating S. 5 and supporting the proven and 
noncontroversial field of adult stem cell research.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this bill. 
Senator Coleman and Senator Isakson have put a great deal of time into 
this bill, and I am pleased to work with them in bringing about this 
formulation. If I am not already a cosponsor, I ask unanimous consent 
to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Unlike many in the Chamber, I am a scientist. I am a 
physician. I have delivered, at last count, somewhere over 4,000 
babies. I understand embryology. I understand the science of molecular 
biology. This debate is going to come down to a couple of moral 
questions. There are really two moral questions that this country has 
to answer. I will talk about those, and then I will talk about a few 
other things that most people don't want to admit to or discuss, issues 
surrounding this topic.
  The first moral issue is, do we have the capability to destroy life 
in the name of saving life? That is what we are talking about with 
embryonic stem cells. We selectively snuff out a life so that we can 
potentially have a treatment in the future. That is the first great 
moral question. I have seen the various early stages and then every 
other stage through pregnancy what that life potential is. It is not to 
be taken lightly, this step of ignoring life or neutralizing life under 
the proxy of saying we are going to benefit someone.
  We have heard many people talk about the promise of embryonic stem 
cells. They do yield promise for us. However, it is a long way off. But 
we need to be careful with this step in the direction of destroying 
life in the name of saving life.
  I thought Senator Isakson did a very good job of explaining embryos 
that no longer grow. They have quit dividing. They won't be frozen. 
They won't be implanted. They, in fact, will be discarded. But they 
still have tremendous value for us for research. As he noted, 5 of the 
21 lines presently being researched, and 3 of the 10 lines that 
presently have no problems whatsoever came from dead embryos, embryos 
that still have live cells but won't divide again unless induced to do 
so, and then won't divide into an embryo.
  This is a big question for us because how we answer this question 
today is going to say a lot about the decisions we make in the future. 
One of the things we are going to hear about is the tremendous amount 
of excess embryos around. Here is a RAND study report that disputes 
that. Here is a scientific research organization that looked at the 
availability of excess embryos and in fact says the claims are not 
supported by the facts.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research?

       Frozen human embryos have recently become the focus of 
     considerable media attention. Frozen embryos are a potential 
     source of embryonic stem cells, which can replicate 
     themselves and develop into specialized cells (e.g., blood 
     cells or nerve cells). Researchers believe that such cells 
     might be capable of growing replacement tissues that could be 
     used to treat people suffering from a number of diseases, 
     including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Among 
     the most contentious issues in the stem cell debate are 
     whether frozen embryos should be used to produce stem cells 
     for research purposes and whether it is appropriate to use 
     federal funds for research involving human embryos.
       Many of the proposed resolutions to the embryonic stem cell 
     debate are based on assumptions about the total number of 
     frozen

[[Page 8571]]

     human embryos in the United States and the percentage of that 
     total that is available for research. Accurate data on these 
     issues, however, have not been available. Guesses on the 
     total number of embryos have ranged wildly from tens of 
     thousands to several hundred thousand.
       RAND researchers Gail L. Zellman and C. Christine Fair, 
     together with the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology 
     (SART) Working Group led by David Hoffman, MD, have completed 
     a project designed to inform the policy debate by providing 
     accurate data on the number of frozen embryos in the United 
     States and how many of those embryos are available for 
     research purposes. Their findings include the following:
       Nearly 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed 
     for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the 
     late 1970s.
       Patients have designated only 2.8 percent (about 11,000 
     embryos) for research. The vast majority of frozen embryos 
     are designated for future attempts at pregnancy.
       From those embryos designated for research, perhaps as many 
     as 275 stem cell lines (cell cultures suitable for further 
     development) could be created. The actual number is likely to 
     be much lower.


      Vast Majority of Frozen Embryos Are Held for Family Building

       The practice of freezing embryos dates back to the first 
     infertility treatments in the mid-1980s. The process of in 
     vitro fertilization often produces more embryos than can be 
     used at one time. In the United States, the decision about 
     what to do with the extra embryos rests with the patients who 
     produced them.
       The RAND-SART team designed and implemented a survey to 
     determine the number and current disposition of embryos 
     frozen and stored since the mid-1980s at fertility clinics in 
     the United States and the number of those embryos designated 
     for research. The survey was sent to all 430 assisted 
     reproductive technology facilities in the United States, 340 
     of which responded. Estimates for nonresponding clinics were 
     developed using a statistical formula based on a clinic's 
     size and other characteristics. The results show that as of 
     April 1, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in 
     storage in the United States. This number is higher than 
     expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 
     200,000.
       Alhough the total number of frozen embryos is large, the 
     RAND-SART survey found that only a small percentage of these 
     embryos have been designated for research use. As the figure 
     illustrates, the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 
     percent) are being held for family building, with just 2.8 
     percent of the total (11,000) designated for research. Of the 
     remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to 
     another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, 
     and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, 
     including lost contact with a patient, patient death, 
     abandonment, and divorce.


 Embryos Available for Research Do Not Have High Development Potential

       Although the 11,000 embryos designated for research might 
     seem like a large number, the actual number of embryos that 
     might be converted into stem cell lines is likely to be 
     substantially lower. Because assisted reproductive technology 
     clinics generally transfer the best-quality embryos to the 
     patient during treatment cycles, the remaining embryos 
     available to be frozen are not always of the highest quality. 
     (High-quality embryos are those that grow at normal rates.) 
     In addition, some of the frozen embryos have been in storage 
     for many years, and at the time that some of those embryos 
     were created, laboratory cultures were not as conducive to 
     preserving embryos as they are today. Some embryos would also 
     be lost in the freeze-and-thaw process itself.
       To illustrate how such laboratory conditions might limit 
     the number of embryos available for research, the RAND-SART 
     team performed a series of calculations. Drawing upon the few 
     published studies in this area, they estimated that only 
     about 65 percent of the approximately 11,000 embryos would 
     survive the freeze-and-thaw process, resulting in 7,334 
     embryos. Of those, about 25 percent (1,834 embryos) would 
     likely be able to survive the initial stages of development 
     to the blastocyst stage (a blastocyst is an embryo that has 
     developed for at least five days). Even fewer could be 
     successfully converted into embryonic stem cell lines. For 
     example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin needed 18 
     blastocysts to create five embryonic stem cell lines, while 
     researchers at The Jones Institute used 40 blastocysts to 
     create three lines.
       Using a conservative estimate between the two conversion 
     rates from blastocyst to stem cells noted above (27 percent 
     and 7.5 percent), the research team calculated that about 275 
     embryonic stem cell lines could be created from the total 
     number of embryos available for research. Even this number is 
     probably an overestimate because it assumes that all the 
     embryos designated for research in the United States would be 
     used to create stem cell lines, which is highly unlikely.


                               Conclusion

       The RAND-SART survey found that almost twice as many frozen 
     embryos exist in the United States as the highest previous 
     estimate. Only a small percentage of these embryos are 
     available for research because the vast majority are reserved 
     for family building. Among those that are in principle 
     available for research, some have been in storage for more 
     than a decade and were frozen using techniques that are less 
     effective than those that are currently available.

  Mr. COBURN. The second question we have to ask ourselves is, if you 
are a mother of a juvenile diabetic, a 2- or 3-year-old, or you are the 
wife of a Parkinson's patient or the caregiver of somebody with a 
spinal cord injury, if we told you that in fact we can do everything to 
produce a cure, to give you the exact same opportunity for a cure 
without ever destroying the first embryo, which would your choice be? 
Would your choice be to destroy that embryo or to do it in a 
nondestructive way getting exactly the same results?
  That is where the science is today. That is going to be disputed. But 
the false hopes that have been created that that is the only way that 
we can find these cures is nothing but hogwash, scientifically proven 
hogwash.
  The fact is, we don't know what is going to come from embryonic stem 
cells. We know a lot that will come from other treatments. I just 
shared with Senator Coleman, we will have a treatment for juvenile 
diabetes within 5 years, but it won't come from stem cells. It is going 
to come from the tobacco plant. That is very new research. It has been 
repeated in mice. It is working. We will have that cure. That is going 
to get funded, and it will be produced long before anything else that 
comes to an actual cure.
  By the way, autologous stem cells, cells taken from yourself, have 
already cured five juvenile diabetics by taking the cells from a tube 
inside the pancreas and growing those cells, regenerating beta cells, 
and reimplanting those into children who have juvenile diabetes, who 
are off insulin today. So there are lots of opportunities.
  The second moral question that Americans need to ask themselves, as 
do Members of this body, is if we can do everything without destroying 
the first embryo, why do we want to destroy embryos? Because it is 
easy? Because it is convenient? Because we are locked in a mantra that 
says this is the only way. Think for a minute about what else is going 
on. We now produce almost every cell type that man has from germ cells, 
research done in this country, proven in Germany, in Japan, another 
source of stem cells. Didn't destroy the first embryo, but we have it. 
Altered nuclear transfer, assisted reprogramming, which you heard 
Senator Coleman talk about, has not been done in humans yet because it 
hasn't been funded. The fact is, it has been done in mice. You sit and 
think, what can happen.
  When we heard that these were theories by the Senator from Iowa, 
going to the Moon was a theory, but we did it. The fact is, there are 
lots of other theories on how to treat disease out there that we are 
going to be accomplishing that aren't going to have anything to do with 
stem cells.
  It is important that we don't take our eye off the ball. This is a 
very key moral question that has to be answered. It has to be answered 
by all the disease groups out there. If, in fact, we can supply the 
same product in the same timeline with the same results, why would we 
want to destroy an embryo? If we could do it in an ethically, morally 
correct way, why would we do it in an ethically less correct way?
  Then there is the little problem that you never hear talked about 
with stem cells. The only way a stem cell therapy is ever going to work 
without antirejection drugs, the only way it is ever going to work is 
if you clone yourself. They don't want to talk about that right now. 
But for a treatment to happen that will keep you free from rejecting 
that stem cell, that treatment, that set of cells that is not purely 
yours will mean anybody who gets a treatment from an embryonically 
derived stem cell will be on antirejection drugs the rest of their 
life, which has multiple complications. The solution to that--they 
don't want to talk about it--is you have to clone yourself. So now we 
are into cloning ourselves and then destroying ourselves so we can have 
a treatment for ourselves? That is

[[Page 8572]]

the dirty little secret that nobody with embryonic stem cells wants to 
talk about.
  The interesting answer to that is altered nuclear transfer, oocyte-
assisted reprogramming, which has none of those problems because you 
use one of your cells into an egg, reprogram it to produce pluripotent 
cells that never produce an embryo. Nobody wants to talk about the real 
scientific issue of the problems of a treatment for a disease that we 
have no treatments for yet, that is well down the road, and the big 
kicker that will come is, what if we get a treatment and then we try to 
give it and everybody is going to have to be on an antirejection drug. 
Everybody knows somebody who has had a transplant. Ask them how they 
like taking their drugs. They like taking them because they have a new 
liver or heart or kidney, but if they could not take those drugs and 
have it, they would much rather have that.
  So we set up a false choice. The false choice is, embryonic stem 
cells or nothing. That is not a real choice for this country.
  I believe America is a great land, made up of good people. If we 
answer this second moral question, if we can do this, and we can, 
through multiple ways, why would we destroy the first embryo? We do not 
have to destroy the first embryo.
  I think we ought to be considering the moral questions, but also the 
facts that are going to come about as a result of this fascination and 
hope for a cure. I have had mothers of juvenile diabetics in my office. 
I have had family members of Alzheimer's patients. I have had a 
Parkinson's patient plead with me to do this. When I explain to them 
what is on the horizon, when I explain to them what the potentials are, 
all of a sudden this hope that has no substance to it yet whatsoever 
does not have near the meaning as all the other things that are going 
on that do have meaning.
  So we need to refocus on the real search, the real potential that is 
in front of our country and answer this best, most important moral 
question: Do we steal life from the innocent to potentially give life 
to the maimed or the injured or diseased, or do we, in fact, do it in a 
way that never steals life and accomplishes the same goal?
  That is the real question before the Senate. S. 30 does that. S. 5 
does not. That is the division. One says: To heck with the ethics, to 
heck with the problems associated with it, to heck with the rejection, 
to heck with the antirejection drugs, to heck with the idea we cannot 
clone ourselves, we want to go this way only.
  S. 30 allows all the options, all the accomplishments, all the 
potential without violating the first ethical clause. That is the 
question America needs to ask itself in this debate. We can give to all 
those who are desirous of all these needed benefits of cure and 
treatment, and we can do it in an ethically responsible manner that 
will send us down the right road for this country, not the wrong road.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remains under the control of the 
Republican leader.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am going to yield to Senator Coleman. 
But, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be added as 
a cosponsor to S. 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to briefly touch on one other 
aspect of the bill we have not talked about. I do want to thank my 
colleague from Oklahoma for articulating what is the basic issue: if we 
can move science forward without crossing a moral line, if we can avoid 
the great division in America. Scientific research should be something 
that as a society we embrace. S. 30 gives us the opportunity to do 
that. I hope my colleagues from all perspectives on this issue decide 
they will support S. 30.
  One other aspect of S. 30 that is important is there is a provision 
in the bill that calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to look into setting up a national amniotic and placental stem cell 
bank.
  There are three banks of stem cells in this country. I believe 
Wisconsin has the 21 embryonic stem cell lines of the 78 the President 
originally authorized. In Minnesota, there is a cord blood cell bank, 
and there is a bone marrow bank.
  What we hope to do, based on research that has recently come to 
light--Wake Forest has done some of it--is have the use of amniotic and 
placental stem cells. These are stem cells, by the way, that can be 
grown in large quantities. They do not produce tumors, which occur in 
other types of stem cells. The Wake Forest scientists have noted the 
specialized cells generated from amniotic cells really, in effect, may 
have--again, this is all potential--but there is the potential to have 
the kind of elasticity and pluripotency we see in embryonic stem 
cells--high-flexibility growth potential in many ways resembling human 
embryonic stem cells.
  The hope is to put together a tissue sampling of 100,000 tissues 
which would then give you the kind of ability to cut across a diversity 
we do not have today with the research that is going on.
  Again, if S. 5 is passed, it will be vetoed, and the science will not 
be moved forward. But if S. 30 is passed, with the provisions that 
provide for stem cell research, that will provide for pluripotent 
research, that will provide for dead embryo research, which would give 
you, again, the same kind of stem cells you get from any other kind of 
embryonic stem cells--these are some of the new techniques out there.
  In addition, S. 30 contains a provision for moving forward with a 
national amniotic and placental stem cell bank, which is another 
opportunity to move the research forward and to move from hope to 
reality, which is certainly the hope of the authors of this bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next 60 minutes 
is under the control of the majority leader or his designee.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 20 
minutes. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 60 minutes under the control of the 
majority leader. The Chair is not aware of any designation within that 
60 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I see. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act of 2007 that is known as S. 5. It is really the only 
bill of the two that will allow scientists to fully pursue the promise 
of stem cell research.
  I want to particularly thank Senators Harkin and Specter, Kennedy and 
Hatch, who have been in the leadership of this issue for the past 
several Congresses. I also want to point out, in the case of the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, he is very pro-life. I have listened 
to him over these many years. I have listened to the real wisdom he has 
espoused on this issue. I hope more people will pay attention to him 
because I think he is right with respect to this issue.
  On August 9, 2001--that is 6 years ago--President Bush limited 
Federal research funding to 78 stem cell lines already in existence. 
Nearly 6 years have passed, and in that time two things have happened. 
First, most of these 78 stem cell lines are no longer available for 
scientific work. Many lines developed abnormalities and mutations as 
they aged. Only 21 lines are available today. These lines are all 
contaminated with mouse feeder cells and therefore are useless for 
research in humans. They do not have the diverse genetic makeup that is 
necessary to find cures that benefit all Americans, and researchers 
cannot use them to examine rare and deadly genetic diseases.
  This was, in fact, the President's policy. It is now clearly 
established that policy does not work, that policy is moribund. Yet the 
President will not relent and Federal research on stem cells cannot go 
forward.

[[Page 8573]]

  Secondly, public support for stem cell research--full-blown stem cell 
research--has grown. Sixty-one percent of Americans responding to a 
poll in January of this year support embryonic stem cell research. This 
is also a bipartisan issue. Fifty-four percent of Republicans in an ABC 
News poll also support embryonic stem cell research.
  The majority of the American public support this bill. We know the 
current policy is handcuffing our scientists and is not allowing this 
research to move forward. So the solution is obvious. We should pass 
this bill.
  I think the time has come for the President to come to this 
realization, and it is my hope he will see he has been mistaken.
  The bill we are debating today offers a compromise. This bill will 
not destroy any embryo that would not otherwise be destroyed or 
discarded. It will allow promising research to move forward. It would 
end the impasse. It would take off the handcuffs.
  President Bush had the opportunity to take a step forward 9 months 
ago when the House and Senate sent him the Castle-DeGette bill, on 
which this bill is based. He made it the first and, so far, only veto 
of his Presidency. My colleagues and I made a commitment that we would 
raise this issue again and again--as long as it takes. Today we are 
fulfilling that promise. We know this bill will one day become law--if 
not this year, then next year; if not next year, then the following 
year.
  The majority of the American people, the majority of the scientific 
community, other nations, many of our States have embraced the promise 
of stem cell research. The President can stand in the way of such an 
overwhelming consensus for only so long.
  With every passing week, the inevitability of this legislation grows 
clearer. Just since the President's veto, officials from his own 
administration have acknowledged the shortcomings of the current 
policy. More research has demonstrated the unique promise of 
pluripotent, multipurpose stem cells. States and private institutions 
are forging ahead without Federal support.
  Finally, and importantly, more Americans are waiting for cures and 
treatments for catastrophic diseases. This is a very large lobby 
indeed.
  So today we have another opportunity to move hope forward. The two 
bills before us today present a very stark choice. Only one bill, S. 5, 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, embraces all forms of stem cell 
research. This legislation provides a simple and straightforward way to 
provide American scientists and researchers with immediate access to 
the most promising stem cell lines.
  It states that embryos to be discarded from in vitro fertilization 
clinics may be used in federally funded stem cell research, no matter 
when they were created.
  While opponents have suggested this bill will lead us down a slippery 
slope, the parameters created by the bill are numerous and, in fact, 
strict. Let me give you some examples.
  The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment. The 
people donating the embryos must provide written consent. The donors 
may not be compensated for their donation. Finally, it must be clear 
that the embryos would otherwise be discarded.
  This legislation will not allow Federal funding to be used to destroy 
embryos. With restrictions in place, over 400,000 embryos could become 
available while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of ethical 
standards.
  Let's be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed 
whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact, and 
everyone would agree these embryos have no future. When President Bush 
adopted his ill-fated policy in 2001, he allowed lines already in 
existence to be used for federally funded research because ``the life-
or-death decision'' had already been made.
  The same is true here. In terms of the basic ideology of the 
President's earlier policy, this bill is no different than the earlier 
policy because the life-or-death decision has already been made with 
respect to these particular embryos. These will never be implanted. 
They will never be adopted. They will never be used.
  This bill has not been held up because it is flawed. There is nothing 
wrong with this bill. The bill has been held up because of ideology, 
not policy.
  There is a clear scientific consensus on this issue. Embryonic stem 
cell research has been endorsed by 525 organizations and 80 Nobel prize 
laureates. These groups and these experts represent the entire panoply 
of American health care, the young and the old: the American 
Association of Retired Persons, which we know as AARP; the Society of 
Pediatric Research; the American Geriatrics Society. They represent a 
wide range of medical experts. The American Medical Association 
supports this bill. The American Academy of Nursing supports this bill.
  They are from varying regions in the country: the University of 
California system, the University of Kansas, the University of Arizona, 
the University of Chicago, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research 
Foundation.
  They represent patients struggling with a wide variety of 
afflictions: the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Lung Cancer 
Alliance, the Arthritis Association, the ALS Association, the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation.
  They represent a variety of religious faiths, including the Episcopal 
Church and the National Council of Jewish Women.
  These groups represent a variety of patients, medical disciplines, 
and religious faiths. They are from all over this country, and they all 
support expanding stem cell research. This consensus now even includes 
Bush administration officials. Last month, NIH Director Dr. Elias 
Zerhouni testified this:

       From my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best 
     interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that 
     we find ways and the Nation finds a way to go full-speed 
     across adult and embryonic stem cells equally.

  That is a pretty unambiguous statement from the man who heads the 
Institutes of Health.
  The Senate and the President should listen to the scientists who best 
understand this issue and give them access to the stem cell lines that 
successful research demands.
  Jennifer McCormick of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical 
Ethics has said:

       The United States is falling behind in the international 
     race to make fundamental discoveries in related fields.

  It is time to address and reverse that sentiment.
  In a letter to President Bush, Nobel laureates called the discoveries 
made thus far by stem cell researchers a significant milestone in 
medical research.
  They go on to say that:

       Federal support for the enormous creativity of the United 
     States biomedical community is essential to translate this 
     discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and 
     currently intractable diseases.

  They are not alone. Paul Berg of Stanford, George Daley of Harvard, 
and Laurence S.B. Goldstein of the University of California at San 
Diego recognize the promise and the need for embryonic stem cell 
research. These esteemed researchers have said:

       We want to be very clear. The most successful demonstrated 
     method for creating the most versatile type of stem cells 
     capable of becoming many types of mature human cells is to 
     derive them from human embryos.

  This is the science.
  You can quote a scientist here or a scientist there who will differ 
with that, but the bulk of people in this field worldwide believe as 
this statement reflects.
  As Lucian V. Del Priore of Columbia University said:

       This is important and exciting work.

  It is time we use the wisdom of these respected scientists and 
embrace the promise of biomedical research using embryonic stem cells.
  Scientists have learned more about stem cells--how they work, how 
they may one day be used for cures--since we last considered this 
issue, I guess some 10 months ago. This past August, scientists from 
the University of Edinburgh used embryonic stem cells from an African 
clawed frog to identify a protein that is critical to the development 
of liver cells and insulin-producing beta cells. This could lead to a 
better understanding of diabetes and liver disease as well as new 
treatments.

[[Page 8574]]

  Then during the next month or two, in October, scientists at 
Novocell, a San Diego biotech company, announced the development of a 
process to turn human embryonic stem cells into pancreatic cells that 
produce insulin. This could be another significant step toward using 
stem cells to treat diabetes.
  In September last, researchers used human embryonic stem cells to 
slow vision loss in rats suffering from a genetic eye disease that is 
similar to macular degeneration in humans. Macular degeneration is the 
leading cause of blindness in people aged 55 and over in the world. It 
affects more than 15 million Americans. This research means stem cells 
could one day be used to restore vision in many of these patients. Just 
think of that: fifteen million people who are surely going to go blind, 
and that blindness might be stopped.
  In March, a team at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA used 
embryonic stem cells in mice to treat a rare degenerative disorder 
called Sandhoff's disease. This condition, which is similar to Tay-
Sachs disease, destroys brain cells. The mice treated with stem cells 
enjoyed a 70-percent longer lifespan, and the onset of their symptoms 
was delayed. The stem cells migrated throughout the brains of the mice 
and they replaced damaged nerve cells. No one ever thought that could 
be done before. This suggests that embryonic stem cells may effectively 
treat this disease as well as other genetic neurological conditions, 
including Tay-Sachs.
  So all of this work is just beginning. Scientists will now work to 
translate these promising advances into cures for humans, and such a 
feat will almost certainly require access to viable lines of human stem 
cells. Unless the President's policy is overturned, these lines will 
not be available, and without access to additional stem cell lines, the 
cures and treatments will never move from mice to humans.
  Many States, frustrated with Federal gridlock and the loss of their 
best scientific minds, are moving forward. I am particularly proud of 
my State of California. In 2004, California voters, by a whopping 
margin, approved Proposition 71 and created the California Institute of 
Regenerative Medicine. That institute is spending $3 billion over 10 
years supporting promising research conducted in California. This work 
will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human 
reproductive cloning, something we can all agree is immoral and 
unethical. Over $158 million in research grants has now been approved, 
making California the largest source of funding for embryonic stem cell 
research in America.
  Promising projects include creating liver cells for transplantation 
at the University of California at Davis, developing cellular models 
for Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, at the Salk 
Institute. This will give a better understanding of how these diseases 
work and yield possible treatments, as will work at Stanford to more 
effectively isolate heart and blood cells from embryonic stem cells. 
These are only some of the more than 100 labs in California now 
working.
  One might say: All right, why not let the private sector and the 
State address this problem? Why do we need Federal research? I want to 
concentrate a few moments on that. The actions of California and the 
actions of other private and public institutions do not substitute for 
Federal funding and a standardized national policy. Much of this debate 
focuses on stem cell lines themselves, but scientists need much more to 
succeed. They need expensive equipment and lab space in which to work 
and collaborate, and there is the rub. For scientists working on 
embryonic stem cells, this means taking great care not to intermingle 
their work on approved stem cell lines with those that are not 
approved. If Federal funds, for example, built a lab or bought a 
freezer, a petri dish, or a test tube, these resources cannot be used 
on research involving lines not included in the President's policy. As 
I said, there are no lines left in the President's policy. Therefore, 
they can't be used. This has created a logistical nightmare.
  The duplication and careful recordkeeping required is an enormous 
disadvantage faced by the U.S. stem cell scientists. Many have gone to 
extreme lengths to ensure they follow these regulations. The stakes are 
high: Any mistake could result in the loss of Federal grants for a 
researcher's lab.
  Let me give a few examples. University of Minnesota researcher Meri 
Firpo buys one brand of pens for her lab that receives Government money 
and another brand of pens for use in her privately funded lab. This 
helps her ensure that a ballpoint pen purchased with Federal grant 
money is not used to record results in her lab that works with stem 
cell lines not covered by the President's policy.
  UCLA is using a complex accounting system to allocate Federal and 
private dollars in careful proportion to the amount of time a 
researcher spends working on either approved or unapproved stem cell 
lines. A stem cell researcher, Jeanne Loring at the Burnham Institute 
in La Jolla, CA, designed labels for all her equipment: Stem cells in a 
green circle denote equipment that can be used with all stem cell 
lines, while equipment bought with Federal funds is marked with a red 
circle with a slash through it.
  At the University of California in San Francisco, biologist Susan 
Fisher worked for 2 years to cultivate stem cell lines in a privately 
funded makeshift lab. Unfortunately, the power--the electricity--in her 
lab failed. She couldn't move her lines into the industrial-strength 
freezers in the other lab because they were federally funded. The stem 
cell lines on which she had worked for 2 years melted and were gone. So 
2 years of work was out the window because of this ridiculous 
situation.
  Money that could otherwise be devoted to research is instead used to 
build labs and purchase duplicate equipment, and the cost is 
significant. Scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical 
Research in Cambridge, MA, didn't want to fall behind international 
stem cell leaders, so they established a second lab. They had to buy a 
$52,000 microscope, two incubators which cost $7,500, and a $6,500 
centrifuge. They already owned this equipment. They had the equipment, 
but they couldn't use it because that equipment was published with 
Federal dollars. To me, this makes no sense. I don't think we can 
afford this kind of wasteful duplication with what are very precious 
research dollars. Our scientists should be focused on investigating 
disease, not worrying about who pays for their pens or their test 
tubes. So bottom line: We need a reasonable Federal policy that 
includes funding for viable stem cell lines.
  I don't need to tell my colleagues about the famous faces and the 
average people who are behind this legislation. It is nearly 70 percent 
of the population. I don't have to tell my colleagues about Michael J. 
Fox, who showed the Nation the true face of Parkinson's disease. I 
don't have to tell my colleagues about First Lady Nancy Reagan, who has 
spoken out in support of this and other legislation, or Christopher 
Reeve, who lived his life refusing to accept that his spinal cord 
injury would never be healed, or Dana Reeve, who stood by her husband 
and then tragically lost her own battle with cancer. Just as important 
are the millions of Americans who may not have a famous face, but put 
everything they have in us in the hope that we will do the right thing. 
The right thing is pretty simple. It is to give them a chance to live--
to live.
  That is what we are talking about. I don't think there is any other 
piece of legislation that more involves the right to life than this 
piece of legislation.
  These are people who are going to die. They live with catastrophic, 
often terminal diseases; they suffer immeasurably. Suddenly, there 
might well one day be a cure, or their disease might be put in 
remission. The kind of research might be done that can mend a broken 
spinal cord. How can we not support this? How can we look at the facts? 
Life or death is not involved for the embryo that is used. That is 
exactly what this legislation is. These are embryos that have no chance 
at life. All

[[Page 8575]]

we ask is that they be put to work to protect human life. It seems to 
me that is not too much.
  I hope this bill not only will pass here by a substantial margin but 
that some way, somehow, the 67 votes we need in this body to overturn a 
Presidential veto will be present. I think the American people demand 
no less.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
the eloquent statement and for her many years of working on this issue 
and for her support on so many issues dealing with the health of the 
American people. I thank Senator Feinstein for being a stalwart in 
trying to break down the barriers we have to embryonic stem cell 
research.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, we have made some truly amazing strides in medical 
research with the creation of new medicine and mapping the human 
genome. I think we all agree more can be done and more should be done.
  We know stem cells hold promise, and we have an opportunity tomorrow 
to pass critical legislation that enables us to take some of those next 
steps in finding treatments and cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, 
juvenile diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer.
  Like, I suspect, every Member of this body, I have my own personal 
experiences in my family and reasons for supporting stem cell research. 
My mother passed away about a year and a half ago--almost 2 years ago 
now. She had, in the last decade or so, been stricken by Alzheimer's 
disease, dementia. Her mother had lived and died with the same disease. 
Her grandmother lived and died with the same disease. Her sister may be 
showing early symptoms of the same disease. My mother's father was a 
butcher. He worked 5, 6 days a week until he was 81 years old in a 
little mom-and-pop supermarket in Beckley, WV. His hands would shake. 
Some would probably think, how many fingers would he lose today while 
trying to cut up the meat. He never did lose any. He was a great hero 
to me. I remember watching as Parkinson's took its toll on him, as it 
has others of our colleagues here and in the House, such as Mo Udall, 
whom we thought the world of, and still do--but to see what happened to 
them because of that disease. We lost my uncle in Huntington, WV, last 
year to a form of cancer which is almost always deadly, pancreatic 
cancer. Those are only a couple of people in my own life, people who 
were close to me and people in my family whom we have lost or have seen 
a serious degradation in the quality of their lives. Some day, I would 
like to be able to say to my sons, who are 17 and 18, you will never 
have to worry about Alzheimer's disease because of the research and the 
kind of work that is made possible in this legislation and what it will 
do for you. I would like to tell them you will never have to worry 
about Parkinson's or pancreatic cancer.
  Today is about much more than curing diseases. It is also about 
keeping America's research centers competitive and relevant. The United 
States has always been a key leader in the prevention and treatment of 
illnesses. We have developed vaccines and antibiotics that have 
literally saved millions of lives, and still do. We have made 
tremendous advances in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research as 
well. Now we have the opportunity to make a national commitment to 
expand the frontiers of medical research. Stem cell research is a key 
part of doing that. I know a lot of us agree. The nation that is able 
to take stem cell research to the next step and use it to truly 
understand how our DNA works and then to use that information to help 
find treatments and cure diseases will be in the driver's seat of 
medical research worldwide for some time to come.
  My friend and fellow Delawarean, Congressman Mike Castle, led the way 
to expand stem cell research. Last year, he introduced legislation that 
would allow the NIH to support embryonic stem cell research. Congress 
passed this bill, thanks to the leadership in no small part of Senator 
Harkin and others in this body. It was vetoed by the President. I 
disagree with the President's policy on stem cell research. On this 
front, I think he is wrong.
  This year, several of my colleagues, including my friend Senator 
Harkin, have introduced legislation very similar to the Castle bill 
that we passed last year. S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act 
of 2007, would advance stem cell research by expanding the number of 
stem cell lines that are eligible for Federal funding. It would also 
strengthen the ethical rules that govern stem cell research--a concern 
that I know is on many people's minds, including my own.
  Under the administration's current policy, the number of stem cell 
lines available for federally funded research has continued to shrink. 
There are only 21 cells now available, I am told. What is more, many of 
the current lines are contaminated or have reached the end of their 
usefulness.
  A gentleman named Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the National 
Institutes of Health, recently testified before a Senate panel and made 
a similar claim that these 21 cell lines the National Institutes of 
Health has will not be sufficient for the research they need to do at 
NIH.
  S. 5 would allow new lines to be derived from excess in vitro 
fertilization embryos that would otherwise be discarded. To me, the 
choice seems clear: Rather than allowing these embryos to be discarded, 
destroyed, we can use them to further lifesaving research. They may 
contribute to saving the lives of our spouses, our brothers and 
sisters, our parents, our children, or our nieces and nephews. S. 5 
would allow new lines to be derived from excess in vitro fertilization 
embryos that would otherwise be discarded. I know people are concerned 
about that and they have an ethical dilemma they face. I say to people 
who have those concerns and may have deeply held beliefs, does it make 
sense to you that these embryos that have been created in fertility 
clinics are going to be destroyed at the discretion of whoever was the 
person who donated the eggs and the sperm that fertilized the egg? Does 
it make more sense to allow the fertilized eggs to be destroyed or to 
allow that embryo to be--at the discretion of that husband and wife--
used to help preserve and enhance and improve life?
  These new stem cell lines would dramatically expand our ability to 
study and find treatments for a wide range of illnesses. The benefits 
will come not only from having more 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 close by urging all of our colleagues to join us--a majority of 
us--in supporting S. 5. It has been made better because the sponsors of 
the bill have also introduced legislation that, I think, was offered 
last year by Senators Specter and Santorum. It is now part of this 
legislation. It made it better.
  We should not wait any longer. If we focus our resources and 
attention today to find cures, we can save lives--and also save money 
in the long run. I will close by saying for those who believe this 
legislation is somehow diverting us from pursuing the use of adult stem 
cells, or stem cells that may come from umbilical cords, it doesn't do 
that. We should pursue those paths as well. But we should not close the 
door on this path; we should pursue this path, too.
  To those who brought us to this day, Congressman Castle from 
Delaware, the sponsors of this bill today, all who have joined in 
supporting it, and the people in the country who joined us as well, 
thank you for doing a good thing for a lot of people who need our help.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from 
Delaware, for his very eloquent and personal statement. That is what 
this is all about, helping people who are suffering bad problems and 
need help with their health care.
  I yield to a leader on all our health care issues for so many years, 
and I think he is recognized as such by the

[[Page 8576]]

entire country. He is a great leader in all health care issues, 
especially on this issue of stem cell research. I yield to the Senator 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friends, Senators Harkin and 
Specter, for the extraordinary leadership they have provided on the 
extraordinary leadership they have provided on this issue, which is so 
important to families in our country. We deal with a lot of issues 
around this body. But this particular legislation probably offers more 
hope to more people than perhaps anything else we will do here in the 
Senate this year.
  When we think of all of the various kinds of illnesses and diseases 
and accidents that have affected so many families here in the Senate--
and, most importantly, the American families--we know we have the best 
in terms of treatment for these illnesses and sicknesses in the United 
States for those who are able to receive it. Still, all of these 
illnesses and sicknesses have defied the ablest and most gifted minds 
until very recently, and that is with the discovery that started about 
10 years ago with the opportunity for using stem cells, which can play 
a very indispensable role in providing a cure for these individuals.
  That is what this is basically all about--an extraordinary 
opportunity that is out there, and whether we in the United States are 
going to permit the great institution--the greatest institution for 
research--the National Institutes of Health to be able to unleash the 
vastness of the creativity, brilliance, and ability of those 
researchers and scientists to try to unlock the cures for so many of 
these diseases, and do it in a way that is ethically sound, and for so 
many of the reasons that have been spelled out.
  This is an enormously timely bill. I thank Senator Harkin for his 
persistence and for ensuring we were going to be able to have this on 
the floor of the Senate in a timely way. I thank Senator Reid for 
scheduling this. I thank the broad bipartisan coalition that has come 
together on our side and on the other side of the aisle which has given 
strong support for this legislation.
  It is pretty popular at this time in Washington to talk about the 
differences that exist in our Nation's Capital. There are some very 
important ones. We have come together, Republicans and Democrats, House 
and Senate--those who have over a long period of time advocated the 
pro-life position and those who have felt there should be an ability 
for individuals to make judgments about their own future--in support of 
this legislation. So this is a very special time, and this vote we are 
going to have tomorrow is enormously important.
  Again, I thank my colleagues and friends for bringing us to the point 
where we are today. Nearly a decade ago, American scientists made the 
revolutionary discovery that tiny cells, called stem cells, held the 
extraordinary potential to offer new hope and new help in the fight 
against diabetes and Parkinson's disease, spinal injury, and many other 
illnesses.
  Six years ago, many of us in the Senate joined millions of patients 
and their families in calling on President Bush to support this 
lifesaving research. Sadly, he rejected those calls and instead imposed 
severe restrictions on the search for the cures.
  Since those severe limitations were imposed, we have struggled to 
free American scientists from these unwarranted restrictions. Last 
year, we scored a great victory when the House and Senate, with broad 
bipartisan majorities, voted to end those restrictions. But those 
efforts came to naught with a veto, and we are back at the battle 
again.
  I share that view of my colleagues and friends in saying if we are 
not successful--although we are hopeful we will be--we are going to 
continue this battle day in and day out until we are successful.
  Today we renew our hope that the President will start anew and 
consider the merits of this new legislation instead of automatically 
picking up the veto pen. When Congress passed the bipartisan stem cell 
bill last year, we voted for hope, for progress, and for life. But 
President Bush chose to dash those hopes by vetoing the legislation.
  Now we are taking up the cause once again. Our legislation again 
brings together conservatives and progressives, Members of Congress on 
both sides of the debate over a woman's right to choose. 
Representatives from big cities, small towns, rural communities--we all 
agree stem cell research must go forward.
  This legislation before us is only six pages long. It is a short, 
simple bill with enormous goals and vast potential. It overturns the 
unrealistic and unreasonable restrictions on the embryonic stem cell 
research imposed by the President's Executive order 5 years ago. His 
unilateral action bypassed Congress and froze progress in its tracks by 
barring the NIH from funding research using any stem cells derived 
after August 9, 2001, an arbitrary date chosen solely to coincide with 
the President's speech.
  Many of us warned at that time that this policy would delay the 
search for new cures and put needless barriers in the way of medical 
progress. At a HELP Committee hearing days after the Executive order 
was issued, many of us raised concerns about the new policy and urged 
the President to reconsider.
  Our concerns were dismissed by the administration, but time has shown 
that each of the drawbacks we feared then has become a real barrier to 
progress today.
  At the time of the Executive order, the administration claimed that 
over 60 independent stem lines would be available to NIH researchers. 
We found, as our friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and Senator 
Harkin pointed out earlier, that 21 of those stem lines are available 
to NIH researchers and all those were obtained using out-of-date 
methods and outmoded techniques.
  We listened carefully to the words of Dr. Landis, who is chair of the 
NIH stem cell task force, in testimony before the Senate in January of 
this year.
  ``We are missing out on possible breakthroughs.''
  ``Federally funded research has monitoring oversight and transparency 
that privately funded research will not necessarily have.''
  ``The cell lines that are eligible for the NIH funding now have been 
shown to have genetic instabilities,'' effectively pointing out the 
missed opportunities that are in place now because of the restrictions 
put on by the administration and that even the research that is being 
done in the private sector, as limited as it is, is lacking in the kind 
of monitoring and oversight and, in many instances, the enormously 
important ethical considerations that have been included in this 
legislation.
  It has been mentioned earlier in this discussion but needs to be 
mentioned again, the excellent statement by the Director of the 
National Institutes of Health before the Senate on March 19, where he 
points out:

       To sideline the NIH in such an issue of importance, in my 
     view, is shortsighted. I think it wouldn't serve the Nation 
     well in the long run. We need to find a way to move forward.

  These are two of the most distinguished researchers, scientists. Dr. 
Zerhouni has had a brilliant record at the NIH. Dr. Landis has had a 
brilliant record. Anyone who has the opportunity to listen to them 
respond to questions can't help but leave that meeting recognizing and 
supporting their position.
  Those are the issues. That is what this legislation is about. Our 
legislation makes the basic change needed to reverse our current 
policy. As has been pointed out, science without ethics is akin to a 
ship without a rudder. For that reason, the legislation establishes 
essential ethical safeguards for stem cell research--enormously 
important--and has been reviewed earlier during this debate.
  Our legislation authorizes new initiatives for obtaining the stem 
cells from sources other than embryos. We strongly support ongoing 
research for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, but it is 
fundamentally wrong to shut down the promise of new cures while that 
search is underway.

[[Page 8577]]

  In the end, this debate is not about abstract principles or complex 
aspects of science but the people who look with hope to stem cell 
research to help them with the challenges they face.
  It is important to SGT Jason Wittling. Let me read about SGT Jason 
Wittling. He was injured in Kabala, Iraq. He is in the U.S. Marine 
Corps:

       I was in Charlie Company, 1st Combat Engineering Battalion, 
     1st Marine Division. I spent 10 years, 1 month, 28 days in 
     the Marine Corps, but who's counting. On May 9, 2003, on the 
     outskirts of Kabala, Iraq, my squad was disposing of Iraqi 
     ordinances.

  The fuse went off prematurely, and as a result of the accident, his 
vehicle overturned on him.

       I had burst fractures of my C6 vertebrae in my neck, broke 
     my right wrist, and a number of other injuries. He is in a 
     wheelchair now, a brave and courageous marine.

  Sergeant Wittling now looks to stem cell research for new hope for 
his injuries. He has had multiple surgeries.
  Here is LCpl James Crosby of Winthrop, MA. He enlisted in the Marine 
Corps at age 17. He is married to Angela. He was living in California 
before his service and injury. On March 18, James was wounded by enemy 
fire while riding in the back of a U.S. military vehicle in Iraq. A 
rocket was fired and killed the driver and injured two marines, 
including James. Shrapnel pierced James's side and penetrated his 
intestine and spine. James was immediately flown to a hospital in 
Kuwait. He had his first operation there and was stabilized. He was 
finally flown to a U.S. military hospital in Germany.
  In Germany, James underwent several surgeries to remove shrapnel and 
repair wounds. James's wife Angela was flown to Germany to be with him. 
He is now in a wheelchair. He has had multiple additional operations. 
He has lost 50 pounds, requires a colostomy bag at all times. He has 
undergone 14 surgeries. He remains paralyzed from the waste down.
  He is now in a wheelchair and has high hopes that stem cell research 
can be of help, permitting him to recover from his wounds.
  There are countless others who have similar injuries and recognize 
the importance of this research.
  I am going to conclude with a letter I received from 15-year-old 
Lauren Stanford, who is from Plymouth, MA, who has juvenile diabetes. 
In her letter, she wrote of her hope of what stem cell research means 
to her and her family. She wrote me again this year. While she is still 
full of hope, you can also hear her frustration. These are her words:

       I'm now wearing what is called a continuous glucose 
     monitoring system. It has a wire probe that I insert under my 
     skin every few days on my own. When I first held the wire 
     probe to my thigh, I was scared to death. The needle was 
     huge, and I was going to be plunging it into my body. Would 
     it hurt? What if it didn't work? Was it worth the risk? After 
     about 20 minutes of sweating and shaking, I stopped 
     chickening out and found the guts to do it. And then, as soon 
     as I did it, I knew almost immediately it was the right thing 
     to do. It went in fine. It didn't hurt that much. And it is 
     helping me.

  Those were her words. She goes on to write to each of us about our 
decisions on how to vote on this legislation. Here is what she writes:

       Some of you might be scared to vote yes. You know it's the 
     right thing to do; after all, if embryos are being discarded, 
     how can it not be right to use them to help people like me?
       Your hand is lingering over the yes lever, just like mine 
     was over the insertion device. You can see it might do some 
     good . . . but you're afraid. Someone might get mad. It might 
     hurt a little. But follow my lead. Be brave.
       Do something that might hurt a little or scare you for a 
     second, but after will make so many things so much better. 
     Vote yes to allow scientists to do this valuable research to 
     free kids like me from horrible diseases. Vote yes and take 
     another step along with me to finding cures.
       No one ever said doing the right thing, the brave thing, 
     and the thing to make the world better would be easy. I've 
     learned that the hard way. Vote yes. Free me from the 
     machines that keep me alive. Clear away my future of kidney 
     damage, blindness and fear of a shortened life.

  Those are Lauren Stanford's words, and they compel us to act. 
Tomorrow we can cast a vote of conscience and courage. By approving the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we call upon the President of the 
United States to think anew and decide not to veto hope.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). There is 8 minutes 24 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to start the discussion on this 
side regarding stem cells, regarding the major hope and promise of stem 
cells, stem cell research and adult stem cells, cord blood, amniotic 
fluid.
  I wish to start off with a story of a patient, David Foege. I have a 
picture of him here. David Foege lives in Florida and has suffered from 
end-stage heart disease. He experienced shortness of breath, tiredness, 
and an inability to concentrate and function in a normal fashion. Over 
2 years ago, his cardiologist indicated that he should go to hospice, 
saying he had no other options. ``I would be provided plenty of 
morphine to ease my way into a `transitional state,''' was the 
statement of his treating physician. Hospice does provide great 
service, but David learned about adult stem cell treatments through a 
company called TheraVitae.
  When I saw David last year, he had just returned from his first stem 
cell treatment. He has just returned from his second one a matter of 
weeks ago--just this week, as a matter of fact. We have a progress 
report from him about this amazing work which has taken place, this 
therapy which has occurred with adult stem cells. Listen to David's 
letter. It is really impressive and very interesting.

       I am one of 7 people in the world who have experienced 2 
     stem cell therapies!
       Susan and I have just returned from Bangkok, Thailand, 
     after 45 days of adult stem cell cardiac treatment and 
     rehabilitation. [One has to wonder why he is in Thailand for 
     that.] The absolute cutting edge of technology, the 
     utilization of my own stem cells reinjected into my heart, 
     allowed the reshaping and a re-functioning of my heart from a 
     life-threatening situation to a nearly normal heart function 
     today.
       Following my stem cell [treatment] last year I went from a 
     life expectancy of one day to 90 days to at least one year. 
     The second stem cell treatment has jumpstarted me into the 
     range of normal function. I reasonably can expect a normal 
     life expectancy, which is approximately 10 to 15 more years. 
     I can't tell you how great it is to be back in the greatest 
     country in the world, the United States of America. The 
     weather is fabulous here in Florida, and it is wonderful to 
     sleep on my own soft bed.
       I am in awe of the Creator, who amazingly engineered us to 
     have our own warranty in our body's toolbox with us at all 
     times . . . our own stem cells! It does not check our 
     politics, race, religion, or sex.
       Some of the diseases in addition to heart diseases which 
     can be treated in 2008-2009 are the following [projected into 
     the future]:
       Blindness macular degeneration, diabetes, stroke and 
     Parkinson's disease, paralysis of any part of the body 
     including back and/or legs, renal failure.
       Being one of the world's longest living renal transplant 
     recipients of 23 years, I can't tell you how thrilled I am 
     for others that they may not have to endure the hellish 
     torture of a renal failure. This reasonable treatment is in 
     the immediate future.
       It is an absolutely wonderful time to be alive. The only 
     letters, or designation, I would like to have behind my name 
     is David Foege, Alive!
       TheraVitae has the technology to soup-up our cells and 
     differentiate them for maximum effectiveness. I would support 
     embryonic cells, but they have a 100% certain side effect of 
     growing cancer tumors. Our own adult stem cells do not.
       Best wishes and great health be with you.
       This opens a revolutionary door of opportunity to improve 
     the quality of life like it has for me and cut the spiraling 
     cost of health care in the USA.
       On my way to Costco without cane or wheel chair for 30 
     minute shopping walk, I remain
       Sincerely yours,
       David Foege, Ph.D. And alive

  That is a good way to start this discussion of these miraculous stem 
cells. They are beautiful, and they are working in at least 72 
different human maladies. David Foege had treatments using

[[Page 8578]]

two. The problem is, he has had to go to Bangkok, Thailand, for both of 
them instead of the United States.
  Adult stem cell therapy has no ethical problems, no ethical 
questions. They are his own stem cells. Yet he has had to travel to 
Bangkok because we don't seem to have enough research funding to be 
able to support this sort of research into areas that are giving 
cures--treatments, I want to say, emphasize treatments, not cures--to 
people to give them an enthusiastic life, to give them a chance to live 
and to sign off ``David Foege, Ph.D., and alive.''
  We have now found these amazing stem cells in many places, not only 
in cord blood. Thanks to my colleague from Iowa, who worked with me and 
many others, we established a cord blood bank, and we are now--I just 
checked these numbers before we came over here--at the end of 2006, 
there have been 10,000 cord blood transplants to unrelated donors. I 
got those from the New York Blood Center, which was responsible for 
2,500 of these units. That is 10,000 people probably alive who wouldn't 
be--maybe some would, in other ways or shapes. But still it is taking 
place.
  We now need to bank amniotic fluid. We just found in recent 
research--I want to show this chart as well. Some of my colleagues may 
have missed this. This came out in JAMA, February 28, 2007: ``Stem 
cells obtained from amniotic fluid.'' This is the fluid, of course, 
surrounding the child in the womb.

       Amniotic fluid-derived stem cells--AFS cells--can be coaxed 
     to become muscle, bone, fat, blood, vessel, nerve and live 
     cells.
       AFS, stem cells, might be capable of repairing damaged 
     tissues resulting from conditions such as spinal cord 
     injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and stroke.

  I hope one of the efforts we can take on banking, that I could 
possibly do with my colleague from Iowa and many others, is banking 
amniotic fluid. This has been traditionally thrown away. It may hold 
the promise of incredible cures. It is a great source of stem cells. 
They are very malleable, the pluripotent stem cells that are taking 
place that are in this as well. That may be another one on which we can 
join together. There is much news to celebrate on the stem cell front, 
this being one.
  In the placenta, I believe, they are finding a rich source of these 
pluripotent malleable stem cells as well--here another throwaway, if 
you will. That is an area we are going to be able to find and probably 
use more and more into the future for these very malleable, pluripotent 
stem cells from which we can create--not create but use for additional 
amazing cures.
  I want to recognize the work of my colleagues who are on the other 
side of this debate, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, Senator Harkin 
from Iowa--many others who have pushed for a long time in these areas, 
and much good has happened. In the cord blood banking, that has gone 
very well. In the adult stem cell research, that work has gone 
fabulously, as I just read in this opening story of a gentleman just 
back from Bangkok--although he wished his treatments were taking place 
in the United States rather than in Thailand. Much good has happened.
  We have two major barriers. The first one I believe to be an 
insurmountable barrier, that first one being, What is the human embryo? 
If it is a person, as we have discussed many times, then it is entitled 
to human dignity and should be treated in a dignified fashion and not 
researched or taxpayer dollars used to research and destroy it. If it 
is property, it can be done with as its master chooses.
  We have discussed and debated this many times. Obviously, here the 
effort would be to treat the youngest of human beings as property to be 
researched on, to be destroyed with the use of Federal taxpayer 
dollars. Yet, if you follow that debate on forward, at what point in 
time does a human embryo become a person? We know that if you allow it 
to grow, at some point in time, under everybody's definition, it 
becomes a person entitled to protection and human dignity. Yet we are 
saying here: No, at the earliest phases, we are going to treat it as 
property, and with Federal taxpayer dollars we are going to pay to 
destroy it and to research on it.
  That is the obstacle which cannot be overcome because we believe in 
human dignity. We believe as a society in human dignity. So our debate, 
which we have had multiple sets of times, sets of different debates on 
this here, continues today.
  The central question will be, Will we sanction the destruction of 
nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? That is the central 
issue. Will we divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research, 
which is working? See the case of Dr. David Foege--and send these 
dollars to fund speculative research that likely will never produce any 
patient treatments? That is the second question with it.
  I mentioned the first to be an insurmountable one. I think the second 
is one of wisdom: Should we be funding something that is working or 
should we be speculating on something that is not and is producing, 
indeed, tumors? I will back that up with a number of research papers.
  These are the two central questions. These are the two questions we 
will be debating throughout this period of time.
  I doubt there is much surprise left on the vote, on how the votes 
will take place. It is an important debate. It does frame much of what 
we move forward with in this country and in places around the world. 
But these are the two central questions: Will we sanction the 
destruction of nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? Will 
we divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research which is 
working and send these dollars to fund speculative research that likely 
will never produce any patient treatments?
  Central to this debate is the issue of how we treat our fellow man. 
We would all agree, I hope, that individuals should be treated with 
respect. We would agree that we should avoid prejudices. We would agree 
that each individual has an inalienable right to life--my colleagues, 
my colleague from Iowa, myself, the Presiding Officer, those around, 
those watching would all agree that we each have an inalienable right 
to life--to live. We would all hold this for the newborn through the 
eldest members of our society. But when does that life begin? The 
question that has vexed this body for some period of time. Does it 
begin at birth? Does it begin before birth? When? Biology tells us that 
life begins much earlier than birth. Here I want to read from the 
``Human Embryology'' textbook. It says this:

       Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a 
     critical landmark because under ordinary circumstances, a new 
     genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

  Such definitions are helpful in clarifying that human life does begin 
at the embryonic phase. Indeed, myself, my colleague from Iowa, the 
Presiding Officer all began at that embryonic phase, whether the embryo 
comes the old-fashioned way, via IVF or a product of various scientific 
methods such as SCNT human cloning.
  With the scientific fact in hand, we evaluate the facts in light of 
our ethical framework. For instance, we know that the human embryo is a 
human life. Then the question is, How should we treat it? Human life 
has immeasurable value, from the youngest to the oldest. Human beings 
are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human as a means to an 
end. Any time throughout human history when we have done otherwise we 
have regretted it.
  Our value as people is intrinsic. I would say here, I am pro-life, 
whole life. I believe that all life is sacred, it is beautiful, it is 
unique, it is the child of a loving God, from beginning to end, it is 
true here, it is true in the womb, it is true of a child in Darfur, it 
is true of a lady in poverty, it simply is true.
  Yes, we want to treat people and help people who have medical 
conditions. But we must not trample upon any human to achieve such an 
end. This is because human beings are distinct and unique amongst all 
creation. I would note that Ronald Reagan had, I thought, a very folksy 
way of defining whether this was human life and

[[Page 8579]]

whether it should be protected. In his 1983 essay on ``Abortion and the 
Conscience of a Nation,'' he put this in a very commonsense way.

       Anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a 
     second human life, should clearly give life the benefit of 
     the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, 
     you would never bury it.

  I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to 
insist on protecting the unborn. Very commonsense, folksy way, but he 
does hit the point. Will we do what is ethical with respect to our 
fellow man? This is one of the central questions of this debate.
  Now during this debate some will argue that we should proceed with 
ethical embryonic stem cell research. Here I would distinguish between 
embryonic and some of the unquestionably ethical alternatives which we 
can talk about. With respect to embryonic stem cell research, though, 
as embodied in the guidelines of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act, S. 5, how is it possible to ethically do something that is 
completely unethical--destroy another human life, innocent human life--
for research purposes?
  Arguments that the bill provides ethical guidelines, though well 
intended, I believed are misplaced. The ethics of S. 5 have nothing to 
do with protecting innocent life from destruction. They will fund, with 
taxpayer dollars, the destruction of innocent human life.
  The ethics of S. 5 have to do with the process of how you donate 
young human embryos for destruction. Mr. President, we have had this 
debate before. We have had it on the floor on this issue, and we have 
had it before regarding other issues. We had it with the fetal tissue 
research from abortions.
  I wish to take the body back to 1991, the Coalition for Research 
Freedom, in a letter signed by many prominent patient advocacy groups 
who are advocating embryonic stem cell research today, were advocating 
fetal tissue research in 1991. They wrote this: Fetal tissue 
transplantation research is widely recognized as one of the most 
promising research avenues for such disease and disabilities as 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Huntington's, leukemia, epilepsy, 
spinal cord injuries, and many other chronic health conditions.
  Doesn't that sound familiar, Congress responding to the emotional 
outcry with legislation to provide for funding for unethical research, 
research that can only take place with the trampling of the rights of a 
fellow human.
  That was 1991. Those were the promises. That was the move forward by 
this body. That is what was pushed on forward. We know what happened. 
It was on the front page of the New York Times in 2001. The news story 
began like this:

       A carefully controlled study that tried to treat 
     Parkinson's disease by implanting cells from aborted fetuses 
     into patient's brains not only failed to show an overall 
     benefit but also revealed a disastrous side effect, 
     scientists report.
       In about 15 percent of patients, the cells apparently grew 
     too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls 
     movement that the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably.

  The story continues:

       ``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their 
     wrists flex and distend,'' Dr. Greene said. And the patients 
     writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about.
       ``It was tragic, catastrophic,'' he said. ``It's a real 
     nightmare. And we cannot selectively turn it off.''
       One man was so badly affected that--

  We will see what happens. Hopefully, the sound will come back in a 
little while.

       One man was so badly affected that he could no longer eat 
     and had to use a feeding tube, Dr. Greene said. In another, 
     the condition came and went unpredictably throughout the day, 
     and when it occurred, the man's speech was unintelligible.
       For now, Dr. Greene said, his position is clear: ``No more 
     fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced 
     that this should be considered for research only.'' The 
     pattern repeats itself. It is a double tragedy. First, the 
     young human life is destroyed. Second, it is patients who 
     will likely be harmed. There are no embryonic human 
     treatments or applications, despite 25 years of embryonic 
     work in animal models and a decade of work with human 
     embryonic stem cells.

  I repeat that. Twenty-five years of embryonic work in animal models, 
there are no human treatments, and a decade of work with human 
embryonic stem cells, no treatments.
  But what we have learned about embryonic stem cells is that these 
cells are very good at forming tumors, in particular. The literature 
abounds with such stories. One example is in an area published last 
year in Stem Cells. You read the article and find: The expression of 
the insulin gene could be demonstrated only when the cell is 
differentiated in vivo into teratomas, those are tumors.
  This is one example and there are many others. I wish to point this 
out because this was the same result we saw taking place with fetal 
tissue research, was that tumors were formed. That is what took place.
  I wish to go to several of the articles now that are published 
articles on the formation of tumors by embryonic stem cells. Note this 
one on the insulin gene, this was in the publication Stem Cells, 
published August 2 of 2006--have another one published April 6, 2006.
  They noted there as well the potential for teratoma development in 
embryonic stem cell lines, even after prolonged differentiation. I have 
a series of articles. Here is one in Neurochem, 2006, June. They were 
noting there frequent tumor-related deaths in transplanted animals 
taking place in that one.
  Here is one in Stem Cells in June of 2006. There they note that rats 
grafted with human embryonic stem cells predifferentiated in vitro for 
16 days developed severe teratomas--again, tumors.
  The literature is full of that work. These are developing tumors. We 
note in Stem Cells publication, June of 2006, more than 70 percent of 
mice that received embryonic stem cells neural precursor cells 
developed teratomas, developed tumors.
  I have a series of those publications, all noting the stem cell 
therapy in animals produced tumors. Strange. That is what we found took 
place in fetal tissue research when we were dealing with an older set 
of cells that had been developed, and now when we back it up to a 
younger set of stem cells or cells we are using, we are seeing this 
same feature, forming teratomas or tumors throughout each of the 
research animals and in some cases in almost every circumstance.
  That is what we found then, and we are finding the same thing now, 
consistent on the research. I have, for those who are interested, if 
any of the offices are interested, 17 different examples of the 
formation of teratomas by embryonic stem cell work in lab animals.
  Let's not go down this road of unethical, speculative research. I am 
sure the research is interesting to some. But the Government needs to 
pursue what is best for Americans suffering from diseases and injuries. 
That is what our standard should be in this.
  We have an enormous ethical hurdle of killing young human life for 
this research purpose, and we have an area that needs more funding in 
the adult stem cell, cord blood, amniotic fluid, and that money is 
being diverted to other places.
  Now let us move from that ethical to the practical question: Should 
we put millions or billions of dollars into interesting, speculative 
research on tumor-forming embryonic stem cells or should we put our 
money where we are already getting strong results with adult stem cell 
work, cord blood, amniotic fluid, other areas where there is no ethical 
problem?
  Adult stem cells have no ethical strings attached. You can get them 
from an adult patient without causing the patient harm, you can harvest 
them from the rich cord blood, and as noted in the Journal of the 
American Medical Association on March 7 of this year, they can be 
obtained from amniotic fluid, which I previously cited, without causing 
harm to the unborn child.
  Defying the naysayers, who said this could not work or would not 
work, there are so many confirmed adult pluripotent stem cells, 
pluripotent

[[Page 8580]]

cells, that means they can form a number of different types of cell 
types, previously thought to only exist in the embryos, can turn into 
virtually any cell in the body.
  And here I want to show--first, let us go to the chart of the areas 
that were having treatments taking place by adult stem cell therapy. I 
wish to hold this up. I do not think this is a complete set of areas 
but 72 current human--this is in humans--clinical applications using 
adult stem cells: blood conditions, autoimmune, bladder disease, 
cancer, cardiovascular, liver disease, ocular, wounds and injuries, 
metabolic disorders.
  You can see the list of 72 different areas that are being treated 
with adult stem cells in humans, in human trials. I wish to hold up to 
my colleagues--I will be happy to provide this to any offices that 
would like it--it is about an inch-thick binder of ``New Reasons for 
Hope.'' These are recent developments published since Congress's stem 
cell debate and vote of 2006 and the adult stem cell research and other 
alternative to embryonic stem cell work and research.
  This is from June 2006 to March of 2007. Here are the number of 
additional areas that we have gotten successful work taking place in 
each of those. I wish to show this as a folder--I have shown it before 
to my colleagues--if anybody would like to see this. These are the 
recent advances in adult stem cell research and other alternatives. 
This is a binder about 4 inches thick, full of the front pages, just 
the first pages of the research in these fields of what is taking 
place. There needs to be more taking place in this field to get more of 
the treatments for more people like David Foege.
  If people want to go to the Web site of ClinicalTrials.gov and pull 
up the latest number of trials and studies of places that are 
recruiting patients or are filled and no longer recruiting, it pulls up 
1,422 studies currently ongoing. This is the first of 50 pages from 
ClinicalTrials.gov of the various areas and uses of adult stem cells 
that are going on right now.
  Let's look at the money chart. Presently, there is no prohibition 
against anybody developing new embryonic stem cell lines legally. If a 
private group or a state wants to develop a new embryonic stem cell 
line, they can. The limitation is on the use of Federal taxpayer 
dollars in research areas on newly established embryonic stem cell 
lines. But if a private group wants to develop an embryonic stem cell 
line or a State, they can do that now.
  Let's look at the funding that has gone into embryonic stem cell 
research, both human and nonhuman. In fiscal year 2006, the last year 
that we have full data for, human embryonic stem cell research, $37.8 
million, nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $110.4 million; for 
2002 to 2006, human embryonic stem cell research, $132.1 million, 
nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $481.7 million; for a total of 
$613.9 million in embryonic stem cell research. We are putting a lot of 
money into embryonic stem cell research. Still the scoreboard of where 
we are getting humans treated after $613.9 million, stem cell research 
human applications, adult, we have two treatment areas with binders 
full of information, with 1,422 study trials. We have zero on the 
embryonic, after 25 years of knowing about this, 10 years of knowing 
about it in humans, and after $613 million in funding.
  After some period of time, should we not think, wouldn't it be better 
if Dr. David Foege were being treated in the United States instead of 
Thailand and we had more of that work that is getting him treated 
taking place here rather than in other places around the world? 
Wouldn't it be better to take the $613 million that could yield more 
treatments, if that is what we are after, wouldn't it be better to take 
that $613 million and say: Let's put more in adult stem cell research 
where it is yielding results? Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that the 
right thing to do?
  Where we have all of this that is producing results, after 25 years 
we don't have anything here. That is not fair to say. I am sure we have 
interesting research information that has come up through that research 
of that $613 million. I am sure there has been useful research, but it 
involves the destruction of young human life.
  Before people who are watching this think: You have a cure for me in 
the adult stem cell area, I want to make sure to put forward that many 
of these are in clinical trials today. Not all of these are widely 
available yet. However, there has been success in all of these areas 
using adult stem cells. For some of these treatments adult stem cells 
were the main component. In others adult stem cells were the part that 
helped the main component to work. All of these are real and 
legitimate.
  On the eve of last summer's biological debate, some scientists took 
it upon themselves to criticize this list by publishing a letter in the 
Journal of Science. In January this year, Science published a response 
to this initial letter. It is important that we put forward here the 
context of the adult stem cell treatment that has yielded so many human 
treatments to date. I want to put this in context.

       In their letter ``Adult Stem Cell Treatments for 
     Diseases?'' S. Smith et al. claim that we misrepresent a list 
     of adult stem cell treatments benefiting patients.
       But it is the Letter's authors who misrepresent our 
     statements and the published literature, dismissing as 
     irrelevant the many scientists and patients who have shown 
     the benefits of adult stem cells.
       We have stated that adult stem cell applications have 
     ``helped,'' ``benefited,'' and ``improved'' patient 
     conditions. Smith et al.'s Supporting Online Material 
     repeatedly notes patient improvement from these cells. We 
     have never stated that these treatments are ``generally 
     available,'' ``cures,'' or ``fully tested in all required 
     phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and 
     Drug Administration (FDA).'' Some studies do not require 
     prior FDA approval, and even the nine supposedly ``fully 
     approved'' treatments acknowledged by Smith et al. would not 
     be considered ``cures'' or ``generally available'' to the 
     public at this stage of research.
       The insistence that no benefit is real until after FDA 
     approval is misplaced. Such approval is not a medical 
     standard to evaluate patient benefit, but an agency 
     determination that benefits outweigh risks in a broad class 
     of patients.
       Physicians and patients use an evidentiary standard. Our 
     list of 72 applications, [is] compiled from peer-reviewed 
     articles, documents observable and measurable benefit to 
     patients, a necessary step toward formal FDA approval and 
     what is expected of new, cutting-edge medical applications.

  As this debate moves forward, I look forward to sharing the stories 
of some of the real patients who have benefited from ethical adult stem 
cell research. We need more patients treated. We have more patients who 
need treatment. We have an area of high-yield Federal dollar investment 
where it should go, and we don't have the ethical barriers. We should 
be putting that money there; 72 to 0, that is the score. There are at 
least 72 human treatments and applications using adult stem cells. 
There are no human treatments with embryonic stem cells. With the rate 
of tumor formation which I previously noted, none seemed to be on the 
horizon soon.
  This is acknowledged by some scientists. Notably, Science carried a 
piece in 2005 in which the authors note:

       . . . the clinical benefits of the research are years or 
     maybe decades away. This is a message that desperate families 
     and patients will not want to hear.

  Yet we do have a message that desperate families and patients do want 
to hear; that is that we have treatments on the horizon, and we do in 
the adult and cord blood and amniotic fluid. We need the research 
money.
  Harvard stem cell researcher David Shaywitz wrote in a 2005 
Washington Post op-ed:

       While stem cell advocates have helped voters connect 
     embryonic stem cell research with compelling images of 
     patients who might one day benefit from treatment, such 
     therapies are unlikely to emerge soon enough to benefit most 
     current proponents. . . .
       . . . scientists must do a better job of articulating the 
     limitations of our existing acknowledge, taking care to 
     emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of 
     these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such 
     therapies.

  Which road will we choose? Will we choose the ethical adult stem cell 
road that holds great promise and is currently producing treatments, or 
will we choose the unethical embryonic stem

[[Page 8581]]

cell road that tramples on human dignity and has produced tumors to 
date? That is the point of the discussion.
  This is not just an academic discussion, nor is it just a policy 
discussion. It involves real people. I showed you one person who was a 
real person. I started off with talking about David Foege who is 
excited about being alive. Let me show you Jacki Rabon, a paraplegic. I 
met Jacki last year. She has continued to improve. I want to share her 
story with you.
  She lives in central Illinois. She had come to DC last year with her 
mother and sister because she wanted to tout her successful adult stem 
cell treatment. The courage of Jacki and many others like her is truly 
amazing. Years earlier, as an active 16-year-old, she was paralyzed in 
an automobile accident. As the car was flipping multiple times, Jacki 
was thrown from the vehicle and landed on her back on a country road. 
Her dreams of earning a volleyball scholarship for college were 
shattered.
  In a letter sent to me last year, Jacki wrote this:

       That day changed my outlook, my future aspirations and my 
     complete life. Before the accident I was a very active 16-
     year-old. I played volleyball in school and was very good. I 
     had hopes of going to college on a volleyball scholarship. I 
     truly was living a nightmare after this tragedy. I really 
     thought my life was over. I couldn't imagine not playing 
     volleyball anymore, jumping on my trampoline with my young 
     nephew, chasing after my niece or just taking a walk around 
     my small community. Not only does something like this change 
     the victim but it also disrupts and seriously affects your 
     family.
       I spent a little over a month in the hospital. I had back 
     surgery to stabilize my back. I had a fracture at the T12 
     area, which made me a paraplegic. I had no feeling below the 
     belly button. I had to learn to become independent again. I 
     had to learn to dress, bathe, transfer from place to place, 
     and take care of my personal hygiene and toiletry issues. It 
     was so difficult and I struggled with these once simple 
     tasks. After I accomplished these I was released and allowed 
     to come home. I was simply told, ``You'll never walk again.'' 
     That was my prognosis!
       I got back to school a few months later and that was 
     another adjustment. Everything looks and works differently 
     when you are sitting in a wheelchair. I had to deal with a 
     lot of depression and sadness. But I tried to continue with 
     my life the best way that I could. I truly believe that my 
     faith got me through. If it wasn't for this amazing love of 
     God and my strong will and determination I don't know if I 
     could have proceeded with what my life had become. But I have 
     great determination along with the comforting faith and I 
     didn't intend on giving up that easily. I wanted to give life 
     another opportunity with my new ``lifestyle.''

  Can you imagine the anguish of being a 16-year-old, your whole life 
in front of you, and then being confronted with this sort of tragedy?
  Jacki was very fortunate, however, to have so many people who were 
looking out for her. Her pastor saw a PBS show called ``The Miracle 
Cell,'' about a procedure called olfactory mucosa transplantation being 
done in Portugal by Dr. Carlos Lima. The work involved transplanting 
adult stem cells from spinal cord patients' own sinus area into their 
spinal cord at the initial injury site.
  This gave Jacki real hope. Continuing her letter, she wrote:

       I listened to amazing recovery of returned sensation and 
     even the ability to walk again with continued rehab from 
     others after having this surgery. I remember thinking, 
     ``There's my chance!'' I knew I wanted to pursue this 
     possibility for me.
       My mom and I started researching this procedure on the 
     Internet and collected as much information that we could. We 
     discovered a Spinal Cord Injury Institute getting ready to 
     open in Detroit, Michigan, that summer. This institute was 
     closely associated with Dr. Lima. We called to see if we 
     could get an appointment to go and meet Dr. Steve Hinderer 
     and asked about the procedure in depth and inquire about my 
     chances of getting it done.
       I did go to Detroit and was told that I could well be a 
     good candidate. I was given the guidelines and criteria for 
     having this done. After many months of additional testing, x-
     rays, etc., I was accepted.
       This was very exhilarating for me. I had read about the 
     success stories of the individuals that have gone before me. 
     Their various success stories gave me so much hope!
       I had so much support from my family, friends, church, 
     community and surrounding areas to raise the $50.000.000 
     needed to have this surgery. Without this overwhelming 
     support I could not have gone forward with this incredible 
     opportunity.
       I went to Portugal in October 2005. I had the procedure 
     done on October 29th. My experience in Portugal was not all 
     pleasant. My mom and I had to deal with the language barrier 
     and the unfamiliar culture. I returned to the states on 
     November 5th. I rested at home for a few weeks then went to 
     Detroit to the Institute for aggressive rehab. Rehab was very 
     tiring and indeed very aggressive. It was an exhausting 
     experience but a very rewarding one. It was there that I took 
     my first steps on the parallel bars. I was up!
       My progress since undergoing this surgery has been amazing! 
     I have a lot of hip movement, some tingling and heaviness in 
     my legs. I have continued with my rehab regimen at home. I 
     have leg braces that were fitted to me. I can walk on 
     parallel bars and have begun walking with a walker. I am up 
     on my feet again! That's the most satisfying feeling. Unless 
     you have been confined in a wheelchair for an extended amount 
     of time you can't really know how rewarding it is to be 
     standing again.
       This brings me to the ongoing debate over adult stem cell 
     research. I did not think a lot about this issue before the 
     accident but now it has sparked a great interest within me. 
     First, I am very much against embryonic stem cell research 
     and advancement. I do not support this aspect at all. The 
     killing of human life is appalling to me. But with adult stem 
     cell and non-embryonic stem cell research I have become an 
     advocate. My personal experience with adult stem cell 
     transplantation should awaken the United States to the 
     unlimited possibilities. This technique is simply, ``your 
     body healing itself.'' Medical research in the United States 
     has always been respected and admired for the advances toward 
     cure for cancer, arthritis treatments and medication, heart 
     disease and other well-known diseases and ailments. But when 
     it comes to spinal cord injuries the U.S. is very much in the 
     negative category. We as taxpayers pay more money in the 
     daily care of a spinal cord injury victim than we do on a 
     cure. Now why is that? The medical society treats the injury 
     at the onset then teaches the individual to live in a 
     wheelchair and function accordingly. Then they are sent home 
     and told, ``You will never walk again.'' I experienced that 
     first hand.
       But I am walking again. I have goals of walking by the end 
     of the year with my braces and crutches. This was made 
     possible by the procedure in Portugal--Portugal, not the 
     United States--and aggressive rehab. But I had to leave the 
     comfort of my home and country and travel to a foreign area 
     to get this done. Now that is sad, isn't it?
       This tragedy that happened to me can happen to anyone. It 
     could be your wife, husband, son, daughter or friend. What 
     would you want for them? Simply a statement, ``You'll never 
     walk again'' or ``Never give up hope there is a better option 
     for you.''

  Jacki Rabon writes:

       Wake up United States! We are missing out. Let's look at 
     the issue in a more personal level--I can walk again.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jacki Rabon,
                                                      Waverly, IL.

  These are the moving words this courageous young lady wrote last 
summer.
  Jacki's progress does continue. We received an e-mail from Jacki's 
mom, Becki, in the last few weeks. Becki Rabon writes:

       Jacki is doing wonderfully. She did have a slight hip 
     problem a few weeks ago. She was experiencing a lot of pain. 
     We had x-rays, Ultrasounds and lab work done.
       Thank God, it was only tightness in her hip muscles. The 
     pain of course was not good . . . but it was in a way that is 
     good since Jacki is getting more feeling in her hips.
       Otherwise, she is still walking with her braces and a 
     walker at our church. She walks independently now. All I do 
     is help her with getting the braces on and stabilizing the 
     walker while she stands up. Then she can walk by herself. The 
     distance has increased considerably. The next step for her is 
     to start walking outside and at home. She needs to be on more 
     normal terrain.

  This is an amazing story, and the science that has gone into Jacki's 
treatment is truly revolutionary, miraculous. Adult stem cell therapy--
what could it do with another $600 million? How far along could we be?
  A June 2006 study in the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine reported on 
Dr. Lima having transplanted nasal stem cells into seven patients with 
spinal cord injury. The patients regained some motor function and 
sensation, and two patients showed bladder control improvement.
  Most of the adult stem cell work in this area is still being done in 
lab animals, but it is already starting to have human applications. You 
have to ask yourself, why would we want to go down the unethical 
embryonic stem cell road when the doors are already being opened by 
adult stem cells and you already have these types of human

[[Page 8582]]

stories taking place? Why, when we have something that is working?
  Shown in this picture is Jacki Rabon.
  I am going to tell an amazing story about Dr. Dennis Turner. He came 
in to testify in the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Science 
and Technology. He testified in 2004. He suffered from Parkinson's 
disease. I want to read portions of his testimony. I show you a picture 
of Dr. Dennis Turner. He stated:

       For 14 years I've had Parkinson's Disease. This 
     irreversible disease involves the slow destruction of 
     specialized cells in the brain, called Dopamine Neurons. By 
     early 1991 I suffered extreme shaking of the right side of my 
     body, stiffness in my gait and movements. After some years of 
     medication, I developed fluctuation and poor response to 
     Sinemet. This made daily activities needing the coordinated 
     use of both hands hard or impossible, such as putting in 
     contact lenses. My disability prevented me from using my 
     right arm.
       Other than my Parkinson's symptoms I was physically very 
     active and fit. Because of this Dr. Levesque felt that I'd be 
     a good candidate for an experimental treatment. He explained 
     that he would take a very small tissue sample from my brain, 
     removing its adult neural stem cells. He would then multiply 
     and mature these cells into Dopamine Neurons, then inject 
     these cells back into the left side of my brain. He proposed 
     treating only the left side because it controls the right 
     side of the body, the side with the most severe Parkinson's 
     symptoms.
       Dr. Levesque did not tell me that this treatment would 
     permanently cure my condition. Science has yet to learn what 
     causes Parkinson's Disease, much less how to remove it. 
     However, since this cell-replacement approach had never been 
     tried in a human patient we hoped for the best. And since my 
     only other realistic alternative was to continue growing 
     worse until I eventually died, I decided to have the surgical 
     procedures in 1999, one to remove the tissue and another to 
     inject the cells. I was awake for both procedures, under 
     local anesthesia.
       Soon after having the cells injected my Parkinson's 
     symptoms began to improve. My trembling grew less and less, 
     until to all appearances it was gone, only slightly 
     reappearing if I became upset. Dr. Levesque had me tested by 
     a Neurologist, who said he wouldn't have known I had 
     Parkinson's if he had met me on the street. I was once again 
     able to use my right hand and arm normally, enjoying 
     activities that I had given up hope of ever doing.
       Since being diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease my condition 
     had slowly, but continuously worsened. I can't say with 
     certainty what my condition would have become if Dr. Levesque 
     had not used my own adult stem cells to treat me. But I have 
     no doubt that because of this treatment I've enjoyed five 
     years of quality life that I feared had passed me by.
       Last year, after 4 years of being virtually symptom free, 
     my Parkinson's symptoms began reappearing in my body's left 
     side. Today I have various degrees of trembling in both 
     hands, although I feel that the left is slightly worse. 
     Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to have Dr. 
     Levesque use my adult stem cells to treat me a second time, 
     since in my case they were safe, effective, and involved no 
     risk of rejection.
       Because of my improvements through Dr. Levesque's treatment 
     I've been able to indulge in my passion for big game 
     photography these past 5 years.

  This man suffering severe Parkinson's for 5 years being able to 
indulge in his passion for big game photography.

       While on safari in 2001 I scrambled up a tree to avoid 
     being run over by a Rhino. I swam in the South Atlantic with 
     Great White Sharks. Two weeks ago I returned from Africa 
     after photographing Cheetahs and Leopards in the wild.

  This is a man with severe Parkinson's.

       Here are a few examples of the pictures I took. They 
     represent memories and experiences I feel I have Dr. Levesque 
     to thank for. I came here to offer him my sincere gratitude, 
     and to offer others with Parkinson's a concrete reason for 
     hope.
       This summarizes my history with Parkinson's and the 
     positive effects I experienced through a treatment that used 
     my own adult stem cells. I'm very happy with its results and 
     would dearly love to have a second treatment.

  Mr. President, I cite this example because here is a route forward 
for us. We want to treat people with Parkinson's. Here is a route 
forward that has been shown in a human clinical trial setting, with 
positive results for a period of time. Why would we want to waste that? 
Why wouldn't we want to fund that and to use it aggressively?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor 
and will continue to use more of my time later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on S. 5. This is a bill that will bring hope to millions of 
Americans and their families. This is the bill, this is the opportunity 
for us to move forward on critically needed research. By passing the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we can make a major step forward in 
scientific research and bring hope and help to millions of Americans 
fighting a debilitating disease every day.
  I think we all have members of our own families who can speak to 
those issues--Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, other kinds 
of diseases--where we know with a little bit of help and focus, both in 
terms of stem cell research but also in terms of funding research, we 
can see huge changes, huge opportunities for treatment and for possible 
cures. That is what this bill is all about. It is so important we move 
forward in a positive way and pass this bill as quickly as possible.
  It is very sad we have this issue up before us again. In the last 
Congress, we passed legislation by wide bipartisan margins to lift the 
President's restriction on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research. By wide margins, the majority of Americans supported this 
legislation, and still support this legislation. Unfortunately, the 
President issued his first and, so far, only veto to strike down our 
legislation. So we are back here again.
  I see Mr. Harkin, a great Senator from Iowa, on the floor. I commend 
him for his leadership, and so many of my other colleagues. Earlier 
today, Senator Feinstein was on the floor, and I thank her, certainly, 
for her leadership, as well as Senator Kennedy. So many people have 
worked so hard in bringing us to this point. I thank our leader, our 
Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for making this a priority 
as an agenda item for us in the Senate.
  I know how deeply personal this issue is for many people. I respect 
that many of my colleagues have different views on stem cell research. 
I have also studied this issue very extensively. Over the past several 
years, I have met with people from all different faiths, all different 
backgrounds, from religious figures to medical researchers on the 
cutting edge of breakthrough technology. I have met with mothers who 
have to give multiple daily injections to their children to help them 
make it through the day.
  They argue that many diseases and chronic conditions--as I have 
mentioned before, diabetes, and also ALS, Parkinson's, spinal cord 
injuries, many types of cancers--will be treated or even possibly cured 
with stem cell research. Too many families are struggling to care for 
children with diabetes or watching elderly parents succumb to 
Alzheimer's disease, like my husband did, or like my grandmother, who 
died of Parkinson's disease.
  Too many Americans suffer from illnesses that make ordinary things 
such as daily household chores nearly impossible. As cochair of the 
Senate bipartisan Parkinson's Caucus, I receive letters and calls from 
people all across our great Nation on how important stem cell research 
is to them, how important this legislation, this opportunity at this 
time is to them and their families.
  I have met many Michigan families dealing with chronic health issues 
every single day. For example, a wonderful advocate and friend, Bob 
Kullgren, from Grand Rapids, shared with me his daughter Kate's story. 
When she was 12 years old, she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. 
Her family took her for multiple visits to the hospital and injected 
her with insulin three to four times every single day. These routines 
only helped to manage Kate's disease, not cure it.
  As a teenager, Kate worked as a counselor at a camp for children with 
diabetes. She watched as some of her fellow counselors began 
experiencing the early stages of blindness caused by their juvenile 
diabetes. I cannot imagine how terrifying it must be to begin

[[Page 8583]]

to go blind when you should be thinking about going to the prom or 
graduating from high school. None of us wants that for our children.
  Another bright young woman who has visited my office several times is 
Julielyn Gibbons. For over 12 years, Julielyn has lived with Crohn's 
disease. It is a disease that causes intense abdominal pain. For her, 
stem cell research offers the promise of not only curing this lifelong 
debilitating disease but also the hope of being able to live a normal 
life. She e-mailed me:

       I want to be able to bring children into the world knowing 
     that they will never have to suffer as I have, and that 
     possibility best exists through stem cell research.

  S. 5, a strong bipartisan bill, is an important and, in fact, a 
critical step forward toward giving Julielyn and Kate that hopeful 
future we all want for our children. S. 5 expands Federal financing of 
research on additional stem cell lines created from embryos freely 
donated from in vitro fertilization clinics under strict ethical 
guidelines. These embryos are frozen and will likely be destroyed. 
Think about that. These are frozen embryos that will likely be thrown 
in the garbage can. They are being thrown away. Which is better: To 
have the opportunity to use those cells, those precious cells to be 
able to create life, to create cures, or to see them thrown away? That 
is what is happening right now.
  This bill also would authorize the National Institutes of Health to 
look at other ways of creating new stem cell lines. This does not 
preclude other opportunities for research. In fact, this is a bill to 
make it clear we want to use every possibility to save life, to be able 
to cure diseases, and that we will continue to see that is done with 
the highest ethical standards, which is what is guaranteed under this 
legislation.
  The current administration's policy, frankly, is tying the hands of 
scientists and impeding their progress on treatments and cures for 
diseases that families every day are waiting for. Sean Morrison, the 
director for the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, 
told me the federally approved lines are of limited use because they 
are not genetically diverse enough to realize the full potential of 
this research--so many more are needed. In other words, we don't have 
enough right now. We can't do what needs to be done, what families are 
asking for across this country.
  While we look toward the future, we should remember those who have 
passed while we have had this debate as well. Every day the clock is 
ticking on somebody who is ill. Every day the clock is ticking on 
somebody with a fatal disease who could be helped in some way or cured 
if we were doing everything we could to provide the research and the 
cures and the treatments. What pains me the most is that some of the 
brave advocates I have had the privilege to meet during my 
congressional career are no longer here today. They are no longer here 
this week to see this vote. Hopefully we will not have many more people 
who will be seeing their lives deteriorate or lose their lives before 
we are able to actually begin to do what needs to be done with this 
research.
  It is for them and for all the families I have met that I will cast 
my vote this week, a vote for life, for hope, for a bright future. I 
know the cures won't come tomorrow, but they may never come if we do 
not act now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on S. 5, and I 
urge the President of the United States to do what is right, to do what 
the overwhelming majority of the American people are asking him to do 
and asking us to do, which is to say yes to lifesaving research, to say 
yes to that which will provide hope for a cure. I hope we will say yes 
in a very large margin to S. 5.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side in 
this round?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 42 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa.
  I speak today in support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act, offered by the majority leader, to whom we all owe a debt of 
gratitude for bringing this important bill to the floor. As a new 
Member of this body, as is the Presiding Officer, it also gives me 
great pride to express my appreciation for the leadership of Senator 
Harkin, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Hatch, whose 
voices over the years have placed us in the position to pass this 
legislation, as I hope we will tomorrow.
  I also wish to recognize the exceptional work and extraordinary 
leadership of my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Congressman 
Jim Langevin. Congressman Langevin has been both a State and national 
leader on this issue, championing the passage of H.R. 810 in last 
year's Congress and of H.R. 3 in January, as well as playing an 
integral role in Rhode Island's stem cell dialogue. Just today he was 
with our Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts, as she issued her 
report, ``Discovering Rhode Island's Stem Cell Future: Charting the 
Course Toward Health and Prosperity.'' This report is an important step 
toward developing a comprehensive statewide plan for stem cell research 
initiatives in Rhode Island.
  Congressman Langevin did not arrive at his position on stem cell 
research easily. He grappled, as we all do, with the ethical and 
scientific issues involved, meeting with a host of individuals and 
groups spanning the ideological spectrum. After serious and heartfelt 
consideration, he concluded, as have many of our Senate colleagues, 
that a central part of his deeply held beliefs about life is a 
commitment to those who are challenged by diabetes, by heart disease, 
by Alzheimer's, by Parkinson's, by spinal cord injury, by stroke, and 
by the myriad of diseases and conditions that stem cell research might 
help or even cure. I share this deep commitment to stem cell research 
and a sincere optimism about the hope it offers for so many lives.
  I want to share the story of one of those lives. It is the story of 
Lila Barber, a 12-year-old girl from Westerly, RI, who came to visit me 
here in Washington 2 weeks ago. In 2005, Lila started experiencing pain 
in her leg. The pain got progressively worse over a 5-month period, 
until it was keeping her, and her parents, up all night. The Barbers 
began a medical journey, from doctor to doctor and test to test, only 
to be told that Lila had bursitis. As it turned out, Lila did not have 
bursitis; she had osteosarcoma, a cancerous bone tumor on her tibia 
below her knee.
  Years ago, doctors would have had no option but to amputate Lila's 
leg. But reconstructive techniques have improved, and most limbs can 
now be replaced with a metal and plastic artificial joint or a cadaver 
bone transplant. Fortunately, Dr. Richard Terek, an orthopedic surgeon 
specializing in musculoskeletal oncology at Brown University, was able 
to save her leg using such a cadaver bone transplant, which preserves 
as much normal tissue as possible. In the year following Lila's 
surgery, she was home-schooled as she underwent 16 rounds of 
chemotherapy. Lila's chances of long-term survival are now good--75 
percent.
  But even if Lila remains cancer free, she will face a painful and 
ongoing medical struggle. Since the donor bone and cartilage are not 
living, Lila's transplanted tibia will not grow as she does. Even 
worse, it will break down over time. This is a place where stem cell 
research could vastly improve care for cancers like Lila's. In the 
short-term, stem cell research could allow surgeons to develop 
techniques to use

[[Page 8584]]

Lila's own cells to biologically and mechanically enhance bone tissue 
transfer. That is, Lila's own stem cells could be used to repopulate 
the lost bone and cartilage. In the longer term, stem cell research 
might allow scientists to grow entirely new replacement bones and 
joints. One day, children with osteosarcoma and other bone tumors might 
receive new bones that actually grow with their bodies into adulthood. 
Such bone tissue enhancements would also be beneficial to individuals 
with injuries from accidents, sports injuries, or just the wear and 
stress of age. This is just one area of promise in the broad landscape 
of hope stem cell research opens to Americans.
  As for Lila, with frequent monitoring from Dr. Terek, and sporting a 
bright bandanna on her first days back to school in the seventh grade, 
she is getting back to her old ways. She even attended the Nickelodeon 
Kids' Choice Awards last weekend, a trip made possible by A Wish Come 
True, an organization in Rhode Island that grants wishes to children 
with life-threatening and dangerous illnesses.
  For the Barber family, their greatest wish is for Lila's good health. 
Stem cell research holds the promise of making that wish, and millions 
of wishes like the Barbers', come true. Let us throw off the 
ideological shackles constraining our progress imposed by the bleak and 
benighted policies of the Bush administration. Let us all support S. 5 
and embrace the promise for life and health and hope and cure that 
these discoveries present to mankind.
  I thank the majority leader for sponsoring this vital legislation. I 
thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Iowa 
for yielding time to me.
  As a longtime supporter of stem cell research, I am pleased the 
Senate is once again taking up the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. 
I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill. It will 
expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally 
funded research, enabling scientists to take full advantage of the 
scientific and medical opportunities provided by stem cells. At the 
same time, the bill establishes clear standards to ensure this research 
is conducted ethically.
  The promise of embryonic stem cell lines lies in their potential to 
develop into virtually any cell, tissue, or organ in the body. As a 
consequence, this research holds tremendous potential to treat, and 
perhaps even cure, a vast array of diseases and conditions. Researchers 
could, for example, potentially generate insulin-producing islet cells 
for patients with juvenile diabetes; neurons to treat Parkinson's 
disease, ALS, and Alzheimer's, as well as bone marrow cells to treat 
cancer. It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans are 
afflicted by diseases or disabilities that have the potential to be 
treated through this promising research.
  I have heard some of our colleagues today, in arguing against this 
bill, say that the promise won't be fulfilled, that it is overblown, 
and that it is raising false hopes. We cannot say for certain what 
avenue of scientific research is necessarily going to produce the 
results all of us hope for, but surely it makes no sense to cut off a 
promising source of research that could benefit from Federal funds. I, 
for one, am very optimistic about the potential. There are no 
guarantees. There are no guarantees with any scientific research, but 
certainly the promise is there. It would be foolhardy for us to 
continue to restrict this research, to place artificial barriers in the 
way of research that offers such hope and such promise to so many 
American families.
  In August of 2001, President Bush announced that Federal funds could, 
for the first time, be used to support research on embryonic stem 
cells. But that research, under the President's Executive order, was 
limited to existing stem cell lines that were created prior to 9 p.m. 
on that day.
  In the 5\1/2\ years since the President made that announcement, this 
stem cell policy has fallen far short of its original goals. While the 
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry at the NIH lists 78 stem cell lines, 
at best, no more than 22 lines will ever be available for research 
under the current policy. Moreover, as Dr. John Gearhart of Johns 
Hopkins University told the Special Committee on Aging last year, 
existing lines are ``contaminated with animal cells, lack genetic 
diversity, are not disease-specific, and are not adequate for 
researchers to apply to a wide variety of diseases.'' Limiting 
researchers to these lines, therefore, places huge and unnecessary 
roadblocks in the way of possible treatments and cures for a wide range 
of devastating diseases.
  We have learned a lot about stem cells since 2001. For example, 
scientists have now created methods for growing stem cell lines that 
are free of animal cells, thus greatly improving their potential for 
treating and curing disease. They have also created disease-specific 
stem cell lines. Under the current Federal policy, however, these new 
and improved stem cell lines are not available to federally funded 
researchers in the United States. It is time for us to update our stem 
cell policy to reflect what we have learned so that we can accelerate 
this important research.
  The legislation before us lifts the current restriction so that stem 
cell lines are eligible for federally funded research, regardless of 
the date on which they are created. Federal funding, however, would 
continue to be restricted to stem cells derived from embryos originally 
created for fertility treatments that are in excess of the clinical 
need and that otherwise would be discarded. That is the issue before 
us. Are we going to use these stem cells--these cell clusters which 
otherwise would be thrown away--for what could be lifesaving and life-
enhancing research? That is the issue.
  The legislation has other important safeguards that require informed 
consent of the donors, and it prohibits any financial inducement to 
donate. Finally, the bill calls upon the NIH to develop strict 
guidelines to ensure that researchers adhere to clear ethical and moral 
standards.
  As the founder and the cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I am 
particularly excited about the promise stem cell research holds for an 
ultimate cure for diabetes. Early research has shown that stem cells 
have the potential to develop into insulin-producing cells to replace 
those which have been destroyed in individuals suffering from type 1 
diabetes.
  During the last Congress, I chaired a hearing in conjunction with the 
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Children's Congress to examine 
the devastating impact juvenile diabetes has had on too many American 
children and their families. We heard heartbreaking testimony from 
children who traveled here to tell us what it is like to live with 
juvenile diabetes, just how serious it is, and how important it is that 
we fund the research necessary to find a cure.
  One of those was a constituent of mine from Falmouth, ME, Steffi 
Rothweiler. She told the committee that she could not remember having a 
normal life without diabetes. She described her parents, who have given 
up a full night's sleep and their weekends, on guard every hour of 
every day to make sure Steffi's diabetes is controlled as tightly as 
possible so that she can stay as healthy as possible. Steffi asks that 
we do all we can to find a cure for diabetes as quickly as possible. We 
simply cannot ignore the potential embryonic stem cell research holds 
for children like Steffi.
  I am sensitive to the ethical concerns raised by opponents of this 
research. But I wish to emphasize once again that the cell clusters 
which will be used for this research would otherwise be discarded. In 
my view, the ethical choice is to use them for research that may 
benefit millions of Americans rather than just discard them as medical 
waste.

[[Page 8585]]

  Moreover, what is often ignored in this debate is that embryonic stem 
cell research is now occurring in the private sector and in other 
countries outside the purview of the NIH. Therefore, if we could extend 
these ethical guidelines that routinely accompany federally funded 
research, all of us should be for that as a goal.
  I wish to quote testimony from Dr. Allen Spiegel, who was, at the 
time, Director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and 
Kidney Diseases. He made that very point at our 2005 hearing on 
juvenile diabetes. He testified that, while NIH routinely worked very 
closely with the private sector, in the area of stem cell research, 
``there is a wall.'' By expanding our current stem cell policy, we can 
tear down that wall, allowing for more research but ensuring that it is 
conducted with clear ethical standards.
  Now, the other argument we always hear is that we don't need to have 
this kind of stem cell research because adult stem cells derived from 
tissue, such as bone marrow, are a sufficient replacement for embryonic 
stem cells in forwarding this important research.
  The fact is, both are promising. But, again, as Dr. Spiegel testified 
at the hearing that I chaired with regard to diabetes research:

       We need to do embryonic stem cell first because it can give 
     us a better understanding of what causes type 1 diabetes . . 
     . because it will actually inform our ability to work with 
     adult stem cells . . . and finally, because, and one cannot 
     guarantee or promise this, the embryonic stem cells 
     themselves, if successfully turned into insulin-secreting 
     beta cells, could be the source of cell therapy.

  That is the testimony from the experts.
  It would be tragic not to take advantage of this opportunity to 
accelerate research that can potentially help millions of people 
suffering from devastating illnesses. I urge our colleagues to join in 
voting for this important legislation.
  Again, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. This is legislation 
that truly can make a difference to the lives and well-being of so many 
American families.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
very eloquent statement regarding this bill. The Senator is right on 
the mark in talking about the ethical--if I can get her attention for a 
second--part of this issue.
  As the Senator knows, in S. 5, we have very strict ethical 
guidelines. One, the only embryos that can be used are those slated to 
be discarded anyway from our IVF clinics. Secondly, there has to be 
written informed consent by the donors. And, third, there cannot be any 
monetary or other kinds of inducements at all to the donors of these 
embryos. Those guidelines are actually stricter than what is in law 
right now. As the Senator knows, we have these strict guidelines.
  The other point the Senator brought up, if she has a minute for me to 
explore this point with her a bit, is that we have in vitro 
fertilization clinics. My information is that last year about 50,000 
babies were born by IVF. I have friends of mine who had children thanks 
to IVF; otherwise, they would never have had children. Obviously, there 
are some embryos left over. They would like to be able to donate those 
for embryonic stem cell research because they are not going to have any 
more children.
  So it seems to me the ethics question is, are we just going to 
discard them as hospital waste, which is done every day, or would it be 
more ethical to say let's use those with the strict guidelines we have 
to save lives, to make life better, to ease suffering and pain?
  The Senator from Maine put her finger on it. That, to me, is the 
ethical way, I would think. What our bill is trying to do is to let 
those donors of those embryos say, yes, do this. You can do that, and 
use that for research. I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
contribution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just a 
moment so I can respond to the excellent points that he made, first, I 
commend Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, and others who have worked on 
this bill for including those clear safeguards. This isn't a case where 
anyone is going to be selling the left over, unused embryos from in 
vitro fertilization. In fact, the bill appropriately prohibits any 
financial inducement, any sort of money changing hands. So that is an 
important safeguard.
  But the Senator put his finger on what I think is the primary ethical 
choice. The left over cell clusters are going to be discarded. They are 
going to be discarded. They are discarded every day, every month, every 
year as medical waste. How much more enhancing it would be to use them 
for research that could save lives, that could prolong lives, that 
could improve the quality of life for someone suffering from juvenile 
diabetes or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or other devastating diseases.
  I believe this bill is a very ethical bill that will help move us 
forward in the search for better treatments, for better diagnoses, and 
someday a cure. I cannot believe that we would cut off such promising 
research when we know it can be done in an ethical way.
  I applaud the Senator for his leadership in this area. I hope we will 
proceed to a very strong bipartisan vote in support of legislation that 
means so much to the American family.
  We do a lot of debate on this Senate floor, but it is rare that we 
have a debate on an issue that touches so many Americans personally. 
All of us have family members who have suffered from these devastating 
diseases, and this offers--does not promise--but offers the potential 
for research that could really make a difference.
  I thank the Senator. I am very happy to join him in this effort.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. How much 
time does our side have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take a couple more minutes to 
expand on this point.
  I mentioned this morning, if you are faced with a situation where 
embryos are going to be discarded and destroyed totally or these 
embryos could be donated for embryonic stem cell research and 
propagated and given life and then proceed to give life to others, is 
that not the better ethical choice? In other words, what I am saying 
is, when you discard an embryo from an IVF clinic now as hospital 
waste, that is destroyed. But if you take an embryo and take out of the 
embryo the 100 or 200 cells in it, extract them, the embryo itself is 
not an embryo any longer, but the cells are still alive. They are still 
alive. They propagate, they grow, they become stem cells that we 
already know--we have already done that--develop into nerve cells, bone 
cells, heart muscle tissue, motor neurons. They already know that.
  On the one hand, you are really destroying the embryos, and on the 
other hand, you are taking the embryos, you are changing them into 
something else that propagates life and that actually could be--we 
don't know, as the Senator said, we don't know the end result but could 
actually enhance and make life better for many people. It seems to me 
this is the more ethical way to go.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Harkin for his 
leadership on this issue and Senator Collins and those who have been 
responsible in bringing forward S. 5 for us to have an opportunity to 
vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  I join my colleagues. Rarely do we have an opportunity in this body 
to cast a vote that literally offers hope to over 100 million people in 
this country. We all have constituents who are suffering from 
Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease or juvenile diabetes or ALS or 
spinal cord injury and other illnesses and injuries that very much the 
stem cell research offers hope that we will be able to make 
advancements to improve quality of life.

[[Page 8586]]

  But there is more involved here than just the health and lives of 
Americans. We also are talking about the United States and its 
preeminence internationally in medical research. We have led the world 
in medical research in this country. People from all over the world 
come to America to get their health care needs met and to train their 
health care professionals.
  We have been on the cutting edge. In my own State of Maryland, we 
have the NIH, we have the Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, we have 
Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland Medical Center--
all on the leading edge of research technology.
  S. 5 will help us maintain our preeminence in medical research, as 
well as help millions of people as we make advancements in medical 
research.
  Let's review quickly the current status of embryonic stem cell 
research.
  It offers tremendous promise, we all know that. We all know embryonic 
stem cells hold the greatest promise for being able to regenerate parts 
of our organs and bodies that will allow us to deal with horrible 
diseases and injuries.
  On August 9, 2001, the President's Executive order restricted 
embryonic stem cell research. If we could go back to 2001 and look at 
the situation in 2001, there were many who thought maybe that would be 
adequate at that time. We didn't know a lot about embryonic stem cell 
research back in 2001. NIH at that time had predicted, I remind my 
colleagues, that there were 60 to 78 stem cell lines that would be 
available under the President's Executive order, when in reality there 
were only 22, and some have been contaminated with mouse feeder cells.
  We lack the genetic diversity necessary to perform research today on 
embryonic stem cells, and the most vulnerable groups are minorities 
because they are disproportionately affected by the lack of diversity 
in the stem cells that are available.
  What is affected? Research dollars are not being made available. 
Money is not coming forward to deal with the most promising forms of 
research in our Nation. The role of the United States in medical 
research is being jeopardized. We are actually losing our best 
researchers to other countries which don't have these unreasonable 
restrictions.
  I think the argument can best be made not by researchers, not by 
legislators, but by listening to some of our constituents.
  I had the opportunity to have Josh Basile as an intern in my office. 
Three years before he was an intern in my office, he was a healthy 
young person leading a very healthy, very active life--a tennis player 
and doing all those things that a person his age would do. But then he 
was on the beaches off the Atlantic, and a wave caught him and he 
became a quadriplegic overnight. He is determined he is going to walk 
again. He is determined he is going to make progress. In fact, he is 
making progress. He is rehabilitating himself the best he possibly can. 
He has brought back motion where people thought it was impossible for 
motion to come back because he is determined. He is keeping his body 
ready, but he is asking us to do our share to allow the medical 
researchers to have the tools necessary to help him so one day he can 
walk.
  One of my closest friends--my closest friend in law school--Larry 
Katz, when he was a very active attorney in Baltimore, was diagnosed 
with ALS. I watched him as his body left him and he died a very 
difficult death.
  Any of us who have experienced these types of life circumstances know 
that we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make sure that 
our scientists have the appropriate tools to do the research to bring 
about the answers to provide the resources, the money, and the 
appropriate scientific methods in order to unlock the mysteries of so 
many diseases.
  Stem cell research offers tremendous promise. The work being done at 
the University of Maryland Medical Center and the work being done at 
Johns Hopkins in my community--Dr. John Gearhart and Dr. Douglas Kerr, 
I met with these scientists frequently to try to get a better 
understanding about this. I am not a scientist. I don't know all the 
technicalities, but I have had a chance to meet with these scientists 
and see what they are doing and learn firsthand the promise that 
embryonic stem cell research holds out to all of us. They have been 
able to implant embryonic stem cell growth in mice and see movement 
where there was no movement before. It holds out such great promise.
  We can do better and we have to allow our scientists the ability to 
do that. Let me quote from one other Marylander, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, 
who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health and a resident 
of Baltimore. Last month, he reiterated his support for lifting the 
current ban, stating that:

       From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science 
     will be better served and the Nation will be better served if 
     we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines.

  There is a lot of fact and a lot of fiction out there as to what this 
means and what this bill does, what exactly the restrictions are under 
current law. There are some who argue that this legislation will 
encourage the creation of in vitro fertilization for research. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. The only lines that are available are 
those that are currently in existence. As my colleagues have repeated 
over and over on this floor, those who claim that this will divert the 
cell from its original purpose for implantation are wrong. The facts 
are that these embryos would be otherwise discarded.
  Those who say we have to protect against abuse, read the language of 
the bill. The bill requires the donor's consent, and it can't be with 
compensation. It provides guidelines for the ethically sound use of 
embryonic stem cell research.
  In June of 2001, 2 months before President Bush issued his stem cell 
policy, Sue Stamos and her daughter Faith came to visit me in my House 
office. At the time, Faith was 3 years old, a very brave little girl 
who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. She asked me for my 
support for Federal research to help find a cure for Faith, and I 
promised back then I would do everything I could to help the Stamos 
family.
  Back in 2001, our knowledge of stem cell research was nowhere near 
what it is today. We didn't know what promise it held at that time. 
Today, 6 years later, we have a much broader and deeper knowledge about 
the scientific possibilities of stem cells but much less capacity to 
research stem cell lines than we had anticipated.
  Last year, I voted to keep my promise to Sue and Faith Stamos and to 
the thousands of other Marylanders who are waiting for cures. Today, 
again for Faith and Josh and thousands of other Marylanders, I will 
vote to expand the stem cell lines available for federally funded 
research. I hope my colleagues will join in sending a message to 
Americans that this Congress will not stand in the way of medical 
progress through the proper use of embryonic stem cell research.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and with that, Mr. 
President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of many of the speeches that have been made this afternoon, 
particularly when Senator Collins of Maine a little while ago talked 
about whether we should decide--``we'' meaning Members of the Senate--
what the promise of embryonic stem cell research is. We can't. We are 
not scientists. Mr. Coburn certainly would qualify as a medical doctor, 
but there are no scientists here of the eminence of people doing this 
critical work.
  Ms. Collins made a very good point, and the point I would like to 
reiterate from the presentation I made this morning is that there is 
nobody here arguing against furthering science and furthering embryonic 
stem cell research. The question is which route we take.
  The proposal in S. 30, which Senator Coleman and myself have brought 
forward, is an affirmation of the need to expand embryonic stem cell 
research.

[[Page 8587]]

It is an affirmation that there is a way to do it. In the course of the 
last couple of years, we have discovered a lot of new, interesting, and 
dynamic things, most important of which is that 5 of the 21 lines that 
exist right now, under the grandfather clause the President issued in 
August of 2001, are lines derived not from the destruction of a live 
embryo or an implantable embryo but from a naturally dead embryo.
  Let me briefly but succinctly go back to that definition. It is very 
much the same as a clinically dead person with an irreversible 
cessation of brain waves but the rest of their body still lives on life 
support so that they are able to donate, through a medical power of 
attorney, their organs to be transplanted and which can then save a 
human life. It is the same medical principle, where with that 
determination of death, although there is still life in the body, that 
individual is able, through their grant, to donate their organs in 
order to save another life.
  This is the same principle in terms of naturally dead embryos. 
Embryos developed for in vitro fertilization, after 3 days, are 
implantable viable embryos. In 4 additional days, additional embryos 
are created with the cell mass necessary to become a viable fetus and 
ultimately a human being. But after the seventh day, which is called 
level III, or the Gardner III principle, the embryonic stem cell 
embryos are clinically dead, although cells within the embryo are 
alive. That is the same principle as an organ donation from an 
individual who suffers from an irreversible cessation of brain waves.
  S. 30, which I stand on the floor today to promote and commend to the 
Members of the Senate, does exactly and precisely what most of the 
Members of this body want to do, and that is further the NIH investment 
in embryonic stem cell research. As I said this morning, three of those 
lines happen to exist in the State of Georgia. Three lines currently 
under the grandfather clause issued by the President's Executive order 
in August of 2001, three lines that currently are continuing to be 
funded by the National Institutes of Health, three lines that are 
contributing to the breakthrough or hopefully the steps of the 
breakthroughs, in terms of any number of cures, but in particular those 
of diabetes and those of spinal column injury.
  By adopting S. 30, sending it to the House and the House adopting it, 
and the President having said he will sign it, then we know we can 
break through this logjam and we can create additional lines for 
embryonic stem cell research and exponentially bring forward the public 
information that is so necessary in the research and medical community. 
Because the critical benefit the National Institutes of Health 
investment makes is it makes the discoveries come into the public 
domain because the NIH is a public entity and it is the taxpayers' 
money.
  So I would submit that S. 30 is the right way to enhance what most, 
if not all, here want to do and that is to enhance the cure of dread 
diseases, the breakthroughs necessary to solve any number of problems, 
and do so in a way that clearly respects the viability of an embryo by 
selecting those lines only from embryos that are clinically dead. You 
are then not destroying what could become a viable human being, but you 
are adding to and furthering embryonic stem cell research in the same 
way that 5 of the existing 21 lines currently being researched are 
being brought forward.
  I wish to read one paragraph from Dr. Edward Ferdin, who wrote on the 
Landry and Zucker report on this very subject, and I quote:

       Dr. Landry points out a similar standard is invoked at the 
     end of life--meaning this dead embryo standard--in the use of 
     neurological criteria for the determination of death. When 
     the integrative unit of the body ceases because of the loss 
     of brain wave, a patient is declared dead even though the 
     individual cells and tissues of the body may continue to 
     function for some period of time. In the absence of the 
     brain, there is no longer a person presently within the body. 
     The fact that individual cells, tissues, and organs in the 
     brain-dead body continue to live is what enables transplant 
     surgeons to save thousands of lives each year through organ 
     donation.

  The same could be true if we were to make the same use of cells of 
deceased embryos in pursuit of the cures for degenerative diseases and 
further the advancement of embryonic stem cell research.
  I see my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, has come to the floor 
to speak, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my heartfelt 
appreciation to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the Senator 
from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, for working diligently, creatively, and in 
a very determined way to try to solve a problem that has previously 
existed in this area that has made it difficult, if not impossible, for 
some of us to support the expansion of embryonic stem cell research 
because we were concerned that a very important moral line would be 
crossed.
  I, for one, strongly support medical research, development, and 
innovation to combat disease and develop effective treatments to 
improve the quality of health for all Americans, and I am sure we all 
feel the same way. During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support 
legislation that promoted expansion of stem cell research without 
harming or destroying human embryos, and today I am proud to join 
Senators Coleman and Isakson in cosponsoring the HOPE Act, the Hope 
Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research bill.
  This HOPE Act advances stem cell research, while respecting life and 
focusing on cures by allowing the Secretary of the Department of Health 
and Human Services to establish guidelines for research on embryos that 
have died from natural causes. The bill directs HHS, Health and Human 
Services, to prioritize research likely to produce the greatest results 
in the near term, and authorizes Federal funding for research only if 
such lines have been derived in such a manner that it does not harm or 
kill a living human embryo. Finally, it directs the Institute of 
Medicine to conduct a study to delve further into the possibilities of 
amniotic and placental cell bank programs, areas which I understand 
from my reading have a lot of promise.
  I am also encouraged by the scientific advances made in the roughly 
$3 billion of Federal money put into stem cell research since about 
2001 that have created real advances in adult and cord blood stem cell 
research, and I strongly support efforts to build upon these promising 
therapies which are already being used in medical treatments for a 
variety of reasons. Current Federal stem cell policy funds research 
using established embryonic stem cell lines, thus taxpayers are not 
forced to support research that would require the use and destruction 
of human embryos at the earliest stage of development.
  It is essential to note that there is no law that prohibits embryonic 
stem cell research in this country. I think, unfortunately, this has 
been misportrayed and misunderstood in many quarters. In fact, this 
administration is the first one to support federally funded embryonic 
stem cell research within parameters. But the issue before us is solely 
an issue of whether American taxpayers will be forced to fund research 
that many of them oppose on fundamental moral grounds. It creates a 
slippery slope when human life is sacrificed for medical 
experimentation.
  The current Federal policy does not forbid others from conducting 
such research on lines other than those approved by the President, 
provided it is funded from sources other than the Federal taxpayer. 
There are States, I think notably California and others, that have 
voted to spend their own taxpayers' money for that purpose but not the 
Federal taxpayers' money.
  Adult stem cells--and this is again one of those areas where, when 
you mix science and politics, I fear always the science suffers--and 
this is part of the good news of this research, this $3 billion 
invested in stem cell research since 2001--the good news is that adult 
stem cells are treating real patients who suffer from more than 70 
different diseases and disorders right now.
  I think many people would be surprised to learn that embryonic stem 
cells have had few modest successes in animal trials and so far have 
produced

[[Page 8588]]

zero treatments for human beings. I think many people would be 
surprised because of the overhyped and oversold story about embryonic 
stem cell research. I think our job ought to be to try to come up with 
a reasoned piece of legislation based on the facts, not based on hype. 
I think that is what Senator Isakson and Senator Coleman have done.
  All of us have deep sympathy for parents, for children, for families 
who continue to struggle with painful, serious diseases. I continue to 
study this issue with great care. I remember every year the parents of 
children who suffer juvenile diabetes coming to my office along with 
their children. It really tugs at your heartstrings to see these 
parents wanting their children to be cured from this terrible disease. 
We all hope and pray that someday they will be.
  I have been encouraged by recent reports from America's scientific 
community which revealed that great potential exists for obtaining 
embryonic-like stem cells without creating and then harming human life. 
At the beginning of this month there were 1,373 publicly available 
clinical trials related to adult stem cells--1,373 publicly available 
clinical trials related to adult stem cells--including 671 that are 
currently recruiting patients.
  In my State of Texas, for example, 93 adult stem cell clinical trials 
are currently being conducted on everything from brain injuries to 
different forms of cancer to heart disease.
  I am proud to say that medical research in my State has been at the 
forefront of the adult stem cell research field. For example, the Texas 
Heart Institute reported evidence of the effectiveness of treating 
congestive heart disease with the patient's own stem cells. Heart 
disease, as we all know, is the No. 1 killer in the United States. Yet 
the researchers at the Texas Heart Institute are finding that adult 
stem cells injected directly into the heart are not only improving 
blood flow and blood vessel formation, but they are even growing new 
heart tissue.
  Another clinical trial in Texas, started this last year at the 
University of Texas Medical School at Houston and Memorial Hermann 
Children's Hospital, is among the first to apply adult stem cells to 
treat traumatic brain injury. The researchers in this trial are using 
children's own bone marrow stem cells to treat brain trauma. This is an 
especially important area to see adult stem cell research branching out 
into because of the devastating effect that brain injuries have had on 
survivors' lives.
  These trials and others like them are bringing us new treatments all 
the time for real patients right now. I will continue to support the 
expansion of research that may lead to the improved treatment of 
disease without compelling taxpayers to fund destruction of human 
embryos, a procedure that many find morally objectionable.
  Let me say in conclusion, again, how much I appreciate the creativity 
and determination of my two colleagues who have led the effort on this 
important legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it, proud to support it. 
I think generations yet unknown will continue to benefit from the kind 
of medical research that we will approve if we pass this bill and when 
it is signed by the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from the American Medical Association dated April 10, 2007, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                      Chicago, IL, April 10, 2007.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: As Congress considers stem cell 
     legislation, the American Medical Association (AMA) believes 
     that it is important that any such legislation follow certain 
     research and medical practice guidelines.
       In general, the AMA supports federal funding of biomedical 
     research which promises significant and scientific benefits. 
     More specifically, we--
       support biomedical research on multipotent stem cells 
     (including adult and cord blood stem cells);
       encourage strong public support of federal funding for 
     research involving human pluripotent stem cells (embryonic); 
     and
       encourage continued research into the scientific issues 
     surrounding the use of umbilical cord blood-derived 
     hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation.
       Further, AMA research policy supports certain ethical 
     considerations, including donor anonymity, non-coercion of 
     donors, absence of financial inducement and written informed 
     consent of the donor regarding the nature and scope of the 
     research involved. The AMA advocates these guidelines to 
     ensure appropriate and ethical stem cell research, with the 
     hope that continued stem cell research may lead to potential 
     cures and therapies for those suffering from many devastating 
     diseases.
           Sincerely,
                                        Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA,
                                    Executive Vice President, CEO.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I would like to address that for a second. This is a 
letter that does not endorse a particular bill, but it lays out the 
AMA's support for embryonic stem cell research. I want to make a couple 
of affirmations quickly, if I can.
  It says:

       In general, the AMA supports Federal funding of biomedical 
     research which promises significant scientific benefits. More 
     specifically we, support biomedical research on multipotent 
     stem cells, (including adult and cord blood stem cells); 
     encourage strong public support of federal funding for 
     research involving human pluripotent stem cells (embryonic); 
     and, encourage continued research into scientific issues 
     surrounding the use of umbilical cord blood-derived 
     hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation.
       Further, AMA research policy supports certain ethical 
     considerations, including donor anonymity, non-coercion of 
     donors, absence of financial inducement and written informed 
     consent of the donor regarding the nature and the scope of 
     the research involved.

  S. 30, the Coleman-Isakson bill, contains exactly each and every one 
of those items laid out by the American Medical Association.
  I might further add, unlike any other legislation, it does not pick a 
favorite, but it encourages NIE to make investments in all research 
that has the most imminent promise in terms of benefiting the lives of 
individuals.
  So you heard people talking about embryonic, you heard people talking 
about adult, you heard people talking about cord blood. The Coleman-
Isakson bill recognizes the value of all and leaves to the scientists 
at NIH the prioritization of those investments but ensures those 
investments are made in the furtherance of the research, just exactly 
as indicated in the letter from the AMA.
  I see my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, is on the Senate 
floor.
  I yield to Senator Coleman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
leadership and the opportunity to work together on something that I 
hope is a unifying force for this body. Let's agree where we can agree. 
I think that is what S. 30 offers.
  I listened to the debate on S. 5. I see my colleague, the Senator 
from Iowa. I do not know if there is a greater champion in the Senate 
than the Senator from Iowa when it comes to supporting the rights of 
individuals with disabilities. I worked on disability discrimination 
when I graduated law school 30 years ago. One of my heroes in this 
regard has always been the Senator from Iowa.
  Coauthor of S. 5 is my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. I don't 
know if there is a man of greater moral integrity in this body than 
Orrin Hatch. He is an extraordinary man. He and I have had long 
conversations about this bill. Good people disagree.
  For some of us there is that moral line that says we cannot support 
Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo. It is a line 
that a number of people cannot cross. So what happens is, if we have a 
concern of just having S. 5--and there is a battle that is being waged 
there. Again, it will pass. It will pass in this body and pass in the 
House. Then the reality is it will be vetoed. There will not be enough 
votes to override the veto. So in the end, those with good intentions 
who

[[Page 8589]]

want to move science forward are not going to be able to do that.
  This message to those who are suffering from ALS and suffering from 
juvenile diabetes--the research is not going to be moved forward at 
all.
  A number of my colleagues have put forth S. 30 as an opportunity. Dr. 
Hurlbut said: We offer one small island of unity in a sea of 
controversy, a place we can come together and promote the opportunity 
and support pluripotent stem cell research, research that has the 
ability to provide the kind of flexible cell material that offers great 
hope. Again, hope; it offers great hope.
  The good news is research is going forward in this area. This 
research offers an opportunity, not just in the area of stem cell 
research, but if you talk to some of the scientists, science itself is 
going to be opened, perhaps, to other advancements. We are going to 
learn more about stem cells just from doing this research.
  I have a chart that lays out what ANT is. This is just one of the 
options under S. 30. S. 30 would provide Federal funding for research 
that does not involve the destruction of an embryo. Some of it is dead 
embryo research. This is ANT. Under the natural process you have a 
fertilized egg, the egg and sperm, the fertilized egg that becomes an 
embryo.
  SCNT, as I understand it, is the way we got Dolly the sheep. We have 
a somatic cell from an adult. It was an animal--or it could be from a 
human. You put that cellular material, which has all the DNA, all that 
program in the enucleated egg, the egg gets fertilized, and you get an 
embryo.
  What ANT does, and the type of research, among a number of options--
there are some thoughts you could reprogram these cells. You could do a 
range of things, but what you are doing is altering the cell nucleus. 
It is kind of a key in there, something that unlocks the cell. If you 
take it out--I think it is CDX2, but I am not a scientist. But what you 
essentially do if you take that out before you transfer into this 
enucleated egg, before you put this genetic material with all the DNA 
and everything in there, in the end what you are going to get is an 
inner cell mass with all the ability to produce the pluripotent cells 
that you would get, but there is no embryo, and it doesn't cross the 
moral line.
  The opportunity for this Congress, in a bipartisan way, to support 
this kind of research is a positive thing.
  I see my colleague from Missouri. I have some other comments, but I 
believe we have some time, and I will use that time later.
  I want to reiterate that I hope my colleagues who support S. 5--we 
simply have disagreement over crossing that line--I hope they can come 
with us and support S. 30.
  My concern is about the House. Last year this body passed a bill 
similar to S. 5. It also passed the Specter-Santorum bill, which 
provided, by the way, a number of alternative means of producing cells. 
Some of those, by the way, are included in S. 5. But, again, S. 5 will 
not become law.
  If you want alternative ways to go forward, you have to support S. 
30. The House killed the Specter-Santorum bill. Their approach was, 
they wanted to have 100 percent of nothing--no alternative ways if they 
didn't get exactly what they wanted in their bill that was similar to 
S. 5.
  I hope my colleagues who are looking to provide hope will understand 
there is a path to move the science forward. There is a path for 
funding. There is a path to set up, as we have in S. 30, a stem cell 
bank, a bank of amniotic and placental stem cells. I hope our 
colleagues in the House do not do a repeat of what happened last year 
in which an effort to support alternative means was destroyed because 
they did not get their way in their version of S. 5.
  This is an opportunity to come together. It is not a whole package. 
It is not everything. It is not all the research that will come forward 
in S. 5 because for some of us, there is a line that we should not 
cross. But I think all of us can agree we want to support alternative 
means. We want to support dead embryo research, ANT, reprogramming, and 
create the opportunity to have more research being done next year than 
is being done this year.
  That is the promise. That is the hope that S. 30 offers.
  With that, I see my colleague from Missouri. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                              Iraq Funding

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is a very important debate, but I have 
another very important subject that I need to bring to the attention of 
this body. First and foremost, as I address this body, Congress has yet 
to take the necessary steps to approve emergency funding for our troops 
serving in a war zone. While I applaud the steps taken by the 
leadership of the Senate to appoint conferees moments after passing the 
supplemental appropriations bill, Speaker Pelosi and the House 
leadership have been too busy conducting foreign policy to appoint 
conferees.
  I am here. We are ready--I, along with a number of my colleagues--to 
get to work and get the funds where they are needed. As I said time and 
time again on the Senate floor, our generals and military commanders 
are in the best position and are best suited to know the needs of our 
forces. When they tell us they need the funds urgently, I do not 
believe they are leaving much room for interpretation.
  General Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff--a no-nonsense operator--
said:

       Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we 
     will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which 
     will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our 
     soldiers and their families.

  Secretary Gates, whom war critics and opponents alike embraced this 
straight-talking, candid Secretary of Defense, said:

       This kind of disruption to key programs will have a 
     genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the 
     quality of life for soldiers and families.

  In addition, this, too, would degrade the already perilous State of 
the National Guard's home front mission to support civil authorities. 
We are told that 88 percent of the Guard units at home are not equipped 
to respond to natural disasters or a potential terrorist attack.
  That is why I was proud to support, with my friend and National Guard 
Caucus cochairman, Senator Leahy, inclusion of a billion dollars in the 
supplemental for Guard equipment.
  The most significant and important constitutional role this Congress 
is supposed to be undertaking is exercising its power over the purse. 
Yet, ironically and most detrimentally to our troops, that one 
paramount duty seems to be the last one on the to-do list of some in 
Congress. Instead, the retreat-and-defeat crowd has sought to 
micromanage the war from 8,000 miles away, setting timetables and 
prescribing troop movements. This same message will discourage our 
allies, who are beginning to help, obviously, our troops, and only 
encourage our enemies.
  The recent action taken by the retreat-and-defeat crowd would suggest 
they are vested in defeat in order to achieve the goals of the far left 
wing of the Democratic Party where Michael Moore, George Soros, and 
others who support their party with tens of millions of dollars for 
527s will do anything to undermine President Bush, even if it means 
losing the war that radical Islam and al-Qaida have declared on us.
  As we have seen in recent weeks since the implementation of General 
Petraeus' plan, there is movement in the right direction. It cannot be 
changed overnight and nobody should expect an immediate turnaround, but 
it is the best hope we have. Senator McCain, who just returned from 
Iraq, reports that Sunni sheiks in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaida, 
more than 50 joint United States-Iraqi stations have been established 
in Baghdad, Muqtada al-Sadr has felt the heat, and his followers 
overall are not contesting them. Finally, Senator McCain observed that 
Iraqi Army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own, 
with their size and capability growing.
  While Senator McCain and I would agree that there are no guarantees 
for victory and we have a long way to go, we certainly need to make 
every effort to achieve it. Yet some Members of

[[Page 8590]]

this body and the other body say the real war on terror is in 
Afghanistan, not Iraq. If that is so, why are our marines fighting in 
Al Anbar against al-Qaida?
  Charles Krauthammer, on March 30 in the Washington Post, wrote on 
this very topic:

       Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral 
     observer--a Martian--and point out to him that the U.S. is 
     involved in two hot wars against radical Islam insurgents. 
     One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater 
     with no resources and no industrial or technical 
     infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three 
     principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated 
     population, an advanced military and technological 
     infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later 
     years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it 
     falls into the wrong hands. Add to that the fact that its 
     strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence 
     over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, 
     Kuwait, and the Gulf States. Then ask your Martian: Which is 
     the more important battle? He would not even understand why 
     you are asking the question.

  The war in Iraq is a very important front on the larger global 
battlefield. If anyone doubts this, then all we need to do is to listen 
to what Osama bin Laden had to say back in December 2004 in a message 
to Muslims in Iraq.
  Bin Ladin said: I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic 
Nation. Listen and understand. The issue is big, and the misfortune is 
momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole 
world is this Third World War which the crusader Zionist coalition 
began against the Islamic Nation. It is raging in the land of the Two 
Rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of 
the caliphate.
  That is what Osama bin Laden said. He has gone on to say: The whole 
world is watching this war and the two adversaries--the Islamic Nation, 
on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It 
is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.
  Now, obviously we did not declare war on radical Islam; it declared 
war on us.
  In addition, some in the House have sought to strike the term 
``global war on terror,'' pandering again to the likes of the George 
Soros wing of the party, undercutting U.S. efforts.
  The global war on terror is a real mission that 9/11 showed us has no 
geographical boundaries and one that so many of our brave men and women 
have died for since the attacks of 9/11.
  The terrorists have been targeting the United States throughout the 
1980s and 1990s. The United States never responded to those attacks, 
and the message sent was one of weakness, not strength. We would be 
repeating the same mistake today by communicating a weakness of our 
will by our political leaders. We withdrew from Vietnam, we withdrew 
from Beirut, we withdrew from Mogadishu. These repeated withdrawals 
signal to our enemies all over the world that if they inflict enough 
damage on our most heroic citizens, the marines will never surrender, 
but Washington will.
  A precipitous withdrawal, such as that being prescribed by the 
wannabe generals here in the Congress, would be disastrous. The Iraq 
Study Group's recommendations reached the same conclusion. James Baker, 
the group's cochairman, just wrote:

       The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the 
     removal of troops as contemplated by the supplemental 
     spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the 
     report specifically opposes that approach. As many military 
     and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would 
     allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the 
     positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American 
     departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost 
     certainly produce even greater sectarian violence and further 
     deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other 
     countries.

  The intelligence community, in open hearing, said precipitous 
withdrawal on a political timetable would lead to heightened killings 
of Shias and Sunnis, offer a safe haven for al-Qaida to reestablish 
itself, and likely a region-wide war between Sunni and Shia countries.
  To ignore these questions and considerations simply because they are 
unpalatable is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the worst. Those 
who want to end the war precipitously because they want to embarrass 
the President do not want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq 
will do anything but end--in fact, would only grow even more dangerous. 
If we leave, radical Islamists will follow us home.
  What I say to those who want to get out either immediately or on a 
political timetable, not based on the conditions on the ground, is if 
you want to run the war on terror from this body, you will own it. Even 
if some would-be generals in this body think they are smarter than 
General Petraeus and can devise a better plan in legislation--and I 
doubt that they can--how can they adjust their legislation conditions 
on the battlefield? To micromanage a war is to ensure defeat.
  When a newly revitalized al-Qaida carries out renewed 9/11-scale 
attacks, you will own those attacks as well. There are hundreds of 
thousands of soldiers, marines, guardsmen, and reservists and their 
families who will remember, and I will help remind everyone.
  As you may know, I proudly hail from the Show Me State. If all of the 
rhetoric in Washington about supporting the troops is true, and I 
believe people mean it, then I suggest that the Congress show our 
troops we do support them by getting them the funds and giving them a 
chance to succeed and not taking away management from the hands of our 
capable generals in the field and bringing to it this body where, in 
our great military wisdom, we know better than the troops, the 
officers, and the commanders on the ground what the conditions are in 
Iraq and the other battlefields.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much of our time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Isakson-
Coleman stem cell research bill. For me, this issue is personal on many 
levels, and it weighs heavily on my heart, my mind, and my conscience. 
I have given great care in coming to my decision to be a cosponsor of 
this bill and have spent much time reflecting, thinking, and praying 
about making the right decision on this issue of stem cell research 
because it is a very controversial but yet a very forward-leaning 
issue.
  Today we are debating the various types of research and what many 
view as the potential to cure diseases. There is no question that 
everyone here is supportive of medical research and, in particular, of 
stem cell research. However, there is still so much to be learned from 
science, so many discoveries yet to be made, and so much that we still 
do not know.
  I am aware that there are very promising alternatives to embryonic 
stem cell research, such as deriving stem cells from umbilical cord 
blood and bone marrow. Those cells have demonstrated the capability of 
turning into most tissue types, thus helping to provide the basis for 
advanced research to find cures for diseases such as juvenile diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, sickle cell anemia, and heart disease. Research 
from adult stem cells has saved thousands of lives, and funding for 
this research certainly should continue.
  While I am familiar with the advancements made in the adult stem cell 
research, there is still a lack of scientific evidence to show that 
embryonic stem cell research yields the strong results we have from the 
adult stem cell lines. There is also the issue of whether taxpayer 
dollars should be used for research that many believe is morally wrong.
  While the morality of embryonic stem cell research is an issue for 
many Americans, including myself, I also believe there is a constant 
need to continue working to advance science and medical research. As a 
country, it is important that we stay on the cutting

[[Page 8591]]

edge of medical research and remain globally competitive, because the 
United States offers the best health care in the world.
  This legislation, introduced by Senators Isakson and Coleman, will 
not only advance science, it will allow for embryonic research to take 
place using non-viable embryos. The cells in those embryos have 
naturally quit dividing and therefore would not be used for 
fertilization. Even if these embryos were frozen or saved, no 
practicing physician would ever attempt to implant them because the 
developmental stages have naturally stopped.
  This legislation will allow the Department of Health and Human 
Services to extend Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell 
lines only if the lines were derived without harming a viable embryo. I 
believe this approach is an effective way to provide for advancements 
in science and give them to those who are waiting for cures without 
compromising the value of life.
  Many of us have personally benefitted or had family members who 
benefitted from the advancements made in modern medicine over the past 
5, 10, or 20 years. I think we are all grateful for the progress that 
has been made. It is my most sincere hope that we continue to see 
monumental steps made in medical research--stem cell and otherwise--and 
that we find cures for those suffering from diseases such as 
Alzheimer's, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injuries.
  Make no mistake about it, if you sincerely, as a Member of this body, 
want to see an advancement in the area of medical stem cell research, 
this is the alternative you must vote for because this is a bill, if it 
gets the required number of votes, which will go to the President's 
desk, and it is the bill which the President will sign, and we can move 
forward on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I am proud to be 
a cosponsor and intend to vote for this legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield my unused time back to the manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. 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 been listening to the debate on 
this bill from my office. I have written down some of the miraculous 
statements that have been made on the floor of the Senate, and I 
thought I would resubmit some of them with some constructive criticism.
  Seventy-eight stem cell lines are no longer useful. That is not 
accurate. All stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. 
Not true, either. The policy does not work. Not true. Research on stem 
cells under the present cannot go forward. I would remind the body that 
stem cells, embryonic stem cells are being researched every day in this 
country with private money. This is about using Federal dollars to 
destroy embryos; it is not about blocking embryonic stem cell research.
  The statement was made by the Senator from California that these are 
embryos that would already be destroyed. Now that is not accurate at 
all. Only S. 5 embraces all forms of stem cell research. S. 30 embraces 
every form of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cells, but 
it makes the correct distinction of taking a nonviable embryo that is 
still viable for embryonic stem cells but not viable to create a human 
and uses those instead of the true potential-for-life embryos. There 
would be no limitation on the numbers of these.
  If we go to a fertility clinic today where embryos are created, what 
we see is a range of embryos in terms of their quality. Then they are 
graded. Some are implantable. Some are frozen. Some have quit dividing. 
Those that quit dividing but are not dead but don't have the potential 
are the ones S. 30 will allow to be used for embryonic stem cells. It 
bypasses the ethical dilemma we have and still gives us embryonic stem 
cell research.
  It was just released by the Journal of the American Medical 
Association and was on CNN, 13 young people from the ages of 14 to 31, 
now living in Brazil, who had type 1 diabetes were treated with their 
own immune cells given back to them, and they now live without insulin. 
That was released today. It didn't have anything to do with an 
embryonic stem cell.
  Someone during the debate said: We all know embryonic stem cells hold 
the most potential. I believe the Presiding Officer now in the chair 
said that. That is not true. They don't hold the most potential. They 
hold great research potential, but what we ought to be interested in is 
therapeutics. How do we treat diseases? How do we accomplish therapies 
to do the most good for the most people?
  What we are going to find out is, there will be some potential from 
embryonic stem cells. But if I had a child with diabetes, I would want 
it fixed as soon as I could, not 10 or 15 years from now. The fact is, 
we have all these treatments that are coming about. I am convinced, as 
much as I am alive and standing here today, that within 10 years new 
onset type 1 diabetics will be cured within 2 months of the onset of 
their disease. That is going to happen. We are going to see that. We 
will see tremendous treatments for that, whether from germ cell lines, 
embryonic stem cell lines that are harvested correctly and ethically, 
and other treatments, including autologous or their own stem cells used 
to treat the body.
  I introduced into the Record the RAND study on the available embryos. 
We had it quoted today, there are 400,000 of them out there. That is 
not true. It is more like 13,000 available. So when we have this 
exaggerated claim that 400,000 embryos are waiting to be destroyed for 
embryonic stem cell research, that is not true.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma earlier introduced a 
RAND study that talked about the number of embryos. I believe there are 
nearly 400,000 that may be in IVF clinics. Apparently, only 2.8 percent 
have the potential to be discarded. Is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is there a sense that the Senator from Oklahoma has in 
terms of decisions that parents and others are making about the kind of 
life potential of those 97 percent that are not being discarded, that 
are being frozen for future attempts at pregnancy?
  Mr. COBURN. There is no question it happens every day. One of the 
things we have seen in our State is, we sometimes overfertilize eggs 
and create too many. But when it comes down to the individual couple 
who says: We are going to try this implantation, we are going to save 
these, then if they have a child, they may want to have another child, 
so that many of these are saved in reserve for that family. To say 
there are 400,000 when, in fact, there are probably less than 13,000 
that could be available, if you look at the other side of that, how 
many nongrowing, nonviable embryos are available today? Fifty to 
seventy to one hundred thousand of the stage 3 embryos that can be used 
for embryonic stem cell that doesn't violate the ethical dilemma we 
face today. So the reason I put the RAND study in there is so the 
Record will show the facts, not the desire of a Member of the Senate to 
overstate the case. The fact is, there are less than 13,000 available. 
The fact is, level 3 embryos, there are 100,000 available. Nobody talks 
about that. In fact, 3 of the 10 that are the best lines right now 
running came from exactly that source. So we know that is the 
potential.
  Let me continue. We had the statement: Science without ethics is like 
a ship without a rudder. That is true. Therefore, when we start 
destroying life, where is our rudder? When we start marginalizing the 
weakest and the most vulnerable in our society to say we are going to 
do something good

[[Page 8592]]

somewhere when, in fact, the science doesn't show that yet, where is 
our rudder? That is what S. 30 does. S. 30 gives an ethical option for 
every need we have in the scientific community to accomplish everything 
the scientific community wants to accomplish. There are no limitations 
in S. 30.
  The Senator from Minnesota has made the point, President Bush is 
going to veto S. 5. He has already said he is going to veto it. So a 
year from now, where do we want to be in terms of stem cell research? 
Do we want to have more embryonic stem cell lines and do we want to 
have more embryonic stem cell lines the NIH can use money to research 
on? The answer is, yes, we do. There is one way to do that. That is S. 
30. S. 30 allows that. I am convinced, as an obstetrician and as a 
scientist, that 10 years from now we won't use embryos whatsoever to 
produce stem cells. We will use embryonic stem cells to help us 
research genetics and drug treatments for difficult diseases that we 
already have, and we will use other methods to produce cell lines that 
will give us cures to disease.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the recent 
announcement of the article in JAMA on CNN, ``Type 1 diabetics live 
without insulin in stem cell experiment.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             [From CNN.com]

     Type 1 Diabetics Live Without Insulin in Stem Cell Experiment

       Chicago, IL (AP).--Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have 
     ditched their insulin shots and need no other medication 
     thanks to a risky, but promising treatment with their own 
     stem cells--apparently the first time such a feat has been 
     accomplished.
       Though too early to call it a cure, the procedure has 
     enabled the young people, who have Type 1 diabetes, to live 
     insulin free so far, some as long as three years. The 
     treatment involves stem cell transplants from the patients' 
     own blood.
       ``It's the first time in the history of Type 1 diabetes 
     where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever . . . no 
     medications at all, with normal blood sugars,'' said study 
     co-author Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University's 
     medical school in Chicago, Illinois.
       While the procedure can be potentially life-threatening, 
     none of the 15 patients in the study died or suffered lasting 
     side effects. But it didn't work for two of them.
       Larger, more rigorous studies are needed to determine 
     whether stem cell transplants could become standard treatment 
     for people with the disease once called juvenile diabetes. It 
     is less common than Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with 
     obesity.
       The hazards of stem cell transplantation also raise 
     questions about whether the study should have included 
     children. One patient was as young as 14.
       Dr. Lainie Ross, a medical ethicist at the University of 
     Chicago, said the researchers should have studied adults 
     first before exposing young teens to the potential harms of 
     stem cell transplant, which include infertility and late-
     onset cancers.
       In addition, Ross said that the study should have had a 
     comparison group to make sure the treatment was indeed better 
     than standard diabetes care.
       Burt, who wrote the study protocol, said the research was 
     done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in 
     the approach. The study was approved by ethics committees in 
     Brazil, he said, adding that he personally believes it was 
     appropriate to do the research in children as well as adults, 
     as long as the Brazilian ethics panels approved.
       Burt and other diabetes experts called the results an 
     important step forward.


                         `Very promising time'

       ``It's the threshold of a very promising time for the 
     field,'' said Dr. Jay Skyler of the Diabetes Research 
     Institute at the University of Miami.
       Skyler wrote an editorial in the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association, which published the study, saying the 
     results are likely to stimulate research that may lead to 
     methods of preventing or reversing Type 1 diabetes.
       ``These are exciting results. They look impressive,'' said 
     Dr. Gordon Weir of Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, 
     Massachusetts.
       Still, Weir cautioned that more studies are needed to make 
     sure the treatment works and is safe. ``It's really too early 
     to suggest to people that this is a cure,'' he said.
       The patients involved were ages 14 to 31 and had newly 
     diagnosed Type 1 diabetes. An estimated 12 million to 24 
     million people worldwide--including 1 to 2 million in the 
     United States--have this form of diabetes, which is typically 
     diagnosed in children or young adults. An autoimmune disease, 
     it occurs when the body attacks insulin-producing cells in 
     the pancreas.
       Insulin is needed to regulate blood sugar levels, which 
     when too high, can lead to heart disease, blindness, nerve 
     problems and kidney damage.
       Burt said the stem cell transplant is designed to stop the 
     body's immune attack on the pancreas.
       A study published last year described a different kind of 
     experimental transplant, using pancreas cells from donated 
     cadavers, that enabled a few diabetics to give up insulin 
     shots. But that requires lifelong use of anti-rejection 
     medicine, which isn't needed by the Brazil patients since the 
     stem cells were their own.
       The 15 diabetics were treated at a bone marrow center at 
     the University of Sao Paulo.
       All had newly diagnosed diabetes, and their insulin-
     producing cells had not been destroyed.
       That timing is key, Burt said. ``If you wait too long,'' he 
     said, ``you've exceeded the body's ability to repair 
     itself.''
       The procedure involves stimulating the body to produce new 
     stem cells and harvesting them from the patient's blood. Next 
     comes several days of high-dose chemotherapy, which virtually 
     shuts down the patient's immune system and stops destruction 
     of the few remaining insulin-producing cells in the body. 
     This requires hospitalization and potent drugs to fend off 
     infection. The harvested stem cells, when injected back into 
     the body, build a new healthier immune system that does not 
     attack the insulin-producing cells.
       Patients were hospitalized for about three weeks. Many had 
     side effects including nausea, vomiting and hair loss. One 
     developed pneumonia, the only severe complication.
       Doctors changed the drug regimen after the treatment failed 
     in the first patient, who ended up needing more insulin than 
     before the study. Another patient also relapsed.
       The remaining 13 ``live a normal life without taking 
     insulin,'' said study co-author Dr. Julio Voltarelli of the 
     University of Sao Paulo. ``They all went back to their 
     lives.''
       The patients enrolled in the study at different times so 
     the length of time they've been insulin-free also differs.
       Burt has had some success using the same procedure in 170 
     patients with other autoimmune diseases, including lupus and 
     multiple sclerosis; one patient with an autoimmune form of 
     blindness can now see, Burt said.
       ``The body has tremendous potential to repair,'' he said.
       The study was partly funded by the Brazilian Ministry of 
     Health, Genzyme Corp. and a maker of blood sugar monitoring 
     products.

  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. There are two ethical questions America has to answer. 
One is, is it OK to destroy life with the potential of helping cure 
maladies--we haven't seen it yet--with the potential, the hope to cure 
maladies? In the midst of that ethical question, is it OK to destroy 
that life when you could do the same thing without destroying life by 
using class 3 embryos? That is the first ethical dilemma. The second 
ethical dilemma we face as a nation and as citizens of this country and 
as Members of this body is, if in fact it is true there are other ways 
to get to the exact same goal of treatments--we all want to fulfill the 
hopes and the desires, whether they are paraplegics, quadriplegics, 
diabetics, Parkinson's or others, all these tremendous diseases that we 
know we are going to be able to eventually find a cure for--if we can 
do that without ever having to destroy the first embryo, wouldn't we 
all rather go that way? That is what S. 30 offers. S. 30 offers an 
opportunity to accomplish exactly the same thing without destroying the 
first life. How we answer that question is going to say a lot about our 
country.
  My hope is a year from now we are standing on this floor and seeing 
all this promise come true, whether it be altered nuclear transfer, 
whether it be germ cell, which I happen to believe is going to be 
another great option in terms of multipotent and pluripotent stem 
cells, that we will see the fruits and the wisdom of the Senate that 
passes a bill, S. 30, which actually makes a difference. S. 5 isn't 
going to make any difference. It is going to get vetoed. It is not 
going to do anything to help us except create a political posture that 
the President has said he will not bow to. He is not going to sign it. 
He is going to veto it, and the House will not override it. So the 
question is, if you want to give hope, if you want to promote a 
potential for treatment and cures for all these strong and tough 
diseases families are facing and individual patients are facing, the 
way to do that is to make sure S. 30 becomes

[[Page 8593]]

law. It will, in fact, be the thing that makes the difference. S. 5 
won't. S. 5 is going to get vetoed, and we will be back here doing the 
same thing next year and the next year and the next year.
  The point is, let's do what we can today, and S. 30 accomplishes 
that.
  I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for both his passion 
and his expertise. I think he said this morning--how many babies has 
the Senator delivered?
  Mr. COBURN. A shade over 4,000.
  Mr. COLEMAN. This is one Senator who understands the value of life 
and has a hands-on approach.
  It is interesting. President Clinton's bioethics commission 
concluded, if we have some other alternatives, why wouldn't we use 
them? They concluded the derivation of stem cells from embryos 
remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no 
less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the 
research. I believe what is happening is the science is moving faster 
than the politics, that we have today the opportunity through a number 
of processes to move forward with pluripotent stem cell research in 
ways that are less morally problematic, that don't cross a line, that 
don't cross the line that says we should not have Federal funding for 
the destruction of a human embryo.
  I know my colleagues and friends who support S. 5 quite often have 
talked about excess embryos that we have and that may not be used for 
any other purpose. I would ask them to ask these questions. I believe 
their intent is this narrow intent, but as you look at S. 5, the 
question raised is, is this the beginning of the production of embryos? 
If in fact this is the acceptable path to go, why wouldn't we produce 
embryos that would then get Federal funding to do the research? Is the 
use of these embryos only for the purpose of stem cell research? Where 
would we draw the line? Who draws that line? Why wouldn't we use this 
to study embryonic growth, cell patterns, a whole range of other 
things? Once we have crossed the line, where does it end? If it is 
difficult to coax embryonic stem cells into the desired kinds of 
differentiated type cell types, would we want to allow the embryos to 
develop longer so we could kind of coax them into later development so 
we can see that later stage embryos may be a better source of more 
advanced cells and tissues and organs? Even if we don't do that, if we 
move down this path, are there other nations or other countries that 
don't have the kind of moral concerns we have? Why would they not want 
to go that route?
  We have already begun the process. What we offer in S. 30 is a 
possibility to bring this country together to provide Federal funding 
for stem cell research that provides the hope of what pluripotent stem 
cells may be able to do. It sets up a tissue bank for amniotic and 
placental stem cells which offer great promise without the moral 
dilemma. At a time when clearly the Nation is divided, we offer a time 
to come together.
  My concern is, last year we passed a bill in this Senate that 
provided for alternatives, Specter-Santorum. It was rejected in the 
House. I hope my colleagues don't take an all-or-nothing approach. I 
hope they don't look to get 100 percent of nothing--nothing meaning 
that S. 5 is going to be vetoed--and then stop us from at least moving 
forward with the opportunity to put Federal dollars in research and 
production doing stem cell research that doesn't cross a moral line.
  I see my colleague from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I wanted to add one other thing. When the American people 
think about stem cells and potential treatments, the thing that is 
never talked to them about is the idea of tissue rejection. There isn't 
going to be an embryonic stem cell that produces a cell that can be 
used in any human without the use of antirejection drugs. The only way 
you can get around that is to clone yourself. The only way you can get 
around it totally, without any rejection whatsoever, is to be a female 
and clone yourself, because cells have these wonderful little engines 
in them called mitochondria. They have separate DNA. That DNA of the 
cloned egg will be accomplished as a part of that.
  So this idea we think we are going to have this great answer, even 
once we get to treatments--treatments that use embryonic stem cells 
rather than altered nuclear transfer, or oocyte-assisted 
reprogramming--those cells will all have to have accompanying with 
them, all those treatments, anti-rejection drugs.
  If you know anybody who has had any type of organ transplant, ask 
them how it is to take those drugs. The only way you do that is, we 
come to the next ethical dilemma: Is it OK for you to clone yourself, 
then destroy that life you have cloned so you can take part of that for 
you? All those ethical dilemmas are gone in altered nuclear transfer 
because now you are inserting stem cells from your own body. They are 
your own cells. There is no rejection.
  In this study in Brazil I just put in the Record, there is no 
rejection because they are using their own cells. They have eliminated 
the ability of their body to destroy their islet cells in their 
pancreas and have done that with their own cells. There is no rejection 
so they are not on any medicines. They are not on insulin anymore 
because they are now producing insulin.
  So the fact is, we should make sure we understand if and when--and 
there is no guarantee the ``when'' is going to come--we have embryonic 
stem cell treatments, those are going to be accompanied by 
antirejection treatments as well. However, if you use your own cells 
for the same treatment--we heard Senator Brownback talk about the 
numerous studies that are ongoing now with autologous or self-giving 
reparations from your own body--there is no rejection issue.
  So it is easy for us to talk, and it is easy for us to offer hope, 
but we need to make sure when we talk about that hope, when we talk 
about embryonic stem cells, we are balancing it with a realism that we 
are not off treatment, even though we offer a cure, because now we have 
a treatment to make sure the cure works. So it is a step that is 
positive, but it is not the panacea that has been described on this 
floor today.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from Markus Grompe, MD, from the Oregon Health & 
Science University.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Oregon Stem Cell Center, Oregon Health & Science 
           University,
                                     Portland, OR, April 10, 2007.
       Embryonic stem cells have many potential uses in biomedical 
     research, including cell transplantation therapy, in vitro 
     studies of developmental and disease processes as well as 
     drug testing. To date, the establishment of human pluripotent 
     stem cell lines that can be used for these applications 
     always involves the destruction of nascent life, the embryo. 
     Human embryos can be generated by fertilization or by cloning 
     (somatic cell nuclear transfer).
       However several recent studies, pioneered in animals, have 
     firmly established that it is also possible to generate 
     pluripotent cells equivalent to embryonic stem cells without 
     destroying embryos (the alternative methods). While these 
     approaches have been only tested in animals to date, it is 
     highly likely that similar approaches will work for human 
     cells as well. Additional research is needed to realize the 
     potential of the alternative methods and make them practical 
     on a large scale. For this reason I strongly support Senate 
     Bill 30. This bill will provide the necessary support to 
     establish and validate methods for producing pluripotent 
     cells without destroying human life.
       Several of the proposed methods have scientific as well as 
     ethical advantages. The third and fourth techniques described 
     in the President's Council on Bioethics May 2005 White paper 
     will produce cells that are immunologically matched to the 
     patient from who they were derived. These cells could then be 
     used for transplantation without being rejected by the immune 
     system. It is also expected that these approaches will make 
     the production of pluripotent cell lines technically easier 
     and more efficient that methods that rely on embryos.

[[Page 8594]]

       In my own laboratory we would use the alternative methods 
     to produce liver and pancreas cells for the treatment of 
     liver diseases and diabetes.
           Sincerely,
                                              Markus Grompe, M.D.,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. COLEMAN. In that letter Dr. Grompe talks about what my colleague 
from Oklahoma just talked about. He talks about producing cells that 
are immunologically matched to the patient from whom they were derived. 
He says:

       These cells could then be used for transplantation without 
     being rejected by the immune system. It is also expected that 
     these approaches will make the production of pluripotent cell 
     lines technically easier and more efficient than methods that 
     rely on embryos.

  Then he goes on to say:

       In my own laboratory we would use the alternative methods 
     to produce liver and pancreas cells for the treatment of 
     liver diseases and diabetes.

  We have an opportunity under S. 30 to move the research forward, to 
move it forward in a unified way, a way that avoids the culture wars, 
avoids the great divide, that has the opportunity for moving forward 
without dealing with the issues of immune reactions that opens up a 
vision of hope. This is about hope. S. 30 is hope offered through 
principled and ethical stem cell research--the HOPE Act.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--whatever their 
position is on S. 5--understand if they want to move the ball forward, 
if they want to look into the eyes of their constituents and say we are 
going to give you something, some sense of hope, we are going to move 
research forward, the only way to do that today is through supporting 
S. 30. I urge my colleagues to support S. 30.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, do I understand the situation is that now 
our side has 60 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished senior Senator from Florida 
is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this, to me, is an issue where 
we ought to be using some common sense. We have all of these enormously 
plaguing diseases that are upon us, and we have the first rays of hope 
we can cure these diseases.
  Who among Americans has not been touched by diseases such as ALS and 
Parkinson's and spinal cord injury and diabetes and Alzheimer's and 
cardiovascular disease and cancer? Who among us, one way or another, 
has not been touched by it? Now we have this ray of hope that the 
scientists tell us, by growing these stem cells, we have this 
opportunity for enormous medical breakthroughs.
  At the National Prayer Breakfast this year, the speaker was Dr. 
Francis Collins. He is the fellow who headed the project of mapping the 
entire human genome. I have heard Dr. Collins speak on other occasions 
in which he has talked about the promise of all of the stem cell 
research.
  Dr. Collins--and I say this for a specific reason--was the speaker at 
the National Prayer Breakfast because he is this eminent scientist who 
successfully mapped the human genome, but he is also a man of a deep 
and abiding faith who happens to support not only the stem cell 
research that we address here today--which is in this bill to open the 
coffers of the Federal Government so we can finance beyond the limited 
number of lines in embryonic stem cell research--but Dr. Collins would 
make the case for going beyond in something known as somatic cell 
nuclear transfer, which is taking an egg, scooping out the nucleus, 
taking a donor's skin cell, taking the nucleus from that, and 
implanting it in the egg, stimulating the process to grow, and growing 
a specific line of stem cells that are exactly tailored to the donor's 
cells, and growing whatever the stem cells are.
  But that is another advance. That is not even what we are addressing 
today. We are addressing Federal funding for the first kind of growing 
stem cells. Why we would not use the resources of the Federal 
Government to attack these diseases that the scientists and the medical 
profession feel have enormous progress, why we would not do that is 
beyond me.
  With regard to the second kind--somatic cell nuclear transfer--you 
are not even dealing with a fertilized egg, so you do not have that 
question. The question there is, are you going to where you do cloning? 
Well, we have the capability of passing the laws that say cloning for a 
human, where it would be implanted into the womb--we can say that is 
not only unlawful, that is criminal. That does not mean we do not 
proceed with the research and the development on stem cell research--in 
that case, somatic cell nuclear transfer.
  So this is a matter that can bring hope to millions. As I said, there 
is simply not an American who has not been touched one way or another 
through friends or family by this list of horrible diseases. If that 
gives us promise, that is enough for this Senator, and I hope it is 
enough for a two-thirds majority of this Senate so when the President 
vetoes it, we can override it.
  This is a bipartisan bill that is going to expand the number of stem 
cell lines that would be eligible for federally funded dollars for 
research. It clearly would accelerate the progress toward the cures and 
treatments for these dread diseases.
  Every other Senator and I have heard from thousands of people back in 
our States who suffer--suffer daily--from these dread diseases. With 
this ray of hope--like a sunburst coming through the clouds--we cannot 
turn our face from it. We have to face it. We have to give hope to 
these people who are suffering. That is the task before this Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am waiting for the arrival of another 
Senator to speak.
  I listened to some of the debate that was just concluded, and I 
thought I heard--I am almost certain I heard--the distinguished Senator 
from Oklahoma say S. 5 would provide money for the destruction of human 
embryos.
  Well, I am sorry, I hate to disagree with my friend from Oklahoma, 
but that is not so. As a matter of fact, we do not provide that kind of 
Federal money now with the stem cell lines that are being researched--
the few that are being researched now--and we do not under our bill. We 
still operate under what is called the Dickey-Wicker amendment which 
prohibits the use of Federal funds being used to destroy embryos. So we 
do not do that anyway. I think the Senator from Oklahoma ought to read 
the bill a little bit more carefully and understand we do not provide 
for the destruction of embryos.
  I always find curious, every time someone speaks for the President--a 
spokesperson for the President--they always say the one line the 
President will not cross is he will not provide taxpayer money for the 
destruction of embryos. Well, if that is the case, then he should have 
no problem with S. 5, the bill we have before us, because it does not 
provide Federal funding for the destruction of embryos. It provides 
Federal funding for the research on stem cell lines that are derived by 
others--private entities, State entities, or whatever. But we do not 
provide any funding for the destruction of embryos whatsoever. I wanted 
to clear that up to make certain that did not sit out there.
  I also listened earlier to my good friend--and he is a good friend--
Senator Brownback talking about the 72 diseases being treated with 
adult stem cells. Well, if all of these diseases are being treated so 
well with adult stem cells, then why do all the patient advocacy groups 
that are affiliated with those diseases support our bill, S. 5? We have 
525 different patient advocacy groups supporting our bill.
  I wish to ask the Senator from Kansas, how many does he have 
supporting

[[Page 8595]]

S. 30? Senator Brownback's list includes several types of leukemia and 
lymphoma, but I have a letter from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, by 
Mr. George Dahlman, the vice president for public policy. He wrote a 
letter dated April 4 of this year. He says:

       On behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, I am writing 
     in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated 
     or cured several blood cancers, including several leukemias, 
     lymphomas and multiple myeloma.
       As a representative of more than 700,000 patients and their 
     caregivers in this country who battle blood cancers on a 
     daily basis, our organizations would like to emphasize, as 
     the Senate debates S. 5, the Stem Cell Research and 
     Enhancement Act, that we exist today because we have not 
     found cures for these devastating diseases.

  He says:

       Furthermore, the claim that treatment of blood cancers with 
     cord blood, blood, or marrow stem cells demonstrates the 
     potential of ``adult stem cell'' research or is a substitute 
     for embryonic stem cell research is misleading and 
     disingenuous.

  So again, Senator Brownback's list included leukemia and lymphoma, 
but the various organizations that represent all these people support 
S. 5. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society,

                                                    April 4, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma 
     Society, I am writing in response to assertions that adult 
     stem cells have treated or cured several blood cancers, 
     including several leukemias, lymphomas and multiple myeloma.
       As a representative of more than 700,000 patients and their 
     caregivers in this country that battle blood cancers on a 
     daily basis, our organization would like to emphasize as the 
     Senate debates S. 5, the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement 
     Act, that we exist today because we have not found cures for 
     these devastating diseases.
       Furthermore, the claim that treatment of blood cancers with 
     cord blood, blood or marrow stem cells--known as 
     hematopoietic stem cells--demonstrates the potential of 
     ``adult stem cell'' research or is a substitute for embryonic 
     stem cell research is misleading and disingenuous. While 
     these hematopoietic treatments can rejuvenate similar cell 
     lines, they have not demonstrated robust ``plasticity'' or 
     the ability to give rise to more varied lineages. That 
     ability is the characteristic that gives hope to researchers 
     and patients and should be clearly understood in this debate. 
     The concept that ``adult stem cells'' can differentiate into 
     more diverse tissue types is highly controversial and 
     evidence to date has been inconclusive. While deserving of 
     further scientific study, there is no clear evidence that the 
     use of adult stem cells can substitute for pluripotent stem 
     cells that have the capability of making diverse tissue 
     types.
       We support exploring every avenue of research, including 
     embryonic stem cell research, until a cure is found. The most 
     respected scientists in our field view embryonic stem cells 
     as an area of research that must be explored, and one that 
     our government must make a commitment to support. The 
     Leukemia & Lymphoma Society asks that you and your colleagues 
     pass S. 5, and not accept any substitutes.
           Sincerely,

                                               George Dahlman,

                                    Vice President, Public Policy,
                                  The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Brown from 
Ohio, is here. I yield to him 10 minutes. If he needs more time, I can 
yield him more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, who, 
frankly, more than anybody in this institution and almost anybody in 
the country, has led the charge on embryonic stem cell research and the 
work he has done will save lives, which is what this issue is all 
about.
  The Senate is about to vote on legislation that ends the ban on 
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush, as we 
hear--although I still hope he changes his mind--does not support 
lifting the ban on stem cell research, but do we know who does? The 
American Medical Association thinks we should lift the ban. So does the 
American Society for Microbiology, the Association of American Medical 
Colleges, the Cancer Research Foundation of America, the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation, the Parkinson's Action Network, Project 
ALS, and the Society for Pediatric Research. The list goes on and on 
and on.
  We in this body should ask ourselves: Why do these groups support 
Federal funding? Because the research offers victims of these diseases 
hope. Not a magic bullet, not a miracle cure, not certainty but, quite 
simply, hope: hope that a child with a spinal injury will recover the 
ability to walk; Hope that a parent with Alzheimer's will be able to 
step back from the abyss of dementia. Hope.
  Recently the Director of the National Institutes of Health stated in 
a Senate hearing that he supports expanded stem cell research. Dr. 
Zerhouni, who basically is one of the President's chief medical 
advisers and an appointment of President Bush, said:

       It is clear today that American science would be better 
     served and the Nation would be better served if we let our 
     scientists have access to more cell lines.

  That would give them the opportunity to expand their research, to 
open one more door, provide one more opportunity for research; in a 
word, to provide hope.
  If we don't listen to the leader of one of our Nation's most 
prestigious scientific institutions, whom will we listen to? Because of 
embryonic stem cell research, medical science may one day be able to 
dispense with the use of terms such as ``incurable'' or 
``irreversible'' or ``unremitting,'' words that spell disaster to loved 
ones, words that spell no hope so often for patients. If we can do what 
we have the opportunity to do today, to open another door, to give 
another window of opportunity to our medical scientists, to our 
researchers, we can provide that hope to so many patients and so many 
loved ones of those patients. That is amazing. Getting anywhere near 
that goal would be amazing.
  More than 200,000 people in my State, more than 200,000 Ohioans have 
Alzheimer's disease. More than 40,000 Ohioans have Parkinson's disease. 
Almost 700,000 Ohioans have diabetes. That is about 1 in 14 Ohioans who 
have diabetes. I have a family member suffering from diabetes. My best 
friend, John Kleshinski, is someone who provided hope for so many. He 
lived in Boston for many years. He grew up in Ohio with me. John 
Kleshinski provided hope to so many children in inner-city Boston 
because of his philanthropy, because he gave young children in Boston a 
chance to learn music, to play the piano, to sing, to learn other 
musical instruments. John Kleshinski always provided hope. John was 
diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when he was 13. Last November, at the 
age of 55, he died of a heart attack. Throughout his life, he did 
everything possible, everything within the limits of modern medicine to 
prolong his life and to live the healthiest life he could. If we had 
done the advancements in embryonic stem cell research, it could have 
made a difference in John Kleshinski's life. If we are going to choose 
life, if we are going to value life, this issue is so very important to 
give people hope.
  Looking at these conditions alone, at Parkinson's, diabetes, 
especially juvenile diabetes, and Alzheimer's, it is clear there are 
huge stakes involved when Federal actions delay the moment when 
embryonic stem cell research produces its first human treatment. We can 
act tomorrow and pass this legislation. We can continue to try to 
persuade the President, as his own medical adviser did, to change his 
mind. His own medical adviser changed his mind over the last couple of 
years about stem cell research. If we can pass this bill tomorrow and 
hopefully convince the President to change his mind, it will provide 
hope for so many Americans.
  This bill, Senate bill 5, will advance stem cell research, and most 
legislators are in support of S. 5, which passed the HELP Committee, 
and it has passed in the other body. But President Bush has threatened 
to veto this bill. He vetoed similar legislation last year as his first 
and only veto since he has been President. I hope he takes a step back. 
I hope he considers the people he is hurting by stifling embryonic stem

[[Page 8596]]

cell research. I hope he listens to his own medical adviser, Dr. 
Zerhouni. I hope he listens to the millions of Americans whose lives 
will be shattered by disabling and terminal illnesses, the families 
whose hearts will be broken by the loss of a loved one, the children 
who will not grow up, the parents who will not meet their 
grandchildren, the grandparents who will no longer recognize their 
friends and their family members. Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's 
disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, arthritis, diabetes, paralysis, 
the advancement of embryonic stem cell research can provide hope for 
cures of all these diseases.
  Investing in embryonic stem cell research is an expression of empathy 
and compassion. We have an opportunity to turn potential cures into 
real ones. We must not squander it. Hope, Mr. President, hope.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio for 
his eloquent statement. This is what it is all about. He got it right 
when he said this is about hope. It is not hope based upon any kind of 
false foundation. All the leading scientists, Nobel Prize winners, 
heads and former heads of NIH, and 525 different advocacy groups, all 
relying upon good scientific expertise, have said the foundation here 
is solid, that we can build hope because we know embryonic stem cells 
develop into all the cells of the human body. We know. We have had 
embryonic stem cells that have differentiated into nerve tissue, more 
neurons, heart and muscle tissue, and bones. So we know the possibility 
is there because it has already been done.
  Again, we have a long way to go. No one is saying that absolutely we 
will do this, this, and this, but that is what scientific research is 
about. It is about looking and studying and examining and trying to 
develop these ideas. We know the foundation is there. So the hope we 
hold out to people with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, and spinal cord 
injury is one that is real, but it will not happen unless we get about 
embryonic stem cell research and lift the handcuffs, the shackles off 
our scientists.
  So the Senator from Ohio is right. It is about hope. That is what 
this bill is all about. It is about hope. Not the false hope of saying: 
Oh, adult stem cells will take care of it. Adult stem cells have their 
place, and some of them have proven adequate to do different things but 
not everything. There is hope with amniotic fluid stem cells, cord 
blood stem cells. Now, the bill S. 30 talks about that, which is taking 
it from naturally dead embryos. That raises ethical questions in and of 
itself. Who decides when something is naturally dead? I would ask my 
colleagues who are promoting S. 30--and they are my good friends; I 
know they mean well and they are trying to advance a certain point of 
view, but are they saying you can take something that is dead and bring 
it back to life? If so, that is--I have only known where that has 
happened once in the history of humankind, and we just celebrated 
Easter Sunday. So they can't be saying they are taking something dead 
and bringing it back to life. So if it is not dead, what is it? Is it a 
sick embryo? Is it an embryo that isn't quite propagating as fast? What 
is it and who decides? Who gets to decide? S. 30 doesn't say that. S. 
30 has no ethical guidelines to decide, or who decides what is 
naturally dead. So that raises all kinds of ethical questions in and of 
itself. So that is why, even if S. 30 were to become law--I don't think 
it will be--I don't mind supporting S. 30. The fact is our bill, S. 5, 
does everything S. 30 wants to do. If they want to do research to take 
embryonic stem cells from blastocysts that are not developing 
correctly, that can happen under our bill. Our bill opens the door to 
all kinds of research.
  Here is the difference between S. 5 and S. 30. S. 5, the bill we are 
supporting, does both things. It opens the door for embryonic stem cell 
research from leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, 
under strict ethical guidelines which I talked about today and laid 
out. It also would provide for research into naturally dead embryos. 
Now, S. 30, their bill, the Isakson-Coleman bill, it does one of those. 
It does research only into stem cells from naturally dead embryos. That 
is the difference. Our bill allows that to go ahead. Their bill does 
not allow the more promising embryonic stem cell research to go ahead, 
and that is from leftover embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics. 
That is what this is all about. That is what this is all about.
  Again, I repeat: It is about what the Senator from Ohio said. It is 
about hope. Listen, we are not fooling anybody around here, the people 
watching, the medical community out there, the research scientists, the 
families of loved ones who are suffering from these illnesses, the kids 
with juvenile diabetes, they get it. They get it. They know what that 
is all about. They know there is only one bill on the floor of the 
Senate now that gives them hope, and that is S. 5. They know it. All 
this mumbo jumbo we hear, it doesn't mean anything. Only one thing 
means anything, and that is to pass the bill that takes the shackles 
off our scientists, that provides for strict ethical guidelines for 
people who have leftover embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic 
who say: I don't want them discarded as hospital waste. I want them to 
be donated to science to cure diseases and illnesses and to help 
suffering people.
  That is what S. 5 is about. S. 30 does not do that. It simply keeps 
the handcuffs on our scientists, and we want to remove those handcuffs.
  Mr. President, I see my good friend from New Jersey is on the floor, 
so I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Iowa 
yielding time, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. President we are back again--almost a year after Congress passed 
breakthrough legislation--discussing embryonic stem cell research and, 
again, I rise in strong support of this lifesaving, life-enhancing 
legislation.
  I am a proud cosponsor of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act, because I believe the bill has the potential to make a profound 
and positive impact on the health of millions of Americans. I believe 
that it can do so in an ethical manner.
  We know embryonic stem cells have the unique ability to develop into 
virtually every cell and tissue in the body. We know numerous frozen 
embryos in fertility clinics remain unused by couples at the completion 
of their fertility treatments. Why should they not be allowed to donate 
those embryos to Federal research to save lives? We allow people to 
donate organs to save lives. Why couldn't a couple, if they so choose, 
donate their frozen embryos instead of simply discarding them, throwing 
them away, throwing away hope?
  We can do this ethically and still cure illnesses, enhance lives and, 
hopefully, even save lives. But the truth is, we should not even be 
having this debate right now because if the President had done his duty 
last year and not vetoed H.R. 810, this bill would already be law, and 
this country's dedicated medical researchers would be well on their way 
to discovering treatments and cures for many of the most savage 
diseases afflicting us. But when given the opportunity to carry out the 
will of the people, he stood for ideology and ignorance over science 
and research.
  Mr. President, enough is enough. It is time for a change. I have no 
doubt that the Senate will pass this important legislation and thus 
seek to advance federally funded research on embryonic stem cells. I 
have no doubt that if it becomes law, the bill would save and improve 
lives all over America. I have no doubt that the majority of Americans 
want us to pass this bill into law. My only doubt is whether our 
President will do his duty and sign it into law.
  During the last Congress, President Bush vetoed H.R. 810, crushing 
the hopes of millions of Americans. This year, I fear and suspect that 
he will follow the same misguided path. But before he takes us down 
that route, one that leads to more heartbreak and suffering, I have one 
question. Why? Why is he standing in the way of research

[[Page 8597]]

that will save lives? Why is he keeping our parents, our children, and 
our friends locked in wheelchairs and hospital beds? Why is he letting 
conservative ideology rob the lives of so many suffering Americans?
  The simple fact is, whatever the claims of those who ignore science 
in favor of ideology, embryonic stem cell research offers one of the 
most promising leaps forward in the history of medicine. Speak to those 
who are eager to do the research and you hear of potential cures for 
juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord 
injuries. If we unlock the door to this research, we can find 
treatments and cures for these debilitating and painful diseases. We 
owe it to our parents, our children, and our grandchildren to unlock 
that door.
  But President Bush prefers ignorance and pain over mercy and 
miracles. Where is the compassion he often speaks of? His own 
scientists are trying to explain the power of this research, but he 
continues to turn a deaf ear, refusing to listen to common sense and 
reason. Mr. President, it is time to start listening.
  The preamble of our Constitution says all Americans have the right to 
``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' I believe this implies 
the freedom to be physically able. By not allowing embryonic stem cell 
research, we are prohibiting individuals from pursuing their rights. We 
are blocking them from a possible cure or treatment. And we are 
standing in the way of their freedom.
  Last Congress, the interim chair of the National Institutes of Health 
stem cell task force, bravely and bluntly spoke of the importance of 
embryonic stem cell research and the drawbacks of the current policy 
prohibiting research.
  He said:

       Science works best when scientists can pursue all avenues 
     of research. If the cure for Parkinson's disease or juvenile 
     diabetes lay behind one of four doors, wouldn't you want the 
     option to open all four doors at once instead of one door?

  How can we tell our loved ones that their cure could be waiting 
behind a laboratory door, but that door is locked? We must pursue all 
avenues of research and unlock the potential that embryonic stem cell 
research holds.
  But if that isn't enough, recently, before the Health Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, the Director of the NIH, Elias Zerhouni, 
said the great promise of human embryonic stem cell research is being 
impeded by President Bush's policy. He said:

       It is in the best interest of our scientists, our science, 
     and our country that we find ways and the nation finds a way 
     to go full speed across adult and embryonic stem cells 
     equally.

  So if President Bush won't listen to his own scientists, who will he 
listen to? Perhaps he will listen to the American people who are crying 
out in virtual unison for change. More than 70 percent of Americans 
support embryonic stem cell research. Three out of four Americans 
understand the hope and promise this research provides.
  This bill means all the prayers for cures and therapies for 
Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and other 
illnesses could be answered. This bill provides a promise that families 
might no longer have to see a loved one suffering. This bill means hope 
for individuals challenged and fighting to live a life with dignity. I 
have met with children and families all over New Jersey who have shared 
their daily struggle with diseases and conditions that could be cured 
or treated if we were to pursue embryonic stem cell research.
  Young children have come to my office and told me how they have to 
prick themselves with a needle, administer insulin shots, or use an 
internal pump on the side of their body in order to keep their juvenile 
diabetes under control. These children might be freed of this grave 
responsibility if we support embryonic stem cell research. Don't we owe 
them the opportunity of a better life? Don't we owe it to the husband 
whose wife shakes uncontrollably from Parkinson's disease to help find 
a cure that will restore her body? Don't we owe it to the athletes who 
told me about their life-altering spinal cord injuries, to give them 
the freedom to walk again?
  None of these individuals chose their current situations. But we can 
choose to help get them out of those situations. We owe it to the 
American people, to the millions of Americans and their families 
suffering from life-altering disabilities and diseases, to demonstrate 
our Nation's full commitment to finding a cure and doing all we can to 
help their dreams and hopes come true. Stem cell research has vast 
potential for curing diseases, alleviating suffering, and saving lives. 
I know my colleagues recognize the enormous potential of this research, 
too. It is time for the President to start listening.
  The question is, Why does President Bush continually ignore the 
American people? He ignores what the American people are saying about 
Iraq, and now he ignores what they are saying about embryonic stem cell 
research. Both decisions result in lost lives, and both decisions cause 
pain and suffering. This is unacceptable to me and the overwhelming 
majority of Americans. It should be unacceptable to the President as 
well.
  I am very passionate and dedicated to this cause because the promise 
of stem cell research has personally captivated my family, like it has 
so many other American families. My mother suffers from severe 
Alzheimer's disease. When I look at her empty gaze and her shriveled 
body, I cannot help but wonder if we had started embryonic stem cell 
research years ago, would she still be suffering today, would she be 
cured, would she at least be able to recognize her children and her 
grandchildren, would she have been with me on the day I took the oath 
of office in this Chamber.
  I don't want my children to be asking the same types of questions. We 
cannot wait any longer.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is an ethical life-enhancing, 
lifesaving piece of legislation. I believe it is the moral obligation 
of the United States Government and the President of the United States 
to allow this process--these potential cures--to be fully explored.
  Embryonic stem cell research holds the promise of hope and the 
possible restoration of life.
  We owe it to current and future generations to ensure that their 
lives remain as bright and prosperous as today's science allows.
  It is time for the President to start listening to the American 
people and to the scientists, not just special interests. It is time 
for him to sign this important piece of legislation into law and open 
the door to the hope and promise of embryonic stem cell research.
  It is time for hope and cures--not despair and disease.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for a 
very eloquent and poignant presentation of his position on embryonic 
stem cell research. I think what the Senator reflected is, again, the 
hopes of so many families in America who have a loved one suffering 
from Alzheimer's or juvenile diabetes, or a young person who has had an 
accident and is a paraplegic for life with a spinal cord injury. You 
say: What can we do to help? How can we help? Well, it is one thing to 
be sympathetic--and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from 
illnesses or injuries--but if we have it within our grasp, as the 
Senator from New Jersey said, to open some doors and see what is behind 
those doors, it seems to me we are compelled to do that.
  We don't know where the scientific research may lead. But we do know 
if we don't do it, it is not going to lead anywhere. We know that. As I 
said earlier, the foundations are there to give hope to people that 
embryonic stem cell research will lead to great discoveries and 
treatments and interventions. I can only say to my friend from New 
Jersey that, in all of my meetings with scientists over the last dozen 
years or more--and especially since Gerhardt and Thompson isolated stem 
cells in 1998--the scientific community's enthusiasm for this is almost

[[Page 8598]]

boundless because they realize that harnessing the power of embryonic 
stem cells that can develop into any form of a cell in the body could 
lead to interventions and cures that are now beyond our grasp.
  I listened to the Senator from New Jersey, especially when he talked 
about opening doors. I have often likened biomedical research, 
scientific research, to saying if there are 10 doors, and you don't 
know what is behind any of those doors, if you are only going to open 
one door, what are your odds of finding the right answer? Well, if you 
open two doors, the odds get better. If you open five doors, you know 
it is 50-50. So the more doors we open, the better our chances are of 
finding these discoveries.
  The Senator is right. If we open one door at a time, the odds are 
always going to be 10 to 1--or I guess it would be 9 to 1. It would be 
9 to 1 that you are not going to find the right answer.
  If we start opening all these doors and get the scientists talking 
with one another and looking at things, well, that means the span of 
time that it would take to find these cures is collapsed.
  Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They collaborate. They talk with 
one another. They read one another's papers. They find out what other 
scientists are doing. They find out if a scientist has opened a 
different door and collaborate on that. That is why it is necessary to 
begin to open these doors.
  I thank the Senator from New Jersey for talking about that point.
  Earlier I was responding to the comments of my friend from Kansas, 
Senator Brownback. He was talking about 72 diseases being treated with 
adult stem cells. I pointed out his list included several types of 
leukemia and lymphomas, but I had printed in the Record earlier a 
letter from George Dahlman of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society saying 
they support S. 5.
  Senator Brownback's list also included testicular cancer. I have a 
letter from Craig Nichols, M.D., board member of the Lance Armstrong 
Foundation. Here is what he says:

       As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation Board of 
     Directors, I am writing in response to assertions that adult 
     stem cells have treated or cured the disease of testicular 
     cancer. . . . I feel it is important to set the record 
     straight on this issue. . . .
       There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment 
     generally available to treat testicular cancer. Rather, adult 
     stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a 
     higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease.
       We support exploring every avenue of research, including 
     embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits, 
     until a cure is found.
       The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your 
     colleagues pass S. 5, and not accept any substitutes.

  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                       LIVESTRONG,


                                   Lance Armstrong Foundation,

                                                    April 6, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: As a member of the Lance Armstrong 
     Foundation's (LAF) Board of Directors, I am writing in 
     response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated or 
     cured the disease of testicular cancer. While the mission of 
     the LAF is to inspire and empower people affected by all 
     types of cancer, I feel that it is important to set the 
     record straight on this issue.
       Testicular cancer is the most common cancer among men ages 
     15-35 and approximately 8,000 men will be diagnosed with 
     testicular cancer in the United States this year. While 
     testicular cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer, 
     our organization would like to emphasize as the Senate 
     debates S. 5, the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, 
     that we have not completely eradicated the disease.
       There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment 
     generally available to treat testicular cancer. Rather, adult 
     stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a 
     higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease.
       We support exploring every avenue of research, including 
     embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits, 
     until a cure is found. The most respected scientists in our 
     field view embryonic stem cells as an area of research that 
     must be explored, and one that our government must make a 
     commitment to support. The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks 
     that you and your colleagues pass S. 5, and not accept any 
     substitutes.
           Sincerely,

                                          Craig Nichols, M.D.,

                                              Member of the Board,
                                       Lance Armstrong Foundation.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback's list of 72 diseases 
includes Parkinson's disease. I have a letter from six Parkinson's 
groups: The American Parkinson's Disease Association, the Parkinson's 
Action Network, the Michael J. Fox Parkinson's Research Foundation, the 
National Parkinson Foundation, the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, and 
the Parkinson's Alliance & Unity Walk.
  Here is what they say:

       Opponents of S. 5 are using as ammunition the assertion 
     that embryonic stem cell research is not needed in this 
     country because many diseases, 72 of them, including 
     Parkinson's, have been treated or cured with adult stem 
     cells. This assertion is an absolute falsehood. If there were 
     a therapy to adequately treat the symptoms or halt the 
     progression of this unrelenting disease, the millions of 
     Parkinson's patients, caregivers and their physicians would 
     be pursuing that treatment right now. . . .
       The Parkinson's community asks that you and your colleagues 
     pass S. 5 and not accept any substitutes.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Parkinson's Action Network,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: We recognize that you are hearing from 
     many patient advocacy and research organizations refuting a 
     belief that adult stem cells have been used in treating or 
     curing a long list of ailments, conditions and diseases. As 
     representatives of more than one million people with 
     Parkinson's disease and their families, our organizations 
     would like to emphasize as the Senate debates S. 5, the Stem 
     Cell Research and Enhancement Act, that we exist today 
     because we have NOT found a cure or adequate treatments for 
     Parkinson's using adult stem cells or otherwise. Furthermore, 
     Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and President Bush's top scientist, when recently 
     testifying before the Senate declared that the idea that 
     adult stem cells hold as much promise as embryonic stem cells 
     ``doesn't hold scientific water.''
       Because the unique promise of embryonic stem cell research 
     is critical to advancing understanding of and treatments for 
     Parkinson's disease, the Parkinson's community is dedicated 
     to expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
     research. As you may know, Parkinson's occurs when dopamine 
     producing neurons in the brain die. To this date, scientists 
     have had more success in generating dopamine cells from human 
     embryonic stem cells than any other type of stem cell, 
     including adult, umbilical, or amniotic.
       While replacement of these neurons may be one therapy 
     resulting from additional embryonic stem cell research, other 
     avenues of Parkinson's research will benefit from this 
     legislation and expansion of the current policy. Researchers 
     will be aided in studying the causes of Parkinson's, 
     developing more accurate models to improve our understanding 
     of the disease, and, ultimately, halting the unrelenting 
     neurological degeneration and loss of quality of life for 
     Parkinson' s patients.
       Opponents of S. 5 are using as ammunition the assertion 
     that embryonic stem cell research is not needed in this 
     country because many diseases, 72 of them , including 
     Parkinson's, have been treated or cured with adult stem 
     cells. This assertion is an absolute falsehood. If there were 
     a therapy to adequately treat the symptoms or halt the 
     progression of this unrelenting disease, the millions of 
     Parkinson's patients, caregivers and their physicians would 
     be pursuing that treatment right now.
       The most respected scientists in our field view embryonic 
     stem cells as an area of research that must be explored and 
     one that our government must make a commitment to support. 
     The Parkinson's community asks that you and your colleagues 
     pass S. 5 and not accept any substitutes.
           Sincerely,
     Joel Gerstel,
       American Parkinson Disease Association.
     Amy Comstock Rick,
       Parkinson's Action Network.
     Debi Brooks,
       The Michael J. Fox Parkinson's Research Foundation.
     Jose Garcia-Pedrosa,
       National Parkinson Foundation.
     Robin Elliott,

[[Page 8599]]

       Parkinson's Disease Foundation.
     Carol Walton,
       The Parkinson Alliance & Unity Walk.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback's list includes multiple 
sclerosis. Here is a letter from the National Multiple Sclerosis 
Society:

       S. 5 is the only bill that is pro-patient, pro-cure, and 
     pro-research. Please work to pass S. 5 immediately. Thank you 
     for bringing this important vote to the Senate floor.

  Joyce Nelson, President and CEO of the National Multiple Sclerosis 
Society.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 National Multiple


                                            Sclerosis Society,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: The National Multiple Sclerosis (MS) 
     Society strongly supports the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
     Act (S. 5). We ask that as Majority Leader, you help champion 
     S. 5 through the Senate without any amendments and with the 
     widest possible majority of support.
       The National MS Society believes all promising avenues of 
     research that could lead to the cure or prevention of MS or 
     relieve its symptoms must be explored. The Society supports 
     the conduct of scientifically meritorious medical research, 
     including research using human cells, in accordance with 
     Federal, State, and local laws and with adherence to the 
     strictest ethical and procedural guidelines. Research on all 
     types of stem cells is critical because we have no way of 
     knowing which type of stem cell will be of the most value in 
     MS research. Stem cells--adult or embryonic--could have the 
     potential to be used to protect and rebuild tissues that are 
     damaged by MS, and to deliver molecules that foster repair or 
     protect vulnerable tissues from further injury.
       Until there is a cure for MS, we hold that every ethical 
     avenue of research, which may have the potential to prevent 
     or repair the consequences of this disease, must proceed and 
     be supported. Please communicate to your colleagues that only 
     a vote in favor of S. 5 is a vote in favor of moving stem 
     cell research forward in our county. A vote against S. 5 is a 
     vote against the 400,000 individuals living with the 
     devastating effects of MS and against progress for research.
       S. 5 is the only bill that is pro-patient, procure, and 
     pro-research. Please work to pass S. 5 immediately. Thank you 
     for bringing this important vote to the Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Joyce Nelson,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback's list also included 
spinal cord injury. Here is a letter from the Christopher and Dana 
Reeve Foundation:

       While there are indeed a number of promising avenues now 
     being investigated that address paralysis and spinal cord 
     injuries through rehabilitation, cellular therapies and 
     pharmaceuticals, there simply is no merit to any claim that 
     adult stem cells have successfully treated or cured spinal 
     cord injuries. . . .
       The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation strongly endorses 
     the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5, and thanks you 
     for your leadership in bringing this vital legislation to the 
     Senate floor.

  Signed by Peter Wilderotter, President.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Christopher and Dana Reeve


                                                   Foundation,

                                                    April 5, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Majority Leader Reid: On behalf of the Christopher and Dana 
     Reeve Foundation (CDRF), I am writing to chronicle our 
     support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5. The 
     CDRF advocates for millions of Americans afflicted by 
     paralysis from injury or disease for expanded federal support 
     for embryonic stem cell research to ensure that science is 
     enabled to move forward as vigorously as possible. The Stem 
     Cell Research Enhancement Act is an ethical and responsible 
     means for science to do so, and I urge all of our Senators to 
     please vote ``Yes.''
       We believe that absolute candor should rule in the stem 
     cell research debate and that the time has come to overthrow 
     the misguided tenets of its opponents. Research is not 
     performed in a vacuum. The CDRF funds a number of research 
     initiatives through our individual grants program, research 
     consortia, and translational fund and examines various 
     methods of research that can complement and ideally expedite 
     discoveries and treatments. While there are indeed a number 
     of promising avenues now being investigated that address 
     paralysis and spinal cord injuries through rehabilitation, 
     cellular therapies and pharmaceuticals, there simply is no 
     merit to any claim that adult stem cells have successfully 
     treated or cured spinal cord injuries.
       The CDRF believes that embryonic stem cell research must 
     receive federal funding in order to advance this area of 
     scientific endeavor and which will potentially lead to 
     treatments and possibly cures for many truly devastating 
     diseases and disorders.
       The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation strongly endorses 
     the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5 and thanks you 
     for your leadership in bringing this vital legislation to the 
     Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
                                             Peter T. Wilderotter,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, Senator Brownback's list includes 
several blood conditions. Here is a letter from the American Society of 
Hematology:

       ASH supports S. 5 because our members are interested in 
     expanding the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell 
     research to allow scientists to explore the full promise of 
     this field. The other bill that will be considered by the 
     Senate will not change current policy in any meaningful way. 
     . . .
       Again, our Society urges your support of S. 5. . . .

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The American Society


                                                of Hematology,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the American Society of 
     Hematology (ASH), I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Stem Cell 
     Research Enhancement Act (S. 5). This legislation expands 
     current policy by providing for federal funding of embryonic 
     stem cell research on lines derived after August 9, 2001 
     while still requiring strong ethical guidelines for research.
       Stem cell research is an issue that has been gaining import 
     with the general public over the past year and it is clearly 
     a high priority for our country. S. 5 is scheduled for floor 
     consideration in the Senate on April 10. Although at least 
     one additional bill will also be considered by the Senate, a 
     vote in favor of S. 5 is most critical. A vote against S. 5 
     is unacceptable.
       ASH represents more than 10,000 hematologists in the United 
     States who are committed to the study and treatment of blood 
     and blood-related diseases. ASH supports S. 5 because our 
     members are interested in expanding the current federal 
     policy on embryonic stem cell research to allow scientists to 
     explore the full promise of this field. The other bill that 
     will be considered by the Senate will not change current 
     policy in any meaningful way.
       Hematologists have pioneered the field of stem cell 
     research for over 40 years with innovative discoveries about 
     adult bone marrow stem cells and how they could be used to 
     cure human diseases. Today, ASH members are poised to 
     contribute to research on embryonic stem cells that has the 
     potential to lead to the next generation of important 
     therapies for a broad range of intractable diseases.
       Embryonic stem cell research could make a major difference 
     in the fight against many blood and blood-related diseases, 
     in addition to cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, 
     and spinal cord injuries. After nearly six years under 
     President Bush's restrictive federal policy, there are only 
     21 embryonic stem cell lines available for federal funding. 
     Research in this area has slowed to pace that is 
     unacceptable; S. 5 will reinvigorate embryonic stem cell 
     research in this country for the benefit of patients who are 
     suffering.
       Again, our Society urges your support of S. 5. The current 
     federal embryonic stem cell research policy needs to expand 
     to help researchers find treatments and cures for over 100 
     million Americans who suffer from many deadly and 
     debilitating diseases.
           Thank you,
                                            Andrew I. Schafer, MD,
                                                         President

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a report in Science magazine analyzes the 
list to which Senator Brownback referred. The authors found there are 
FDA-approved treatments for only nine diseases on Senator Brownback's 
list and all of those are blood-related diseases such as leukemia.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article in Science be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

[[Page 8600]]



                             Sciencexpress


                adult stem cell treatments for diseases?

       Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often 
     claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human 
     illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list 
     created by David A. Prentice, an employee of the Family 
     Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-
     KS) and other opponents of ES cell research.
       Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped 
     patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real 
     help for real patients''. On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, 
     ``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
     listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by 
     adult and cord blood stem cells''.
       In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all 
     required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. 
     Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine 
     of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72]. In 
     particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful in 
     treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating the 
     side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to what 
     Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments 
     remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, 
     such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are 
     simply untenable.
       The references Prentice cites as the basis for his list 
     include various case reports, a meeting abstract, a newspaper 
     article, and anecdotal testimony before a Congressional 
     committee. A review of those references reveals that Prentice 
     not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments 
     but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the 
     references he cites.
       For example, to support the inclusion of Parkinson's 
     disease on his list, Prentice cites Congressional testimony 
     by a patient and a physician, a meeting abstract by the same 
     physician, and two publications that have nothing to do with 
     stem cell therapy for Parkinson's. In fact, there is 
     currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment--and no 
     cure of any kind--for Parkinson's disease.
       For spinal cord injury, Prentice cites personal opinions 
     expressed in Congressional testimony by one physician and two 
     patients. There is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell 
     treatment or cure for spinal cord injury.
       The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his 
     list does not report patient response to adult stem cell 
     therapy; it simply evaluates different methods of adult stem 
     cell isolation.
       The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does 
     not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell 
     transplantation; rather, it describes culture conditions for 
     the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma patients.
       Prentice's listing of Sandhoff disease, a rare disease that 
     affects the central nervous system, is based on a layperson's 
     statement in a newspaper article. There is currently no cure 
     of any kind for Sandhoff disease.
       By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments 
     are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries, 
     Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople 
     and cruelly deceive patients.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see that my friend from New Jersey is 
also in the Chamber. He has been a strong supporter of medical research 
through all his lifetime. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey. I assure him that if he needs more time, we will yield him some 
more time. I yield to the distinguished Senator, my good friend, Mr. 
Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for 
his leadership on this issue. I hope we can find out there are lots of 
leaders around here who just have not shown their intention to lead. I 
congratulate Senator Harkin for his hard work.
  People ask me why stem cell research isn't available. The people who 
ask me that question most frequently are the families who come to see 
me. I love seeing their children. I am a grandfather of 10 kids. The 
oldest is 13, the youngest is 3. When I look at what my 
responsibilities as a Senator are, I think of my children and 
grandchildren, and I think about everybody else's children and 
grandchildren at the same time. I couldn't make it good enough for my 
grandchildren when it comes to helping them rid themselves of a 
condition, or permitting them to live an easy, normal life in many 
cases.
  My oldest grandson is 13, and he is asthmatic. Whenever my daughter 
takes him to play sports, she always checks to see where the nearest 
emergency clinic is because if he starts to wheeze or he needs some 
help, she wants to know where to go.
  I see it with lots of visitors I have, like families with a diabetic 
child. I had one boy who was 10 years old come to my office in New 
Jersey. I sat around a long table with families who have a child who is 
diabetic. I asked the kids their responses to their disease, what is 
the worst part of it. They all said: Sticking your finger, and not 
feeling good when everybody else looks as if they are having fun.
  People ask me: Why can't we do something about this? We are spending 
billions on a war that brings us gloom and despair, and we spend 
billions on tax cuts for people who don't need them--but we need help.
  This 10-year-old boy I referred to, when I asked him what the worst 
part of having diabetes was, he said: I can't go to sleep-overs 
anymore.
  I said: What do you mean?
  He said: One time I slept over at my friend's house and during the 
night I got sick and he called his mother and she got mad. So my 
parents won't let me go to sleep-overs anymore. I am sad about that 
because I like my friend, but we can't do anything about that.
  Then he said: But I'm only going to live to 31 anyway.
  With that his father sat right up and said: No, no, that's not true 
at all. We are going to take care of you.
  I wish President Bush was in that office when I had some of those 
kids in there or when I have families with an autistic child come to 
meet with me. It affects everything that the family does. It would 
means the world to them if their child could be treated to become 
healthy.
  We have an epidemic across our country with autism. We see that 1 in 
every 150 families in America are affected by autism and the fact that 
they must go to public agencies or hire teachers or send children to 
particular schools.
  When we look at the situation, we see that stem cells have the 
potential to save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of 
Americans. Of course we should fully fund research for embryonic stem 
cells regardless of when they were developed. That is common sense. But 
we have a President who is held captive by ideologues who are at war 
with science.
  Over 5 years ago, President Bush enacted a policy that made no 
scientific sense, only political sense for his base. He put a stop to 
the development of new stem cell lines for research. Once again, that 
is a devastating blow to people who have a diabetic in their family, or 
cancer, Parkinson's, autism, or other diseases.
  In New Jersey, the number of those affected by autism is staggering. 
In 1991, there were 234 cases of autism diagnosed. In 2005, less than 
15 years later, we saw 7,400 cases of autism.
  We say we want to help these people, but the President says he 
doesn't believe in it and threatens another veto when this bill is 
presented to him.
  There is no good answer I can give these families and children. But I 
do assure them that I will do all I can to reverse the President's 
policy so we can work hard for a cure for their diseases.
  Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to vote to help these kids. The 
science is clear: Stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell 
research, has tremendous potential to help us better understand 
treatments and cure a number of diseases. That is why Americans 
overwhelmingly support stem cell research. Studies show that 7 out of 
10 Americans--70 percent--favor embryonic stem cell research. Virtually 
every major medical scientific and patient group supports embryonic 
stem cell research. Organizations such as the American Medical 
Association, the American Diabetes Association, the Christopher Reeve 
Foundation, the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDs Foundation, and the 
list goes on and on. In my home State of New Jersey, support for stem 
cell research is overwhelming. In fact, Rutgers University, our State 
university, is one of the leading advocates of stem cell research.
  Our country has always been about hope, about the chance for a better 
life. So when President Bush talks about vetoing a stem cell research 
bill, it denies hope to millions of Americans.

[[Page 8601]]

Last year, Congress passed similar legislation that would have reversed 
the President's policy on stem cells, but the President vetoed that 
bill based on what he calls ethics and morality. What is ethical about 
denying a cure to children suffering from diabetes? Is there anything 
moral about denying people who have paralysis the chance to perhaps 
walk again?
  Any real ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem lines 
will come from embryos donated by fertility patients under strict 
guidelines. They will not be embryos created for research. What we are 
talking about in this bill are embryos that would otherwise be disposed 
of, discarded, thrown away.
  We stand at a crossroads in America. We can either take the position 
that cells in a petri dish are a gift for healing or we can throw away 
the opportunity to alleviate human suffering. The men, women, and 
children who suffer from diabetes and other life-threatening conditions 
are racing against time. Recent statistics show that one out of three 
children born today will suffer diabetes in their lifetime.
  We have wasted so much time and opportunity already, between the 
President's policy and his veto last year. Those who would benefit from 
the potential of embryonic stem cell research need the President to put 
aside politics and deal with the facts. I would love to see President 
Bush meet some of these families or see the children who come to meet 
with me who are diabetic. We have had 300 children in one of the 
meeting rooms in the Senate. To see those children, how beautiful they 
are, and how desperately they want help. Yet for some reason, our 
Government wont' help out. We see the President again threatening a 
veto and saying he will not permit funding for this research. It is a 
terrible thing.
  I salute the bipartisan leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter on 
this issue. Everybody in Congress and in this country has had contact 
with someone who is suffering from a condition who desperately needs 
help. It is hard to understand why we wouldn't have 100 votes in this 
body to say, yes, we want to do whatever we can for children who are 
sick or children who are likely to encounter these problems in the 
future. Yet the President has insisted on turning his back on these 
opportunities. It is a pity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on our side, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time on this side has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I obviously yield the floor, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to resume the discussion on 
embryonic stem cell research. I wish to resume the discussion on adult 
stem cell successes and why we should not move forward on destroying 
more human life for the purposes of research.
  I wish to start out with a simple picture, a picture of one child, 
Hannah. She was a frozen embryo. I wish to just go through this briefly 
because we talk about frozen embryos as though this is something you 
can discard and there is really no significance here, or if there is, 
it is minimal, it is not really human, it is just something that is 
sitting there in a frozen state and we should just research on this 
person. I note this because Hannah was a frozen embryo. She was 
adopted. She was implanted. Then here we are looking at her in April of 
2001 at age 28 months.
  I met Hannah. She has been in my office. She is a bright, young, 
vivacious girl. I point out that she starts out as what we are talking 
about researching on here--she starts out being frozen, alive, adopted 
as an embryo, arrives in a clinic, is thawed, implantated, and develops 
a heartbeat. Here is a picture of her at 21 weeks. We can see her, and 
we can see the development.
  The reason I point this out, and I guess it should be obvious to 
everybody, but what we are talking about is something in embryology 
books that is defined as human. It is defined as a person with a 46-
chromosomes. It is defined as a unique person who will never be 
recreated. We are defining and talking about somebody. If these frozen 
embryos are adopted, they can be implanted and grow into human beings.
  Hannah as she was in April of 2001, Hannah who was in my office.
  I urge more people to look at this as a possible option. A number of 
people have embryos at IVF clinics, frozen embryos at IVF clinics. This 
is a viable option if people don't want to have them implanted in 
themselves. If they are extra, they could consider that there are a 
number of people who cannot conceive who want to adopt. I urge people 
to look at this as a possible and viable option and a beautiful option 
that people would look at. This is happening quite a few times in 
places across the United States. It is important. It is a great option.
  My wife and I have adopted two children--not at the frozen embryo 
stage but at a later stage. I can say with all candor, it is a 
wonderful thing. It has been a great gift to our family to have two of 
our children who are adopted. With the rest of our family, it has just 
been fabulous for all of us.
  I hope people will look at this as a viable option. It is a viable 
option technologically. This is something people can do. You can do 
this today. This can take place. It does take place. It is a regular 
event that takes place. It is something you can feel good about in 
doing and having a beautiful child who is here and functioning and in 
the world and bringing joy to people's eyes.
  Our two adopted children are both 9, and they bring great joy to 
everybody they are around. Even when they are bugging their older 
sister, they bring her joy. It is just a great thing to do, and I 
really hope we can do a lot more of this if people would consider this 
as a real option rather than just saying these are extra embryos or 
these are throwaways or they are going to be disposed of anyway. Why 
not look for the best option? Why not look for this beautiful option 
which is out there instead of saying: Well, we can't do anything with 
them anyway; let's just discard them.
  There is another option here. There is a different chance. There is 
another hope. That child, then, can bring into the world so much joy 
and possibilities that are endless. Why not that one? What is wrong 
with that option? I hope people will really look at this as a real 
chance and something they can do.
  In my earlier remarks, I read a definition from an embryology 
textbook which affirmed that each individual life begins as a 46-
chromosome embryo. The Presiding Officer did. I did. Senator Harkin 
from Iowa did. Textbook definitions are good, but living examples are 
often even better, and that is what I am showing in this chart. Of 
course, each one of us alive today is an example that life begins at an 
embryonic stage because we were all once embryos. Another clear example 
of this truth is those children today--137, I am told, with 16 
currently in utero--who used to be numbered among the so-called spare 
or leftover embryos. That is not as many as I hope it will be, and I 
hope in the future we can have a lot more.
  Last year, I had the privilege of meeting one of these young 
children, a young girl named Hannah. We can see her life growth along 
this continuum in this chart. Of course, if she is terminated in any 
phase along this way, she is not out here. Life is that continuum. I 
would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to this and in 
particular ask, how can we just wantonly destroy these embryos for 
research purposes with taxpayer funding because they are allegedly 
spare, left over, or just going to be destroyed anyway? It is wrong to 
turn living human persons into research objects to be exploited. I 
believe those embryos which have been adopted make this point very 
well.
  I also wish to note that currently in the United States, it is not 
illegal anywhere in the country for a person to

[[Page 8602]]

donate an embryo to develop a stem cell, an embryonic stem cell line. 
It is not illegal anywhere. What we are talking about in the Senate 
today is expanding the Federal taxpayer funding for human embryonic 
stem cell research. We are talking about taxpayer funding of this 
research that is considered highly unethical to a number of our fellow 
Americans. It is something we do not need to do.
  On the point of not needing to do fund this research with taxpayer 
dollars, I ask unanimous consent that an article be printed in the 
Record at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. This was an article posted at CNN at 4:05 eastern 
daylight time that ``Type I diabetics live without insulin in stem cell 
experiment.'' This is just out on CNN this afternoon. ``Thirteen young 
diabetics in Brazil . . . '' That is a point I have been making. This 
research should be done in the United States. Instead, it is going 
other places:

       Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have ditched their 
     insulin shots and need no other medication, thanks to a risky 
     but promising treatment with their own stem cells--apparently 
     the first time such a feat has been accomplished.

  This is just a highlighting of this particular article. Again, the 
research is being done in Brazil. You will see some consistency on 
points. If you followed my earlier comments, I was talking about a 
gentleman who was getting a heart treatment with his own stem cells in 
Bangkok, Thailand; a young lady in Illinois who received treatment for 
her spinal cord injury, a paraplegic, in Portugal. Now this diabetic 
work is being done in Brazil. All of this adult stem cell work that is 
taking place is outside of the country rather than being done here and 
us funding and doing it in America. If we are losing the battle in the 
research anywhere, it seems to be in the adult stem cell field that is 
producing these types of treatments.
  Let me proceed. This is an AP story. It was on CNN. I am reading:

       Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have ditched their 
     insulin shots and need no other medication thanks to a risky 
     but promising treatment with their own stem cells--apparently 
     the first time such a feat has been accomplished. Though too 
     early to call it a cure, the procedure has enabled the young 
     people, who have Type 1 diabetes, to live insulin-free so 
     far, some as long as three years. The treatment involves stem 
     cell transplants from the patients' own blood.
       ``It's the first time in the history of Type I diabetes 
     where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever . . . no 
     medications at all, with normal blood sugars,'' said study 
     co-author Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University's 
     medical school in Chicago, Illinois.
       While the procedure can be potentially life-threatening, 
     none of the 15 patients in the study died or suffered lasting 
     side effects. But it didn't work for two of them. Larger, 
     more rigorous studies are needed to determine whether stem 
     cell transplants could become standard treatment for people 
     with the disease once called juvenile diabetes. It is less 
     common than Type 2 diabetes, which is associated with 
     obesity.
       The hazards of stem cell transplantation also raise 
     questions about whether the study should have included 
     children. One patient was as young as 14. Dr. Lainie Ross, a 
     medical ethicist at the University of Chicago, said the 
     researchers should have studied adults first before exposing 
     young teens to the potential harms of stem cell transplant, 
     which include infertility and late-onset cancers. In 
     addition, Ross said that the study should have had a 
     comparison group to make sure the treatment was indeed better 
     than standard diabetes care.
       Burt, who wrote the study protocol, said the research was 
     done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in 
     the approach. The study was approved by ethics committees in 
     Brazil, he said, adding that he personally believes it was 
     appropriate to do the research in children as well as adults, 
     as long as the Brazilian ethics panels approved. Burt and 
     other diabetes experts called the results an important step 
     forward.
       ``It's the threshold of a very promising time for the 
     field,'' said Dr. Jay Skyler of the Diabetes Research 
     Institute at the University of Miami. Skyler wrote an 
     editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 
     which published the study, saying the results are likely to 
     stimulate research that may lead to methods of preventing or 
     reversing Type 1 diabetes.
       ``These are exciting results. They look impressive,'' said 
     Dr. Gordon Weir of Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, 
     Massachusetts. Still, Weir cautioned that more studies are 
     needed to make sure the treatment works and is safe. ``It's 
     really too early to suggest to people that this is a cure,'' 
     he said.
       The patients involved were ages 14 to 31 and had newly 
     diagnosed Type 1 diabetes. An estimated 12 million to 24 
     million people worldwide--including 1 to 2 million in the 
     United States--have this form of diabetes, which is typically 
     diagnosed in children or young adults. An autoimmune disease, 
     it occurs when the body attacks insulin-producing cells in 
     the pancreas. Insulin is needed to regulate blood sugar 
     levels, which, when too high, can lead to heart disease, 
     blindness, nerve problems and kidney damage.
       Burt said the stem cell transplant is designed to stop the 
     body's immune attack on the pancreas.
       A study published last year described a different kind of 
     experimental transplant, using pancreas cells from donated 
     cadavers, that enabled a few diabetics to give up insulin 
     shots. But that requires lifelong use of anti-rejection 
     medicine, which isn't needed by the Brazil patients since the 
     stem cells were their own.
       The 15 diabetics were treated at a bone marrow center at 
     the University of Sao Paulo. All had newly diagnosed 
     diabetes, and their insulin-producing cells had not been 
     destroyed. That timing is key, Burt said. ``If you wait too 
     long,'' he said, ``you've exceeded the body's ability to 
     repair itself.''
  And he talks about repairing itself later in this article. I wish to 
hit that point. The procedure involves stimulating the body into 
producing new stem cells and harvesting them from the patient's blood. 
Next comes several days of high-dose chemotherapy, which virtually 
shuts down the patient's immune system and stops destruction of the few 
remaining insulin-producing cells in the body. This requires 
hospitalization and potent drugs to fend off infection. The harvested 
stem cells, when injected back into the body, build a new healthier 
immune system that does not attack the insulin-producing cells.
  Patients were hospitalized for about 3 weeks. Many had side effects. 
One developed pneumonia, the only severe complication. The doctors 
changed the drug regime after treatments failed in the first patient 
who ended up needing more insulin than before the study, and another 
patient also relapsed. The remaining 13 live ``a normal life without 
taking insulin,'' said the study coauthor, Dr. Julio Voltareli of the 
University of Sao Paulo. ``They all went back to their lives.''
  The patients enrolled in the study at different times so the length 
of time they have been insulin-free also differs. Dr. Burgess had some 
success using the same procedure in 170 patients with other autoimmune 
diseases, including lupus and multiple sclerosis; one patient with an 
autoimmune form of blindness can now see, Dr. Burgess said, and then he 
had this quote: The body has a tremendous potential to repair.
  The study was partly funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and 
Genzyme Corporation, a maker of blood sugar monitoring products.
  Now, why are we not doing these treatments in America? Why would we 
not be funding this sort of work? We do not have unlimited amounts of 
funds to go around. We are putting $613 million into speculative 
embryonic stem cell research that has produced no cures. Yet we are 
having people from the United States go to Bangkok and to Portugal and 
to Brazil to get these treatments that are financed by the Brazilian 
Ministry of Health, along with a private corporation that is the maker 
of blood sugar monitoring products. Why is it not being done here? 
There are now 13 young diabetics who ditched their insulin shots. That 
is beautiful news. It should be done here.
  Yet we are starving this field that is producing so many results, 
putting in $613 million into embryonic stem cell research that is 
highly speculative, that is considered unethical by many of our fellow 
citizenry in the United States, and is producing no treatments or 
cures, while people are going to Brazil to be able to deal with 
diabetes or to Portugal to deal with spinal cord injuries or to 
Thailand to deal with congestive heart failure and heart disease.
  Now is something wrong with this? I think it clearly is wrong when we 
are not seeing these treatments here, the treatments are going to other 
places,

[[Page 8603]]

and we are not funding them. We need to do more in the adult stem cell 
field, in the cord blood field, we need to do more in amniotic fluid, 
we need to do more in the placenta stem cell field. American citizens 
should not have to go to Brazil and other places to get this cutting-
edge technology.
  Yet we will spend a lot of time debating on the floor over embryonic 
stem cells, or the need to do research on both adult and embryonic, but 
the problem is we do not have infinite amounts of money. We do have a 
limited research budget. The money we are putting into the embryonic 
field, destroying human life at taxpayer expense, does not go into 
adult stem cell work. It does not go into other areas where we could do 
more research, to get the results that would treat people so that 
diabetics do not need their insulin shots. It is cutting-edge work 
being done somewhere else. We are not funding it.
  I want to talk, too, about another aspect of this that I have not 
brought up previously, and that is private-sector funding. I note on 
this diabetes story that was out on the AP wire that there was a 
private corporation, Genzyme Corporation, a maker of blood sugar 
monitoring products.
  It is not illegal anywhere to do embryonic stem cell research in this 
country, and if it is so promising in the health care field, one would 
think there would be heavy private-sector investment taking place in 
embryonic stem cell research. If this is producing and holds the key to 
curing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes, then one would think 
there would be a flood of private-sector money coming into this field 
to develop and to get the early patents on some of the work.
  Let's see what is happening in the investor community on this. How 
many private investors are going into it? We can talk about following 
the money into the field. This is a July 17, 2006, edition of the New 
York Sun, an article written by Harold Furchtgott-Roth, former FCC 
Commissioner. I wish to quote some from this article. I will put this 
in. He says this:

       For investors, the debate over Federal funding of embryonic 
     stem cell research is an indication that profits are remote. 
     In many, if not most, areas of technology--including 
     electronics, chemistry, and computing--the frontiers of 
     research and development are spearheaded by private business. 
     Where profits are a powerful inducement, innovation needs 
     little federal funding.
       From pharmaceuticals to electronic monitoring equipment, 
     much of medical research advances to the drumbeat of 
     capitalism. Innovative ideas are rewarded. Tens of billions 
     of private dollars in America and around the world finance 
     new research because it offers visible roads to rewards.

  What does he say about stem cell research? We knew this to be true, 
that there is heavy investment in the commercial sector in 
pharmaceutical supplies and electronics and computing.
  One of the big driving areas is the private sector or the investors 
going into these fields and investing heavily. So what are they doing 
in stem cell research, in embryonic stem cell research today?

       To date, private investment in stem cell research has been 
     relatively small and unrewarding. Several publicly traded but 
     relatively small American companies

  He lists a couple--

        . . . conduct research and development on stem cells. Many 
     privately held companies also pursue stem cell research, but 
     venture capital backing for stem cell research is waning.
  It is not growing, it is waning.

       Nor is there substantial private research and development 
     migrating abroad. American financial institutions raise 
     enormous funds to invest in businesses engaged in medical 
     research both in America and abroad--

  We certainly know that to be true--

     but little if any of that money targets foreign investment in 
     stem cell research companies.
       The current policy does not appear to have left America 
     backward in the basic science of stem cell research. 
     According to a recent study in ``Nature Biotechnology,'' 
     American scientists account for the dominant share of 
     research publications on embryonic stem cell research, and 
     the number of publications is growing rapidly. Perhaps 
     American science will be even more dominant with greater 
     Federal funding, but the stimulus for that funding should not 
     be that we are falling hopelessly behind the rest of the 
     world.

  Mr. President, I ask that the rest of this article in its entirety be 
inserted at the conclusion of my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2).
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, my point in saying this is that we know 
this is true. We know that in the medical health field, if there are 
some great results that are coming that could be patentable or provide 
treatments--that the medical sector of our economy is growing as a 
percentage of the gross national product, that I think is somewhere 
around 15 percent now, growing faster, that there is a heavy investment 
in medical research taking place, we know that in the pharmaceutical 
industry, we know that in the medical treatment areas that is taking 
place.
  So why is that not happening in embryonic stem cells? The reason is 
because it is not producing any results. Instead, we have health 
ministries and corporations going abroad to make these investments in 
the adult field when they feel like there is not sufficient interest 
here taking place.
  That should tell us something; that is, the private sector is not 
putting money in. Indeed, the private-sector research is waning. These 
are all indicators that we ought to be looking at and asking ourselves: 
What is taking place?
  Now earlier I covered some of the advances in stem cell research that 
has happened, and I note I wish to build on the statement put forward 
by today's AP story on Type 1 Diabetes being treated in Brazil with 
adult stem cells and my comments about the lack of private-sector 
investment.
  I wish to hit another point as to why the private sector is not 
investing in embryonic stem cell research. I made it part of this 
presentation earlier, but I wish to make it stronger now; that is, that 
embryonic stem cells produce tumors.
  This is continuing to come out in all the data, and I think it is 
part of the reason why you do not see private investors going into this 
field. If this is the pharmaceutical field and the drugs you are 
treating people with are producing tumors, it is unlikely that that 
drug is going to get approved by the FDA, it is unlikely it is going to 
move forward in any sort of drug delivery system or it is going to be 
accepted by the public if there is a high likelihood that you are going 
to get tumors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to put this set of documents 
in at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3).
  Mr. BROWNBACK. This is a series of front pages of articles of the 
various scientific publications where we have had, to date, tumors 
being developed by embryonic stem cells. These are in animal models 
because, of course, we do not have any human clinical trials that are 
taking place yet with embryonic stem cells. These are all in the animal 
field. But we are seeing continuously in the research results, as I 
stated earlier, that the embryonic stem cells injected into animal 
models are creating teratomas, creating tumors.
  This, as I quoted earlier, happened in the fetal tissue debate of 15 
years ago, when they were creating teratomas or tumors, and we are now 
seeing the tumors come up again consistently in the research data on 
embryonic stem cell work. And here--this gets quite technical. But I 
wish to read some of the quotations in these various articles, that if 
any of my colleagues would like to look it up, this will be in the 
Record.
  Here is a research article from 2004, when cultures were transplanted 
in diabetic mice--we were just talking about a successful diabetic 
treatment in humans--this is in diabetic mice. They formed teratomas--
again those are tumors--and did not reverse the hyperglycemic state. 
This is the first page of a 2004 scientific publication. Here is an 
embryonic stem cell publication, and this is the front page of this 
article, that is out in a 2006 article: Embryonic stem cells derived 
neuroprogeny, more than 70 percent of mice that received these types of 
embryonic stem cells developed teratomas, thus posing a major safety 
problem is what this article noted, that

[[Page 8604]]

70 percent of mice developed tumors. It does not sound like that one is 
going very well.
  We have another one in the Stem Cell publication, again 2006 
publication, developed severe teratomas, in this particular 
publication, using human embryonic stem cells again in lab rats, 
grafted into lab rats. That one is not going very well.
  Here is a 2005 article from a publication: Four weeks 
postimplantation, cells implanted in high numbers formed teratomas in 
the majority of the animals implanted. That one is not going very well.
  Here is a Brazilian publication involving brain tissue: Unlimited 
self-renewal in high differentiation poses the risk of tumor induction 
after engraftment. This is December of 2004. That one is taking place, 
and it is not going very well.
  Here is another publication. This one is from 2003. Conclusions: 
Transplanted ES cells can be grafted. The cells will, however, form a 
tumor if they leak into an improper space such as the thoracic cavity. 
Now we have a bigger problem. If the stem cells leak into another area, 
they form tumors in other parts of the body. That is not going very 
well.
  Here is another publication. This is a 2005 publication. When the 
cultured cells were transplanted into diabetic mice, they reversed the 
hyperglycemic case for 3 weeks, but the rescue failed due to immature 
teratoma formation and then formed cancer cells. So they did something 
for 3 weeks, and that didn't work out very well.
  Here is another publication. This is out of Washington University, 
2004. Results suggest transplanting ES cells into the injured spinal 
cord does not improve locomotive recovery and can lead to tumor-like 
growth of cells, accompanied by increased debilitation, morbidity, and 
mortality. That one is not going well.
  That is a set of publications. This is just the front pages of these 
that I am entering into the Record. My point is not to belittle 
embryonic stem cells. My point is this is highly consistent with the 
fetal tissue work earlier and what is working. We have a route that is 
moving. Why would we move on forward, putting $620 million of Federal 
money into an area that has not worked for 25 years.
  I recognize my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I wanted to ask my colleague if he will yield for a 
question?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague for the many hours of effort he 
has put into this to analyze the data that is out there about this 
important issue. It has been helpful to us. I know some people think it 
is an easy question for them. Senator Brownback has taken the road less 
traveled. He has been willing to dig into the issue because it does 
touch on real moral and ethical questions. It is not a light matter.
  Let me ask the Senator a question. Is it true that the embryonic stem 
cells we are talking about here, if allowed to grow and mature, would 
be a human being, and that human being's height, hair, eye color, and 
all, would have been determined at that very moment when it was at that 
embryonic stem cell stage, how they would grow and mature?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. My colleague states the obvious. It is when you 
get that first set of chromosomes from your mother and father that your 
hair color, so many of your features are determined. It doesn't change. 
That is your genetic material, and you get it from the very earliest 
instance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So the life that is being proposed here, it is life, I 
think no one can dispute that. It is a living organism. This life, if 
allowed to develop, will be developed into a distinct human person?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So I think that implicates some questions to all of us. 
It is not a thing outside the realm of reason. Good people question 
whether we should experiment on that life. You had a number of children 
who were brought here, snowflake babies. I didn't get to be with you on 
that occasion, but it was reported to me. Would you tell us about those 
children you saw?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I have a picture of one here. This is Hannah, one of 
the first snowflake babies. It is a pretty simple and direct story. 
Just like you and me, they started out as embryos. They went into a 
frozen state for a period of time. Then they were allowed to be adopted 
by other individuals and implanted into a mother's womb and then grew 
in a normal process that takes place. The point you made earlier that I 
think should be so obvious to all of our colleagues is this is Hannah 
here and this is Hannah at an earlier stage when she is an embryo, just 
as we were at one point in time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. This very type embryo is what we are talking about 
experimenting with under the legislation that is before us.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. With Federal taxpayer dollars; that is what we are 
talking about.
  Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to this, we know good people can differ. I 
certainly believe good people can differ. I don't count myself morally 
superior to anybody on these questions. I am not a scientist. I 
certainly haven't studied it to the extent that you or other Members of 
this body have. Senator Coburn and Senator Hatch and others have 
studied it. Some have different opinions about it. I don't think it is 
an insignificant matter that this is a piece of life, a small embryonic 
life that would grow into a distinct human being. That is what we are 
talking about providing Federal funds to experiment with.
  It is not a crime today for a private person or a university to 
experiment on this, even if it causes people moral and ethical 
problems, is it?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. It is not a crime today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Private people are doing that today?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I guess in 2001, President Bush acknowledged there were 
embryonic lines available at that time and that any action we took at 
that moment against those lines did not implicate human life. He said 
those lines would be available for embryonic stem cells for any 
university that would apply; is that correct?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct, and that Federal taxpayer funds could 
be used to experiment on those human embryonic stem cell lines where 
the life-and-death decision had already been made.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I had heard at some point that those lines may not be 
continuing, but I am informed that in fact those lines do continue, at 
least some of them, and that there is a substantial number of embryonic 
cells available for research if they were asked for, but they haven't 
been all utilized; is that correct?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct as well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So when we get up to this line of experimenting with 
human life, one of the things I would ask myself is, is this medically 
necessary? Is this a matter about which we are debating that would 
prevent some sort of research? The way I see it, there are federally 
funded stem cells available for research today, as you have explained. 
Then there is no limit whatsoever on the number of stem cells that are 
available in the private sector, at our universities and our great 
research centers in the world and in the United States; is that 
correct?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. Any sort of private sector investment 
can take place, any sort of State or local investment can take place, 
although, as I noted in the article, the private sector does not seem 
to be putting much money into the field. I believe that is clearly 
because of a lack of results.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is important for you to share with us. 
Because decisions become easier when there is not a crisis. We deal 
with self-defense issues and moral issues a lot of times, but doesn't 
seem to me we are at that critical juncture in our scientific activity 
that would require the American people, through the expenditures of 
their dollars, to affirm this procedure. Would the Senator not

[[Page 8605]]

agree if the American people fund this procedure, then it represents a 
national blessing of the procedure, in effect, an approval of this 
procedure as moral and legitimate?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Well, it clearly does. It says you treat the youngest 
of human life as property, not as a person. You noted this is alive. 
Yet some would say it is not a life. It is alive, but it has not yet 
risen to the level of being a human life. This would say we can treat 
humans at the youngest age of their life continuum as property and that 
we will use Federal taxpayer dollars to destroy them and to do research 
on them at that point in time. If you can do that at earlier stages, 
why not later? What is the differentiation? At what point in time does 
this become removed from property to becoming a person as it somehow 
does magically in this process? My point is, the place to start is at 
the beginning, when the life begins. Otherwise, there is no significant 
place you can draw any line along the way saying at this point in time 
it becomes a person entitled to the protection of the law and society. 
Right now we are treating the youngest of humans as property.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am uneasy about it. I don't claim to know all of it. 
I haven't studied it to the extent you have. I know entities of great 
augustness such as the Catholic Church have serious theologians and 
scientists. They are uneasy with it. I am not Catholic, but I 
understand that. People have invested a lot of time and effort and feel 
this is crossing a line that is dangerous for us to cross. From what I 
am hearing from your remarks, you don't think it is necessary to cross 
that line to do the kind of research that could actually save lives and 
that we all hope will save lives one day?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If our objective is healing people, if that is our 
objective, we have a far more likely route, a route that is already 
producing substantial success that is lying right in front of us, 
without ethical concerns or dilemmas--adult stem cells, cord blood. 
Increasingly, in the future, in amniotic fluid we will find abundant 
supplies of stem cells with no moral problems whatsoever. That is what 
doesn't make any sense to me either. We are going to take away all 
human dignity from the youngest humans. We are going to do so in an 
arbitrary fashion because we are not saying where you develop the 
status of human dignity at some point in time, but we are going to take 
it away from you here. We are going to use Federal taxpayer dollars to 
destroy you. Yet we have another way that is producing good results in 
the adult stem cells, stem cells in your body and in mine, and this 
route is producing tumors. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense 
why we would invest $613 million more into the future as we have in the 
past since 2002. Why would you put more into this area that has all 
these problems? I respect my colleagues who are on the other side of 
this debate. They want to produce results and they want to cure people. 
But it seems as if all the evidence is leading us the other way without 
ethical dilemma. So why would we then do that, if all the evidence is 
pointing another way and we don't have unlimited resources, we can't 
put this to better, higher use, and not having hopefully people in the 
future have to leave our country to get adult stem cell therapies from 
out of country?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will say this, I thank you for utilizing the free 
speech this great Senate allows us to raise questions that some perhaps 
just as soon would not talk about. I do think a decent respect for 
those millions of Americans who strongly believe this is not a good 
thing to do, that this is crossing boundaries we ought not to cross, 
and saying we are going to take your money in disrespect of your views 
and spend it on a procedure you strongly feel is not the right thing, 
committing our Nation officially as approving this procedure is not a 
bridge we have to cross. That is where I come down at this point. I do 
not claim to be all knowing, but that is what I would say.
  I say to Senator Brownback, I would share with you a letter I 
received in March, just about a month ago, from a constituent in my 
State who e-mailed me in support of S. 5, and I sent back some of the 
thoughts my staff and I had put together on it. I got this letter. It 
is addressed to me, but it could probably be better addressed to you 
based on the work you and others have done. He had a child who had a 
recent four-wheeler accident and was a quadriplegic. This is his quote:

       In our desire to see our son again have use of his limbs, 
     we allowed our opinions to be influenced by the media. You 
     were so kind to respond to our e-mail with a letter stating 
     your opinions and thoughts. After doing more research, 
     listening to the opinions of a long-time quadriplegic, and 
     praying about this issue, we are pleased with the position 
     you have taken against this legislation. We felt we owed you 
     an apology--

  They certainly did not--

     and thank you for your adherence to Christian moral 
     boundaries when voting on public policy.

  I know a lot of people have different views on this issue, and some 
think everybody in the country has a certain view on it. But I think if 
more people understood the remarks you made, the great research that is 
ongoing that could actually cure or heal spinal cord injuries, could 
help with diabetes and Parkinson's and other diseases--if this were 
critical to the passage of this legislation, I think we would have a 
more difficult choice to make.
  But I think, as you have explained it, at this point in history and 
in science, we are at a point where that research can continue. It is 
not stopped, and it is not necessary for us to make that final step to 
cross this barrier and begin to officially, as a nation, experiment 
with human life.
  So I say to the Senator, thank you for your work. You have led me 
around to this position. I think I will not be supporting S. 30 and 
will be supporting S. 5. I think it is a better way--excuse me, which 
one is it, I ask Senator Brownback?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. S. 30.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, I think you are correct. I will be supporting S. 
30 and voting against S. 5. And this has been an important debate. The 
American people have had the opportunity to hear some good arguments 
and a great deal of science and research. We are heading in the right 
direction, I believe, with the President saying he will not accept S. 
5. I respect him for it. He stood up, absolutely. He has studied the 
issue, and he has firm views about it. Whereas the legislation may pass 
here, I am hopeful it will not finally become law.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Alabama. I note for his 
constituent, who sent such a kind letter, one of our lead examples is 
this woman shown in this picture, Jacki Rabon, who is a paraplegic, not 
a quadriplegic, from a car accident and was treated with adult stem 
cells--her own--in Portugal instead of the United States and is now 
walking with the aid of braces. There is tingling and feeling now 
throughout her legs, and hopefully that will continue. In all of these 
cases, it is important we get early treatments and people get treated--
and I want to see that increasingly in the United States.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Let me just interrupt you there because people miss 
this, perhaps. You are saying she was treated with adult stem cells?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. She was treated with her own stem cells.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So it was not necessary for her treatment to have 
embryonic stem cells?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It was not necessary. The only thing that was 
necessary is she had to travel to Portugal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator has now 
expired.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.

Exhibit 1
                                  ____


     Type 1 Diabetics Live Without Insulin in Stem Cell Experiment

       Chicago, IL (AP).--Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have 
     ditched their insulin shots and need no other medication 
     thanks to a risky, but promising treatment with their own 
     stem cells--apparently the first time such a feat has been 
     accomplished. '
       Though too early to call it a cure, the procedure has 
     enabled the young people, who have Type I diabetes, to live 
     insulin-free so far, some as long as three years. The 
     treatment involves stem cell transplants from the patients' 
     own blood.

[[Page 8606]]

       ``It's the first time in the history of Type I diabetes 
     where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever . . . no 
     medications at all, with normal blood sugars,'' said study 
     co-author Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University's 
     medical school in Chicago, Illinois.
       While the procedure can be potentially life-threatening, 
     none of the 15 patients in the study died or suffered lasting 
     side effects. But it didn't work for two of them.
       Larger, more rigorous studies are needed to determine 
     whether stem cell transplants could become standard treatment 
     for people with the disease once called juvenile diabetes. It 
     is less common than Type II diabetes, which is associated 
     with obesity.
       The hazards of stem cell transplantation also raise 
     questions about whether the study should have included 
     children. One patient was as young as 14.
       Dr. Lainie Ross, a medical ethicist at the University of 
     Chicago, said the researchers should have studied adults 
     first before exposing young teens to the potential harms of 
     stem cell transplant, which include infertility and late-
     onset cancers.
       In addition, Ross said that the study should have had a 
     comparison group to make sure the treatment was indeed better 
     than standard diabetes care.
       Burt, who wrote the study protocol, said the research was 
     done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in 
     the approach. The study was approved by ethics committees in 
     Brazil, he said, adding that he personally believes it was 
     appropriate to do the research in children as well as adults, 
     as long as the Brazilian ethics panels approved.
       Burt and other diabetes experts called the results an 
     important step forward.


                          very promising time

       ``It's the threshold of a very promising time for the 
     field,'' said Dr. Jay Skyler of the Diabetes Research 
     Institute at the University of Miami.
       Skyler wrote an editorial in the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association, which published the study, saying the 
     results are likely to stimulate research that may lead to 
     methods of preventing or reversing Type I diabetes.
       ``These are exciting results. They look impressive,'' said 
     Dr. Gordon Weir of Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, 
     Massachusetts.
       Still, Weir cautioned that more studies are needed to make 
     sure the treatment works and is safe. ``It's really too early 
     to suggest to people that this is a cure,'' he said.
       The patients involved were ages 14 to 31 and had newly 
     diagnosed Type I diabetes. An estimated 12 million to 24 
     million people worldwide--including 1 to 2 million in the 
     United States--have this form of diabetes, which is typically 
     diagnosed in children or young adults. An autoimmune disease, 
     it occurs when the body attacks insulin-producing cells in 
     the pancreas.
       Insulin is needed to regulate blood sugar levels, which 
     when too high, can lead to heart disease, blindness, nerve 
     problems and kidney damage.
       Burt said the stem cell transplant is designed to stop the 
     body's immune attack on the pancreas.
       A study published last year described a different kind of 
     experimental transplant, using pancreas cells from donated 
     cadavers, that enabled a few diabetics to give up insulin 
     shots. But that requires lifelong use of anti-rejection 
     medicine, which isn't needed by the Brazil patients since the 
     stem cells were their own.
       The 15 diabetics were treated at a bone marrow center at 
     the University of Sao Paulo.
       All had newly diagnosed diabetes, and their insulin-
     producing cells had not been destroyed.
       That timing is key, Burt said. ``If you wait too long,'' he 
     said, ``you've exceeded the body's ability to repair 
     itself.''
       The procedure involves stimulating the body to produce new 
     stem cells and harvesting them from the patient's blood. Next 
     comes several days of high-dose chemotherapy, which virtually 
     shuts down the patient's immune system and stops destruction 
     of the few remaining insulin-producing cells in the body. 
     This requires hospitalization and potent drugs to fend off 
     infection. The harvested stem cells, when injected back into 
     the body, build a new healthier immune system that does not 
     attack the insulin-producing cells.
       Patients were hospitalized for about three weeks. Many had 
     side effects including nausea, vomiting and hair loss. One 
     developed pneumonia, the only severe complication.
       Doctors changed the drug regimen after the treatment failed 
     in the first patient, who ended up needing more insulin than 
     before the study. Another patient also relapsed.
       The remaining 13 ``live a normal life without taking 
     insulin,'' said study co-author Dr. Julio Voltarelli of the 
     University of Sao Paulo. ``They all went back to their 
     lives.''
       The patients enrolled in the study at different times so 
     the length of time they've been insulin-free also differs.
       Burt has had some success using the same procedure in 170 
     patients with other autoimmune diseases, including lupus and 
     multiple sclerosis; one patient with an autoimmune form of 
     blindness can now see, Burt said.
       ``The body has tremendous potential to repair,'' he said.
       The study was partly funded by the Brazilian Ministry of 
     Health, Genzyme Corp. and a maker of blood sugar monitoring 
     products.

                               Exhibit 2

                 [From the New York Sun, July 17, 2007]

              In the Stem Cell Debate, Count Investors Out

                      (By Harold Furchtgott-Roth)

       The Senate this week will consider legislation to expand 
     federal funding for scientific and medical research of human 
     embryonic stem cells. It promises to be an emotional debate, 
     largely uninfluenced by the sober calculus of the investment 
     community. Whatever the outcome, investment opportunities are 
     not immediate.
       Large parts of the academic and scientific community insist 
     on the medical benefits of expanded federal funding for such 
     research, a view shared by Majority Leader Frist and many 
     Senate Democrats. But the commercial benefits are not there 
     yet.
       For investors, the debate over federal funding of embryonic 
     stem cell research is an indication that profits are remote. 
     In many, if not most, areas of technology--including 
     electronics, chemistry, and computing--the frontiers of 
     research and development are spearheaded by private business. 
     Where profits are a powerful inducement, innovation needs 
     little federal funding.
       From pharmaceuticals to electronic monitoring equipment, 
     much of medical research advances to the drumbeat of 
     capitalism. Innovative ideas are rewarded. Tens of billions 
     of private dollars in America and around the world finance 
     new research because it offers visible roads to rewards.
       Other areas of research have enormous merit and advance 
     scientific knowledge, but promise little if any profit. 
     Sponsors of such research request federal and other 
     noncommercial funding because private investment would be 
     profoundly risky, if not pointless.
       Thus, in this week's Senate debate, the primary issue is 
     not whether stem cell research is lawful, but which forms the 
     federal government will fund. Some day, perhaps, profit 
     incentives for stem cell research will make federal funding 
     unnecessary, but we are far from that outcome.
       To date, private investment in stem cell research has been 
     relatively small and unrewarding. Several publicly traded but 
     relatively small American companies, including Aastrom, 
     Geron, StemCells, and ViaCell, conduct research and 
     development on stem cells. Many privately held companies also 
     pursue stem cell research, but venture capital backing for 
     stem cell research is waning.
       Nor is there evidence of substantial private research and 
     development migrating abroad. American financial institutions 
     raise enormous funds to invest in businesses engaged in 
     medical research both in America and abroad, but little if 
     any of that money targets foreign investments in stem cell 
     research companies.
       Many leading medical research areas such as Germany have 
     far greater restrictions on stem cell research than America. 
     A few, such as Britain, Japan, Korea, and China, have 
     relatively few restrictions on stem cell research, but most 
     research is conducted by the government.
       The current policy does not appear to have left America 
     backward in the basic science of stem cell research. 
     According to a recent study in ``Nature Biotechnology,'' 
     American scientists account for the dominant share of 
     research publications on embryonic stem cell research, and 
     the number of publications is growing rapidly. Perhaps 
     American science will be even more dominant with greater 
     federal funding, but the stimulus for that funding should not 
     be that we are falling hopelessly behind the rest of the 
     world.
       The Senate debate will not be strongly influenced by the 
     investment community. Because investment opportunities are 
     small, American financial institutions are not waiting to 
     pour hundreds of billions of dollars in private companies if 
     the federal government were to expand funding for stem cell 
     research.
       Most of the debate is about the ethics of stem cell 
     research. Most Senate Republicans worry about the ethics of 
     embryonic research, particularly about possible incentives 
     for creating embryos for harvesting. Senate Democrats focus 
     more on potential benefits from research.
       Federally funded scientific research often takes years or 
     decades to yield commercial applications, if ever. Embryonic 
     stem cell research, despite all of its enormous promise and 
     political cache, is no different. If it were different, it 
     would not need federal funding. This week's debate, while 
     having enormous political stakes for the Senate, will simply 
     confirm to investors that widespread commercial applications 
     of stem cell research remain distant.
       Almost five years ago, President Bush unveiled a policy 
     that for the first time permitted limited federally funded 
     research of stem cells. It was attacked from both sides at 
     the time and will certainly be attacked again this week in 
     the Senate. Despite the rhetoric, the policy has not put 
     American scientists or investors at an international 
     disadvantage.

[[Page 8607]]



                               Exhibit 3

 Insulin Expressing Cells From Differentiated Embryonic Stem Cells Are 
                             Not Beta Cells

   [By S. Sipione, A. Eshpeter, J. G. Lyon G., S. Korbutt, and R.C. 
                               Bleackley]


                                Abstract

       Aim/hypothesis. Embryonic stem (ES) cells have been 
     proposed as a potential source of tissue for transplantation 
     for the treatment of Type 1 diabetes. However, studies 
     showing differentiation of beta cells from ES cells are 
     controversial. The aim of this study was to characterise the 
     insulin-expressing cells differentiated in vitro from ES 
     cells and to assess their suitability for the treatment of 
     diabetes.
       Methods. ES cell-derived insulin-expressing cells were 
     characterised by means of immunocytochemistry, RT-PCR and 
     functional analyses. Activation of the Insulin I promoter 
     during ES-cell differentiation was assessed in ES-cell lines 
     transfected with a reporter gene. ES cell-derived cultures 
     were transplanted into STZ-treated SCID-beige mice and blood 
     glucose concentrations of diabetic mice were monitored for 3 
     weeks.
       Results. Insulin-stained cells differentiated from ES cells 
     were devoid of typical beta-cell granules, rarely showed 
     immunoreactivity for C-peptide and were mostly apoptotic. The 
     main producers of proinsulin/insulin in these cultures were 
     neurons and neuronal precursors and a reporter gene under the 
     control of the insulin I promoter was activated in cells with 
     a neuronal phenotype. Insulin was released into the 
     incubation medium but the secretion was not glucose-
     dependent. When the cultures were transplanted in diabetic 
     mice they formed teratomas and did not reverse the 
     hyperglycaemic state.
       Conclusions/Interpretation. Our studies show that insulin-
     positive cells in vitro-differentiated from ES cells are not 
     beta cells and suggest that alternative protocols, based on 
     enrichment of ES cell-derived cultures with cells of the 
     endodermal lineage, should be developed to generate true beta 
     cells for the treatment of diabetes. [Diabetologia (2004) 
     47:499-508]
                                  ____


 Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Neuronally Committed Precursor Cells With 
  Reduced Teratoma Formation After Transplantation Into the Lesioned 
                           Adult Mouse Brain

   [By Marcel Dihne, Christian Bernreuther, Christian Hagel, Kai O. 
                     Wesche, and Melitta Schachner]


                                ABSTRaCT

       The therapeutic potential of embryonic stem (ES) cells in 
     neurodegenerative disorders has been widely recognized and 
     methods are being developed to optimize culture conditions 
     for enriching the cells of interest and to improve graft 
     stability and safety after transplantation. Whereas teratoma 
     formation rarely occurs in xenogeneic transplantation 
     paradigms of ES cell-derived neural progeny, more than 70% of 
     mice that receive murine ES cell-derived neural precursor 
     cells develop teratomas, thus posing a major safety problem 
     for allogeneic and syngeneic transplantion paradigms. Here we 
     introduced a new differentiation protocol based on the 
     generation of substrate-adherent ES cell-derived neural 
     aggrgates (SENAs) that consist predominantly of neuronally 
     committed precursor cells. Purified SENAs that were 
     differentiated into immature but postmitotic neurons did not 
     form tumors up to four months after syngeneic transplantation 
     into the acutely degenerated striatum and showed robust 
     survival. Stem Cells 2006:24: 1458-1466.
                                  ____


  Transplantation of Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Cells to a Rat 
  Model of Parkinson's Disease: Effect of In Vitro Differentiation on 
                 Graft Survival and Teratoma Formation

 [By Anke Brederlau, Ana Sofia Correia, Sergey V. Anisimov, Muna Elmi, 
  Gesine Paul, Laurent Roybon, Asuka Morizane, Filip Bergquist, Ilse 
 Riebe, Ulf Nannmark, Manolo Carta, Erik Hanse, Jun Takahashi, Yoshiki 
 Sasai, Keiko Funa, Patrick Brundin, Peter S. Eriksson, and Jen-Yi Li]


                                ABSTRACT

       Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) have been proposed as a 
     source of dopamine (DA) neurons for transplantation in 
     Parkinson's disease (PD). We have investigated the effect of 
     in vitro predifferentiation on in vivo survival and 
     differentiation of hESCs implanted into the 6-OHDA (6-
     hydroxydopamine)-lesion rat model of PD. The hESCs were 
     cocultured with PA6 cells for 16, 20, or 23 days, lending to 
     the in vitro differentiation into DA neurons. Grafted hESC-
     derived cells survived well and expressed neuronal markers. 
     However, very few exhibited a DA neuron phenotype. Reversal 
     of lesion-induced motor deficts was not observed. Rats 
     grafted with hESCs predifferentiated in vitro for 16 days 
     developed severe teratomas, with hESCs predifferentiated for 
     20 and 23 days remained healthy until the end of the 
     experiment. This indicates that prolonged in vitro 
     differentiation of hESCs is essential for preventing 
     formation of teratomas. Stem Cells 2006:24:1433-1440.
                                  ____


Survival and Engraftment of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Implants 
                        in the Guinea Pig Brain

   [By A.J. Robinson, A.C. Meedeniya, K.M. Hemsley, D. Auclair, A.C. 
                       Crawley, and J.J. Hopwood]


                                Abstract

       a-Mannosidosis is a lysosomal storage disease resulting 
     from a deficiency of the enzyme a-d-mannosidase. A major 
     feature of a-mannosidosis is progressive neurological 
     decline, for which there is no safe and effective treatment 
     available. We have a guinea pig model of a-mannosidosis that 
     models the human condition. This study investigates the 
     feasibility of implanting differentiated mouse embryonic stem 
     cells in the neonatal guinea pig brain in order to provide a 
     source of a-mannosidase to the affected central nervous 
     system.
       Cells implanted at a low dose (1.5 103 cells per 
     hemisphere) at 1 week of age were found to survive in very 
     low numbers in some immunosuppressed animals out to 8 weeks. 
     Four weeks post-implantation, cells implanted in high numbers 
     (105 cells per hemisphere) formed teratomas in the 
     majority of the animals implanted. Although implanted cells 
     were found to migrate extensively within the brain and 
     differentiate into mature cells of neural (and other) 
     lineages, the safety issue related to uncontrolled cell 
     proliferation precluded the use of this cell type for longer-
     term implantation studies. We conclude that the pluripotent 
     cell type used in this study is unsuitable for achieving safe 
     engraftment in the guinea pig brain.
                                  ____


  Neurally Selected Embryonic Stem Cells Induce Tumor Formation After 
   Long-Term Survival Following Engraftment Into the Subretinal Space

  [By Stefan Arnhold, Helmut Klein, Irina Semkova, Klaus Addicks, and 
                          Ulrich Schraermeyer]

       Purpose. To determine whether transplantation of embryonic 
     stem (ES) cells into the subretinal space of rhodopsin-
     knockout mice has a tumorigenic effect.
       Methods. Mouse ES-cell-derived neural precursor cells 
     carrying the sequence for the green fluorescent protein (GFP) 
     gene were grafted subretinally into the eyes of 
     rhodopsin-/-mice, whereas control animals 
     underwent sham surgery. Eyes were retrieved after 2, 4, and 8 
     weeks after cell injection or sham surgery for histologic 
     analysis.
       Results. Gross morphologic, histologic, and 
     immunohistochemical analysis of eyes at 2 and 4 weeks after 
     engraftment exhibited no morphologic alterations, whereas 
     neoplasia formation was detected in 50% of the eyes evaluated 
     at 8 weeks after engraftment. Because the neoplasias 
     expressed differentiation characteristics of the different 
     germ layers, they were considered to be teratomas. The 
     resultant tumor formation affected almost all layers of the 
     eye, including the retina, the vitreous, and the choroid.
       Conclusions. Although ES cells may provide treatment for 
     degenerative disease in the future, their unlimited self-
     renewal and high differentiation potential poses the risk of 
     tumor induction after engraftment. Thus, more care must be 
     taken before using ES cell transplantation as a therapeutic 
     option for patients with degenerative disease. Invest. 
     Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45:1251-1255)
       Advances in stem cell research and associated technologies 
     over the past decade have increased hopes for the development 
     of cellular therapies for age-related degenerative diseases. 
     These diseases arise due to progressive cell loss; thus, 
     replacing these cells would be an ideal therapy.
       With respect to degenerative diseases of the mammalian 
     visual system, the death of specific cell populations within 
     the retina is associated with blinding diseases of the eye, 
     such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and retinitis 
     pigmentosa (for review see Ref. 1). Transplantation of stem 
     cells into the retina to replace lost cells or to act as 
     supporting cells to prevent further degenerative cell loss is 
     also discussed increasingly as a practical approach for 
     treating blindness. Unfortunately, the application of 
     cellular therapies is limited because of a scarcity of donors 
     for suitable cell populations, such as neural stem or 
     progenitor cells, that can be transplanted either into the 
     subretinal space or into the vitreous chamber. However, these 
     cell populations can be obtained in huge quantities by 
     differentiating embryonic stem cells into the respective cell 
     types, thus making cell replacement therapies more plausible.
       The isolation of human embryonic stem cells from 
     preimplantation blastocysts has made cell replacement therapy 
     an even more realistic option as human ES cells share 
     similarities with their counterparts in the mouse. Many 
     attempts have been made to induce in vitro differentiation of 
     ES cells into many cell types, including hematopoietic 
     precursor, heart and skeletal muscle, endothelial, and neural 
     cells. Interesting data from an in vitro study in which ES 
     cells were exposed to defined extracellular factors 
     demonstrated the differentiation potential of ES cells into 
     retinal neural progenitor cells.
       Herein, we describe the transplantation of GFP-labeled, ES-
     cell-derived neural precursor cells into the subretinal space 
     of the

[[Page 8608]]

     rhodopsin knockout mouse to determine the integrative 
     capacity of these cells and to evaluate their potential to 
     differentiate into retinal cells. Furthermore, any rescue 
     effects or associated complications exerted by the 
     transplanted cells were evaluated.


    materials and methods--ES cell cultivation and neural precursor 
                               selection

       ES cells of the cell line D3 of the mouse strain 129 were 
     purchased from ATCC (Manassas, VA). To keep ES cells in an 
     undifferentiated state, we cultivated them feeder cell 
     independent, with the supplementation of leukemia inhibitory 
     factor (LIF: 100 nM; Invitrogen-Life Technologies, 
     Gaithersburg, MD) in DMEM (Invitrogen-Life Technologies) plus 
     15% fetal calf serum (FCS) and the established supplements as 
     previously described. The cells were allowed to aggregate in 
     hanging drops to form embryoid bodies (EBs). Hanging drops 
     containing the EBs were rinsed off after 2 days and 
     subsequently cultivated in suspension (DMEM, 10% FCS) for 
     another day. Finally, at day 3, EBs were transferred to 
     tissue culture dishes (DMEM with 10% FCS) and allowed to 
     adhere for 12 hours. Selection of neural precursor cells was 
     achieved by cultivation in an astrocyte-conditioned, serum-
     free medium containing insulin, transferrin, selene chloride, 
     and fibronectin, as previously described. Selection was 
     performed for up to 18 days. The efficiency of the selection 
     procedure was continuously investigated immunocytochemically 
     with an antibody against the intermediary filament nestin, 
     which is specifically expressed in neural precursor cells. To 
     study the further differentiation of selected neural 
     precursor cells, we transferred them to a medium (DMEM/Ham's 
     F12) with a serum content of 10% FCS.
       For an alternative way to induce neurogenesis, ES cells 
     were cultured in hanging drops as spheroidal aggregates (EBs) 
     in DMEM supplemented with 20% FCS for 3 days. Afterward, EBs 
     were cultured in suspension in the presence of 0.1 M 
     retinoic acid for another 4 days.
                                  ____


       Engraftment and Tumor Formation After Allogeneic In Utero 
            Transplantation of Primate Embryonic Stem Cells

 [By Takayuki Asano, Naohide Ageyama, Koichi Takeuchi, Mikio Momoeda, 
  Yoshihiro Kitano, Kyoko Sasaki, Yasuji Ueda, Yutaka Suzuki, Yasushi 
 Kondo, Ryuzo Torii, Mamoru Hasegawa, Shigeo Ookawara, Kiyonori Harii, 
             Keiji Terao, Keiya Ozawa, and Yutaka Hanazono]

       Background. To achieve human embryonic stem (ES) cell-based 
     transplantation therapies, allogeneic transplantation models 
     of nonhuman primates would be useful. We have prepared 
     cynomolgus ES cells genetically marked with the green 
     fluorescent protein (GFP). The cells were transplanted into 
     the allogeneic fetus, taking advantage of the fact that the 
     fetus is so immunologically immature as not to induce immune 
     responses to transplanted cells and that fetal tissue 
     compartments are rapidly expanding and thus providing space 
     for the engraftment.
       Methods. Cynomolgus ES cells were genetically modified to 
     express the GFP gene using a simian immunodeficiency viral 
     vector or electroporation. These cells were transplanted in 
     utero with ultrasound guidance into the cynomolgus fetus in 
     the abdominal cavity (n=2) or liver (n=2) at the end of the 
     first trimester. Three fetuses were delivered 1 month after 
     transplantation, and the other, 3 months after 
     transplantation. Fetal tissues were examined for transplanted 
     cell progeny by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and in 
     situ polymerase chain reaction of the GFP sequence.
       Results. A fluorescent tumor, obviously derived from 
     transplanted ES cells, was found in the thoracic cavity at 3 
     months after transplantation in one fetus. However, 
     transplanted cell progeny were also detected (17) without 
     teratomas in multiple fetal tissues. The cells were solitary 
     and indistinguishable from surrounding host cells.
       Conclusions. Transplanted cynomolgus ES cells can be 
     engrafted in allogeneic fetuses. The cells will, however, 
     form a tumor if they ``leak'' into an improper space such as 
     the thoracic cavity.
                                  ____


 Teratoma Formation Leads to Failure of Treatment for Type 1 Diabetes 
       Using Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Insulin-Producing Cells

  [By Takahisa Fujikawa, Seh-Hoon Oh, Liya Pi, Heather M. Hatch, Tom 
                     Shupe, and Bryon E. Petersen]

       Embryonic stem (ES) cells have been proposed to be a 
     powerful tool in the study of pancreatic disease, as well as 
     a potential source for cell replacement therapy in the 
     treatment of diabetes. However, data demonstrating the 
     feasibility of using pancreatic islet-like cells 
     differentiated from ES cells remain controversial. In this 
     study we characterized ES cell-derived insulin-expressing 
     cells and assessed their suitability for the treatment of 
     type I diabetes. ES cell-derived insulin-stained cell 
     clusters expressed insulin mRNA and transcription factors 
     associated with pancreatic development. The majority of 
     insulin-positive cells in the clusters also showed 
     immunoreactivity for C-peptide. Insulin was stored in the 
     cytoplasm and released into the culture medium in a glucose-
     dependent manner. When the cultured cells were transplanted 
     into diabetic mice, they reversed the hyperglycemic state for 
     3 weeks, but the rescue failed due to immature teratoma 
     formation. Our studies demonstrate that reversal of 
     hyperglycemia by transplantation of ES cell-derived insulin-
     producing cells is possible, However, the risk of teratoma 
     formation would need to be eliminated before ES cell-based 
     therapies for the treatment of diabetes are considered. (Am J 
     Pathol 2005, 166:1781-1791)
       Diabetes mellitus is one of the major causes of death in 
     advanced countries, and has been shown to adversely affect 
     health and quality of life, It is associated with various 
     severe or fatal complications, including blindness, kidney 
     failure, heart disease, stroke, neuropathy, and amputations. 
     Type I diabetes, or insulin-dependent diabetes, results from 
     the cellular-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic 
     islet cells that are known to produce insulin. Type I 
     diabetic patients experience high blood glucose levels as a 
     result of insulin deficiency. There is no cure for this form 
     of diabetes to date. Several approaches have been used in 
     attempts to reverse the disease process for type I diabetes, 
     including whole organ pancreas transplant and islet 
     transplants. In addition, options such as the potential use 
     of pancreatic stem and progenitor cells are being 
     investigated. Currently, the only clinically approved 
     treatment for type I diabetes, with the exception of insulin 
     injection, is islet cell transplantation in combination with 
     immunosuppresive therapy. Unfortunately, this option is only 
     available to a very limited number of patients because of a 
     severe shortage of donor tissue sources. This shortage has 
     focused interest in developing renewable sources of insulin-
     producing cells appropriate for transplant.
       Embryonic stem (ES) cells have been proposed as a potential 
     source of pancreatic B cells because they are self-renewing 
     elements that can generate the many cell types of the body. 
     Recent studies suggest that mouse ES cells can be manipulated 
     to express and secrete insulin. However, insulin-producing 
     grafts derived from ES cells in these initial reports have a 
     high degree of cellular heterogeneity and proliferation, 
     uncharacterized growth and tumor-forming potential, as well 
     as low insulin levels compared to pancreatic islets. 
     Additionally, some researchers claim that the insulin-
     positive cells derived from ES cells may not be real insulin-
     producing B-like cells. In one study, contrary to previous 
     reports, no message for insulin was detectable in culture, 
     which suggested that the cells may be concentrating the 
     hormone from the medium rather than producing. Another study 
     showed that the main producers of insulin in culture were 
     neurons and neuronal precursors.

 Transplantation of Apoptosis-Resistant Embryonic Stem Cells Into the 
                        Injured Rat Spinal Cord

[Michael J. Howard, Su Liu, Frank Schottler, B. Joy Snider, and Mark F. 
                                Jacquin]


                                Abstract

       Murine embryonic stem cells were induced to differentiate 
     into neural lineage cells by exposure to retinoic acid. 
     Approximately one million cells were transplanted into the 
     lesion site in the spinal cords of adult rats which had 
     received moderate contusion injuries 9 days previously. One 
     group received transplants of cells genetically modified to 
     over-express bc1-2, which codes for an anti-apoptotic 
     protein. A second group received transplants of the wild-type 
     ES cells from which the be1-2 line was developed. In the 
     untransplanted control group, only medium was injected. 
     Locomotor abilities were assessed using the Basso, Beattie 
     and Bresnahan (BBB) rating scale for 6 weeks. There was no 
     incremental locomotor improvement in either transplant group 
     when compared to control over the survival period. Morbidity 
     and mortality were significantly more prevalent in the 
     transplant groups than in controls. At the conclusion of the 
     6-week survival period, the spinal cords were examined. Two 
     of six cords from the bc1-2 group and one of 12 cords from 
     the wild-type group showed gross evidence of abnormal growths 
     at the site of transplantation. No similar growth was seen in 
     the control. Pathological examination of the abnormal cords 
     showed very large numbers of undifferentiated cells 
     proliferating at the injection site and extending up to 1.5 
     cm rostrally and caudally. These results suggest that 
     transplanting KD3 ES cells, or apoptosis-resistant cells 
     derived from the KD3 line, into the injured spinal corddo 
     does not improve locomotor recovery and can lead to tumor-
     like growth of cells, accompanied by increased debilitation, 
     morbidity and mortality.
                                  ____


 Insulin Expressing Cells From Differentiated Embryonic Stem Cells Are 
                             Not Beta Cells

 [By S. Sipione, A. Eshpeter, J.G. Lyon, G.S. Korbutt, R.C. Bleackley]


                                Abstract

       Aim/hypothesis. Embryonic stem (ES) cells have been 
     proposed as a potential source of tissue for transplantation 
     for the treatment of Type I diabetes. However, studies 
     showing differentiation of beta cells from ES cells are

[[Page 8609]]

     controversial. The aim of this study was to characterize the 
     insulin-expressing cells differentiated in vitro from ES 
     cells and to assess their suitability for the treatment of 
     diabetes.
       Methods. ES cell-derived insulin-expressing cells were 
     characterized by means of immunocytochemistry, RT-PCR and 
     functional analyses. Activation of the Insulin I promoter 
     during ES-cell differentiation was assessed in ES-cell lines 
     transfected with a reporter gene. ES cell-derived cultures 
     were transplanted into STZ-treated SCID-beige mice and blood 
     glucose concentrations of diabetic mice were monitored for 3 
     weeks.
       Results. Insulin-stained cells differentiated from ES cells 
     were devoid of typical beta-cell granules, rarely showed 
     immunoreactivity for C-peptide and were mostly apoptotic. The 
     main producers of proinsulin/insulin in these cultures were 
     neurons and neuronal precursors and a reporter gene under the 
     control of the insulin I promoter was activated in cells with 
     a neuronal phenotype. Insulin was released into the 
     incubation medium but the secretion was not glucose-
     dependent. When the cultures were transplanted in diabetic 
     mice they formed teratomas and did not reverse the 
     byperglycaemic state.
       Conclusions/Interpretation. Our studies show that insulin-
     positive cells in vitro-differentiated from ES cells are not 
     heta cells and suggest that alternative protocols, based on 
     enrichment of ES cell-derived cultures with cells of the 
     endodermal lineage, should be developed to generate true beta 
     cells for the treatment of diabetes. [Diabetologia (2004) 
     47:499-508]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-five and a half minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take about 10 minutes or so, I 
suppose--maybe 15 at the most. Then I will yield back the remainder of 
my time for anyone who is interested in what is happening on the floor. 
I think Senator Isakson will follow up and close off the debate for the 
remainder of today.
  But I want to respond to a couple things that have been said that I 
was listening to both on the floor and off the floor so people 
understand that sometimes things are not as clear cut as perhaps they 
are presented. There are always two sides to every story, as we know.
  But I heard my good friend from Kansas talking about the type 1 
diabetes research that was conducted in Brazil. Indeed, the JAMA, the 
Journal of the American Medical Association, reported today they had 
some success with this. I just want to read, though, from the Juvenile 
Diabetes Research Foundation that obviously has been following this 
issue very closely. They said that today's report underscores the need 
for continued work across a range of important scientific areas. They 
said:

       For that reason, we continue to strongly support passage of 
     S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will 
     allow scientists to more fully explore this critical area of 
     research.

  I will not go into all of the things they are saying about the 
procedure. It is a risky procedure that happened in Brazil. They do not 
know at this point whether the people are really cured. Will their 
symptoms--diabetes symptoms--come back after a few months? No one 
really knows. But it is promising. Again, I am hopeful that research 
pans out. But I want to point out, the Juvenile Diabetes Research 
Foundation says that is fine, but still, let's get S. 5 passed so we 
can continue on with this needed research in embryonic stem cells.
  I also want to talk for a little bit about two or three issues. One 
is just the broader issue of why embryonic stem cell research has not 
yet led to human treatments. Well, scientists have been doing research 
on adult stem cells for over 30 years. There are no--I repeat, no--
arbitrary restrictions on research with adult stem cells. Scientists 
and private companies do not have to be skittish about doing this 
research. They do not have to worry about that all of a sudden the 
Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it.
  Now, compare that situation with embryonic stem cells. First of all, 
scientists did not even know how to extract them until November of 
1998. The first Federal grant for these stem cells was not awarded 
until 2002, and again on a limited number of lines that are available. 
Even now only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for stem cell 
research is used for embryonic stem cells. The vast majority still goes 
for adult stem cells.
  Here is a chart I have in the Chamber that shows that. Embryonic 
research lags far behind adult stem cells. For fiscal year 2006, the 
National Institutes of Health funding for embryonic stem cells, $38.3 
million; for adult stem cells, $200.3 million. So, again, people say: 
Well, why isn't embryonic stem cells doing more? You can see it is 
being totally underfunded as compared with adult stem cells.
  Again, we have not had the 30 years of research. There has been more 
than five times as much funding for adult stem cell research as for 
embryonic stem cells. So, again, scientists are studying embryonic stem 
cells with one arm tied behind their back.
  The fact is, it does not matter what many of the Senators think about 
the potential of embryonic stem cell research. What matters is what 
scientists think. What is their view, those who know this area, who are 
studying it, Nobel prize laureates, the head of NIH? Let's look at what 
the head of NIH--this is a man appointed by President Bush. He heads, 
as Senator Specter has often said, the crown jewel of the Federal 
Government; that is, the National Institute of Health. Here is what he 
said:

       The presentations about adult stem cells having as much or 
     more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not 
     hold scientific water. . . .I think they are overstated. . . 
     .My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research 
     should be pursued.

  That was Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the head of NIH.
  Breakthroughs are coming, but they take time. To clamp down on 
embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance shows a total 
lack of understanding about how science works. More importantly, it 
denies hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, 
ALS, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and other treatable 
diseases and conditions.
  Secondly, I want to respond to an issue that is presented in the 
Isakson-Coleman bill, S. 30--this whole idea of the promise of 
extracting embryonic stem cells from dead embryos. I must say--and I 
say to my good friend from Georgia--this still kind of mystifies me. As 
I said earlier, when something is dead, it is dead. I do not know 
anybody who can extract and bring back to life something that is dead. 
So we have to get over the idea we are talking about dead embryos. They 
are not dead; they are alive. They are living. They are living 
organisms. They are not dead. So again, an embryo dies or gets sick or 
ill for a reason. There is something wrong with it. Chances are the 
stem cells that come from that ``dead embryo'' aren't so great either. 
So why does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to, say, curing 
juvenile diabetes?
  Here is what three top scientists wrote about dead embryos:

       There is no proof that dead embryos will work. Beyond the 
     fact that scientists haven't developed a reliable method for 
     determining an embryo's ``death,'' there is no scientific 
     evidence that stem cells derived from these embryos would 
     have the required properties or be safe for human therapies.

  Paul Berg of Stanford, George Daley of Harvard, and Lawrence S. B. 
Goldstein of the University of California at San Diego, these three 
people have been involved in embryonic stem cell extraction research. 
They say there is no evidence this will have the required properties or 
be safe for human therapies.
  I want to read from the bill, S. 30. This is the definition of 
naturally dead:

       The term ``naturally dead'' means having naturally and 
     irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular 
     division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic 
     of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may 
     be alive in a disorganized state.

  Well, I have a hard time understanding that, but then this is not a 
scientific definition. I submit there is no scientific test to 
determine when an embryo reaches this state where they can say it won't 
differentiate or grow. It is an eyeball test. I have been told when 
people get in vitro fertilization and they produce embryos, the 
embryologist, if I can use that term,

[[Page 8610]]

will look at them and some exhibit better signs than others. Some look 
healthier than others, have more activity than others. These are the 
ones they will implant. The other ones that look healthy, they freeze. 
If there are some that don't look very healthy, they are discarded.
  I assume these are the ones we are talking about in S. 30; is that 
right?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am very 
grateful for the opportunity. The Senator from Iowa is exactly right, 
because he is describing in layman's terms what is known as the Gardner 
principles of in vitro fertilization. After an in vitro fertilization, 
at the end of 72 hours, clearly transplantable or implantable embryos 
are formed. Within the next 4 days, up to 7 days, additional viable 
embryos can actually be developed. At the end of the seventh day, the 
cellular division process stops. That is called Level III Gardner 
principles.
  To try and use layman's terms to answer the question, because the 
Senator from Iowa is a great Iowan and I am a Georgian, but I am not a 
scientist and he isn't either, and we are down here talking about some 
pretty complicated stuff, the best analogy to make in terms of a 
naturally dead embryo is the same description you have of death when 
someone donates their organs after a traumatic brain injury that causes 
an irreversible cessation of brain waves. By definition in all 50 
States, the individual is clinically dead and a living will or a 
durable power of attorney can direct what is done with the rest of 
their life in terms of transplanting organs or whatever. The same thing 
is true in the Gardner principles. After that seventh day, the cellular 
division stops. The embryo is not sick. The embryo is not handicapped. 
It is not transplantable and it can't become a fetus, but you can 
derive stem cells.
  I won't take any more of the Senator's time except to say one other 
thing. There are 21 lines grandfathered in the August 2001 order of the 
President that still have NIH money being invested. Five of those 21 
lines are lines which were derived from naturally dead embryos. For 
5\1/2\ years, the NIH has invested money in those lines that were 
derived from embryos that were destroyed and invested money in those 
that were derived from embryos that were naturally dead.
  I don't have the paper in front of me so I can't read it verbatim, 
but to go back to my opening remarks today, in each case they have 
found, in comparing those studies, of those lines over the last 5\1/2\ 
years, since August of 2001, that they are pluripotent, 
undifferentiated cells in lines BG01, 02, and 03, which are three of 
the five lines derived that way. So we have the NIH for 5 years 
investing in it. We have a clear scientific definition of what an 
embryo is, which is not a sick embryo, but it is a natural process in 
Gardner Level III principles of in vitro fertilization. What it does do 
is it allows you to address the ability to expand stem cell research 
without crossing the line or destroying a viable embryo.
  I yield back.
  Mr. HARKIN. No, no. I would ask my friend as we engage in this--and I 
have obviously been talking to scientists and others about this--we get 
into another problem, and I will read something from a scientist who 
wrote me a letter on this. Who decides? Who decides when that embryo is 
not implantable? How is that decided? I am told there is no scientific 
dividing line on that. It is sort of an eyeball test. One scientist 
might say no, another scientist may say yes. Your bill, with all due 
respect, does not give any clear delineation.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Again, if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. In the Gardner principles, all the doctors who perform 
the great science of in vitro fertilization, which has touched my 
family and many others--it is great research. It has allowed families 
to have children who couldn't. After the fertilization you have 3 
stages: 72 hours where you have clearly implantable embryos, at 7 days 
where you still can develop those embryos, and then the remainder which 
are embryos but do not have under the microscope the cellular 
collection and cluster of the 8 critical cells to make up an 
implantable embryo that becomes a fetus. That is made through a 
scientist, not a politician, looking into a microscope and making those 
decisions. Again, making the analogy to the irreversible cessation of 
brain waves, how do we scientifically today, when someone has a 
traumatic brain injury, determine if they are legally dead? It is done 
by measuring the brain waves, the same way an in vitro fertilization 
doctor would measure the cellular division and collection in the 
remaining embryos after the seventh day.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend for further clarification. 
Is it not true that some of these after 7 days could be implantable?
  Mr. ISAKSON. The only thing I can tell the Senator is the only doctor 
in the house, Senator Coburn, when asked that question in committee 
when we had the hearing--and I was at the hearing and so were you--
said: Any doctor who did that would be out of his mind because they 
would know the implantation could not result in a viable fetus and 
ultimately a child. That is my only--I am not a scientist, but that is 
the quote.
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me read, though, from a letter from George Daley, who 
is one of the foremost researchers on embryonic stem cell research at 
the Dana Farber Cancer Institute at the Harvard Medical School. Mr. 
Daley has testified, and I think he testified that day we were there. I 
wrote him a letter asking him about his views on using embryonic stem 
cells that have been called ``naturally dead.'' He said:

       Though some Senators might be persuaded to vote for 
     expanded funding for human embryonic stem cells derived from 
     ``naturally dead'' stem cells, this would be a step backwards 
     for embryonic stem cell research. The definition of a 
     ``naturally dead'' embryo as required in the alternative bill 
     is highly problematic. S. 5 remains the greatest hope for 
     advancing embryonic stem cell research in this country. The 
     concept that human embryonic stem cells might be derived from 
     a ``naturally dead'' embryo originated in an article authored 
     by Landry and Zucker in the Journal of Clinical Investigation 
     2004. The article contained the following passage:
       ``For a developed human organism, brain death marks the 
     irreversible loss of the capacity for all ongoing and 
     integrated organic function . . .''

  As we just mentioned.

       We propose--

  Get this:

       We propose that the defining capacity of a 4 or 8 cell 
     human embryo is continued and integrated cellular division, 
     growth, and differentiation. We further propose that an 
     embryo that has irreversibly lost its capacity, even as its 
     individual cells are alive, is properly considered 
     organismically dead. Even at its earliest stages, the life of 
     the developing organism is more than the sum of the lives of 
     its constituent cells.

  So again, they propose this. It is not an accepted scientific 
principle. The cessation of brain waves is, on the living organism, an 
accepted scientific fact, but this is only a proposal.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I quoted from that very study today. 
Those are two distinguished scientists at Columbia University in New 
York. That paper proposes a principle in terms of future development 
and decisions. However, I want to repeat for the Senator, in 2001, in 
August, when the President signed his directive, 5 of the 21 lines that 
are currently invested in by NIH are those that were developed from 
naturally dead embryos.
  Dr. Steven Stice, the eminent scholar of the Georgia Research 
Alliance and at the Institute at the University of Georgia operates 
those three lines today under NIH supervision. They were all derived 
from naturally dead embryos, and the research they are quite famous for 
already in terms of addressing diabetes is taking place on those lines.
  So I agree 100 percent with everything the Senator read. I read that 
paper and I have quoted from that paper. It was just put in front of me 
and I don't have my glasses on, so I will not get into the big words 
either. But you are absolutely correct. That was a proposal made on the 
premise of for the future, but that does not mean the practice did not 
already exist.

[[Page 8611]]

  Lastly, the Gardner principles are an accepted principle for in vitro 
fertilization which have been in existence for decades that clearly 
delineate the decision between 72 hours, 7 days, and naturally dead 
embryos.
  I yield back to the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a good discussion.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Dr. George Daley be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Children's Hospital Boston,


                                       Department of Medicine,

                                        Boston, MA, April 2, 2007.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I am responding to your request to 
     provide my views on the feasibility of deriving human 
     embryonic stem cells from embryos that have been called 
     ``naturally dead.'' This concept is articulated in bill S. 30 
     pending before the U.S. Senate that states: ``It is the 
     purpose of this act . . . to promote the derivation of 
     pluripotent stem cell lines without the creation of human 
     embryos for research purposes and without the destruction or 
     discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo or 
     embryos other than those that are naturally dead.'' An embryo 
     that is ``naturally dead'' is later defined as ``having 
     naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated 
     cellular division, growth, and differentiation that is 
     characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the 
     former organism may be alive in a disorganized state.''
       Some senators might be persuaded to vote for expanded 
     funding for human embryonic stem cells derived from 
     ``naturally dead'' embryos at the expense of voting for 
     expanded research support under S. 5. This would be a step 
     backwards for embryonic stem cell research. The definition of 
     a ``naturally dead'' embryo, as required in the alternative 
     bill, is highly problematic, and S. 5 remains the greatest 
     hope for advancing human embryonic stem cell research in this 
     country.
       The concept that human embryonic stem cells might be 
     derived from a ``naturally dead'' embryo originated in an 
     article by Landry and Zucker (Journal of Clinical 
     Investigation, 2004). The article contained the following 
     passage: ``For a developed human organism, brain death marks 
     the irreversible loss of the capacity for all ongoing and 
     integrated organic functioning. We propose that the defining 
     capacity of a 4- or 8-cell human embryo is continued and 
     integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation. We 
     further propose that an embryo that has irreversibly lost 
     this capacity, even as its individual cells are alive, is 
     properly considered organismically dead. Even at its earliest 
     stages, the life of the developing organism is more than the 
     sum of the lives of its constituent cells.''
       IVF clinics grade embryos based on morphologic criteria 
     that have been shown in limited studies to correlate with 
     successful births (see Gardner et al., Fertil Sterility 
     2000). Embryos of highest morphologic quality are transferred 
     to the uterus or frozen for possible future use, and embryos 
     of poor morphologic quality are discarded because they have 
     little possibility of surviving freezing and thawing. Some 
     have argued that these poor quality embryos might be 
     considered ``dead'', and therefore provide a more acceptable 
     source for ES cells.
       In actual clinical practice, even poor quality embryos that 
     might be considered ``naturally dead'' by in vitro criteria 
     can give rise to successful pregnancies. Landry and Zucker 
     propose studies that would correlate failure of an embryo to 
     divide in vitro with certain biomarkers that could serve as 
     surrogate criteria for embryo death. However, any such 
     definition of embryo death that depends on in vitro criteria 
     only is scientifically problematic, as embryo incubation in 
     vitro is not as conducive to embryo development as the native 
     in uterine environment. I also cannot envision an ethically 
     acceptable clinical study that would correlate the pregnancy 
     outcomes of enough poor quality embryos to ensure the 
     reliability of criteria for ``embryo death.''
       Using poor quality embryos for ES cell derivation will 
     inevitably mean destroying some embryos that might have 
     resulted in a successful pregnancy. I am skeptical that we 
     can devise any highly reliable criteria to define embryo 
     death that will appease the critics of ES cell derivation.
       My laboratory has accumulated significant experience with 
     attempts to derive human embryonic stem cells from poor 
     quality embryos--those that are deemed by clinical 
     embryologists to be unsuitable for clinical use and are 
     destined to be discarded as medical waste. We are preparing 
     our data for publication in the scientific literature and 
     thus I offer the following summary for informational purposes 
     only. I will provide you with the final version of our paper 
     once it has been subject to peer-review.
       Our experience shows that the poorest quality embryos have 
     the lowest probability of yielding ES cells. Out of 
     approximately 100 embryos that would most likely be 
     considered ``naturally dead,'' we isolated only a single 
     human ES line. Although the chromosomes in this cell line 
     appear normal, I worry that this line might harbor occult 
     genetic defects. Out of approximately 100 embryos that 
     developed slightly better in vitro (yet were still deemed 
     clinically unacceptable and discarded) we derived 5 ES lines. 
     This efficiency is within the expected success rates for 
     human ES cell derivation from healthy embryos; however, I 
     suspect that these lines may have arisen from those embryos 
     that are not truly ``naturally dead.'' Again, I am highly 
     skeptical that any clinical study can be designed that will 
     reliably exclude embryo viability and yet maintain 
     feasibility for deriving human ES cells.
       I am left to wonder why we would choose to allow only poor 
     quality embryos for medical research when many thousands of 
     normal embryos are otherwise destined to be discarded as 
     medical waste. I believe we should respect the preference of 
     many couples to donate such excess embryos to medical 
     science, and believe that such embryos are preferable as 
     objects for medical research and possible sources for cell 
     replacement therapies. Human embryonic stem cell research is 
     vitally important for the future of medicine and should be 
     vigorously supported by our federal government. Senate 
     passage of S. 5 is the most sure-fired means of achieving 
     this end.
       I am available to answer more detailed questions about this 
     complex issue.
           Sincerely.
                                         George Q. Daley, MD, PhD,
                         Associate Professor, Biological Chemistry
                                       and Molecular Pharmacology.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, he pointed out in this letter that 
sometimes in actual clinical practice even poor quality embryos that 
might be considered naturally dead can, by in vitro fertilization, give 
rise to successful pregnancies. He says he also ``cannot envision an 
ethically acceptable clinical study that would correlate the pregnancy 
outcomes of enough poor quality embryos to ensure the reliability of 
criteria for `embryo death.'''
  He is saying that the quality for in vitro may be different for in 
utero. Therefore, it might be a poor quality in vitro, but that doesn't 
necessarily mean it would be poor quality for implantation in utero. He 
raises this ethical question.
  He says:

       I am skeptical that we can devise any highly reliable 
     criteria to define embryo death that will appease the critics 
     of embryonic stem cell derivation.

  What you are talking about is the Gardner principle, which has to do 
with what embryos they implant. That is what that really has to do 
with. So therefore, sure, you are going to take the healthiest, most 
vibrant embryo that you are going to implant, first of all, with the 
hope that it will develop. I still say to my friend that while you can 
take the ones that don't develop after a week or so and say we will 
take the stem cells from them--and some happen that way. That is fine. 
But it just sort of begs the question, if you really want to derive the 
best stem cells, why wouldn't you use the healthiest embryos rather 
than the sickest embryos? I am not a scientist, but to me it seems that 
if you want the best, most vibrant and healthy stem cells, you go after 
the most vibrant and healthy embryos that have been frozen in vitro 
fertilization, as our bill says, that otherwise will be discarded. That 
is my point.
  I will soon yield. But I am not opposed to the Senator's bill. I am 
not opposed to looking at this kind of stem cell derivation. I don't 
have a problem. I think there are problems defining exactly when it 
dies and that kind of stuff. But if you pass S. 5, that takes care of 
all that, and it covers that whole issue. It would seem to me, again, 
that you would want to go after the healthiest and use the healthiest 
ones.
  Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator is a distinguished member of the Senate and 
a great debater. I want to make one point. Both the Senator's bill and 
the bill we have introduced and the added ethical criteria you placed 
in this year's bill prohibit the fertilization of eggs for the purpose 
of research.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
  Mr. ISAKSON. If that is the case, when the Senator made the statement 
that I was only talking about those used in in vitro, which is 
different from in utero, which I guess meant implantation, both bills 
do exactly the same thing. You would never create fertilization farms 
for research purposes under your legislation, nor under S. 30.

[[Page 8612]]


  Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Those embryos developed in in vitro fertilization would 
in all cases be eggs fertilized for the purpose of creating a viable 
embryo.
  Mr. HARKIN. Right.
  Mr. ISAKSON. The difference, with all due respect--and I have great 
respect for the Senator and the character and the quantity and the 
content of this debate--if you ultimately want to further embryonic 
stem cell research in the environment that we have, the Gardner 
principle division in in vitro fertilization for level 3 for the 
natural death of the embryo, that bridges the ethical question on the 
destruction of an embryo that was otherwise viable and would be 
something the White House would sign. So it would further embryonic 
stem cell research under a proven method which exists today, and NIH, 
in five different cases, is invested in in terms of BG01, 02 and 03, 
which happen to be the lines with which I am familiar. With all due 
respect, since we both prohibit the fertilization of eggs for the 
purpose of deriving cells for scientific research, it is a matter of 
how you draw that line.
  I appreciate the Senator giving me the time to make that explanation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, it is a good debate. We should have more of these 
kinds of exchanges on the Senate floor. I respect my friend, and I 
respect his approach. Again, we have our differences in the way we 
approach things. I picked up on one word my friend just said--the 
``environment'' in which we are operating. I assume he means the 
environment being the Presidential declaration of August 9, 2001, that 
only Federal funding could be used for stem cells derived prior to 9 
p.m. but none after that. I assume that is the environment we are 
talking about.
  Mr. ISAKSON. If the Senator will let me respond, that is precisely 
what I am talking about. As we have had 5\1/2\ years since the 
Presidential directive, and since we--fortunately, and unbeknownst to 
me certainly, and probably the Senator from Iowa, none of us knew you 
would have these five lines in those original lines that were 
grandfathered. So we have had 5\1/2\ years of experience at NIH, with 
lines derived without destroying physically a viable embryo, but it 
would, rather, be a natural death. So since you have that, and since it 
doesn't cross that ethical line, that is what I was referring to. And 
you would have the opportunity to further the science in a bill that 
can be passed and not vetoed. So, with all due respect, that is what I 
was referring to.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is what I thought. My proposal is to change the 
environment. That is what we have to do. I say we have to change the 
environment. The American people want it changed, the scientific 
community wants it changed, the head of NIH--former head of NIH and 525 
different advocacy groups out there want it changed. Why should one 
person--the President of the United States--have the say-so of what is 
moral and what is not moral, depending upon a time?
  Mr. ISAKSON. May I respond?
  Mr. HARKIN. Sure, but why is 9 p.m. of August 9 the moral dividing 
line that Federal funds can be used on stem cell lines? Before that it 
is moral, but after that it is immoral. I cannot understand that.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I will never, hopefully, debate or question any 
individual's judgment and morality. I admire it in everybody, and I 
admire the Senator from Iowa and his principles. The President has made 
his statement and has said what he would do. My reference was that if 
science, in the last 5\1/2\ years, has shown us this is a way to 
further that science without crossing that line, then with respect for 
his principles and morals, I am looking to find ways that fit rather 
than ways to argue. That is my point.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. We have to do what we can do sometimes 
here. Certainly, we have been funding adult stem cell research. Senator 
Specter and I have made certain of that in our Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. And also $132 million for embryonic--those 21 lines.
  Mr. HARKIN. Don't get me started on that because those have all been 
contaminated on mouse feeder cells. My friend from Oklahoma said that 
was not true the other day, but it is true. They have been growing on 
mouse feeder cells, every one of them. Again, we don't know if they 
will ever be able to be used for any kind of human therapies. Maybe 
yes, maybe no. We do know that the 400-some stem cell lines derived 
since then privately, or by State involvement, or whatever, have not 
been used on mouse feeder cells. We know those, more than likely, will 
have the capacity of being used in human therapy.
  I respect people's morality, but I just don't know that I like it 
when somebody imposes their self-imposed morality on all of the 
American people. I respect the President's moral views, I really do. 
But I have a hard time understanding how the President can say Federal 
funding should not be used for embryonic stem cell research if they 
were derived after 9 p.m., August 9, 2001, and before that it is 
morally OK. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand 
that.
  If it is morally unacceptable to use Federal dollars for embryonic 
stem cell research, then it ought not to be used for these 21 lines 
either.
  Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator makes the point, but if the Senator will 
yield, I will simply respond.
  The President issued that directive in August of 2001. He established 
that date of August 9. The White House has now said that in the case of 
S. 30, had the stem cells survived from the naturally dead prohibition, 
they would live.
  That is not everything the Senator from Iowa would like. I understand 
and respect that. Acknowledging the nice things you said about the 
legislation, it is a ray of sunshine in the furtherance of that 
research. I am grateful to the Senator for the time he has allotted me.
  Mr. HARKIN. Quite frankly, that is why I don't have any problems with 
this line of research. All I can say to my friend is that all of the 
scientists who write me letters and who have weighed in on this issue, 
and the groups that rely upon scientists and Nobel laureates, they all 
say that this might be an area of interest, but it doesn't substitute 
for lifting the ban. I am hopeful. I guess I am a hopeful person.
  I am hopeful that the President will understand that we are not 
asking him to cross his moral line. He said repeatedly through his 
spokespeople, very recently, that the one bright line the President 
will not cross is using Federal funds to destroy embryos. I wish they 
would read the bill. S. 5 doesn't provide money for the destruction of 
embryos. We don't do that now. We have not done it in the past. So, 
therefore, this bill should be able to be signed because it doesn't 
provide one single cent of taxpayer dollars for the destruction of 
embryos. Of course, neither does the bill of the Senator from Georgia; 
of course not. So that is why I am a hopeful person, thinking that the 
President or his people will read this and say: You are right. We have 
stricter ethical guidelines in this bill than exist right now.
  So I am hopeful. I am hopeful that we can get this job done.
  Anyway, I just wanted to make one other point tonight before I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Before the Senator does that, I appreciate the Senator 
asking the questions and allowing me the opportunity to respond and, 
hopefully, in some way clear up, if not totally at least say where we 
are coming from based on the scientists I have talked to. I respect him 
very much.
  Mr. HARKIN. I wish we could do more of this on the Senate floor. By 
having respect for one another's opinions and thought processes and 
sources of information, I think we can get a clearer understanding of 
where people are coming from. Lots of times we give our speech and 
leave and nobody is around discussing anything.
  Some of the best times I have had on the Senate floor were debating 
Phil Gramm of Texas. We used to get into some good debates. He was 
always willing to give and take and talk back and forth in a congenial 
manner. We need more of that on the floor of the Senate. That is just 
my opinion.

[[Page 8613]]

  Mr. President, I want to say one other thing that came up. Again, it 
has to do with understanding these kinds of moral lines, so to speak. 
It is true that we all started out as an embryo. I want to remind 
people what an embryo is. It is a blastocyst that has between 100 and 
200 cells. The embryos we are talking about in S. 5 are sitting in in 
vitro fertilization clinics and are frozen in liquid nitrogen. They are 
smaller than a period at the end of a sentence, and they are stored in 
tiny straws like this.
  What I am holding up here is one of the devices used to store 
embryonic stem cells in liquid nitrogen. They take this top off here, 
if I can get it off. They have a little tube like this. In this tube, 
the opening of which is about as big as the end of a period at the end 
of a sentence, they would put in that little tube an embryo. Then they 
would put it in this enclosure and put it in liquid nitrogen in a tank 
and freeze it. Then if the couple who donated the embryos were 
unsuccessful in having children--I have a couple friends of mine who 
are now doing that, and their first pregnancy wasn't successful. They 
were going back for a second. They get one of these frozen embryos, 
thaw it out, and it is implanted in utero. So that is what these tiny 
little straws are.
  An embryo will never become a human being unless and until it is 
implanted into a uterus, takes hold, and develops. Sometimes they are 
implanted and they don't take hold; they are discharged.
  So an embryo is what I think we can rightfully call potential life--
potential in that if it is implanted and takes hold, it could become a 
human being. Therefore, it is potential.
  Let's look at another chart.
  This is Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. She is 12 years old and has 
type 1 diabetes. These are all the needles she uses in 1 month, 120. 
Think: How would you like to give yourself four shots every day? Look 
at all those needles she goes through every month at 12 years of age. 
Karli has juvenile diabetes, as I said. She knows what will happen if 
she is not cured. At some point in her life, she will probably become 
blind. She will probably lose a foot, a leg, or one or more of her 
limbs. At some point in her life, diabetes will take her.
  This is not potential life. This is real life--a human being living 
right now.
  That embryo stored in liquid nitrogen, is it alive? Of course. It is 
not dead, it is alive. Is it a human being? No. It is a potential human 
being. Karli Borcherding is a real human being.
  So read S. 5. Under the ethical guidelines of this bill, NIH can fund 
research only on those embryos which are left over from in vitro 
fertilization and which would otherwise be discarded. Every day, 
fertility clinics discard unwanted embryos. Last year, 50,000 babies 
were born to couples who wanted to have a baby, couldn't, and wanted in 
vitro fertilization. Out of those 50,000, a lot of embryos are left 
over. When a couple has had one child, two, three--however many they 
decide--and they have leftover embryos, what happens to them? The 
clinic calls them up and says: If you want to keep them, you have to 
pay us every month. Parents may say: We don't want them anymore, we 
have had all our children. And if you are not willing to pay to keep 
them frozen for the next 200, 300, 400, 500, 1,000 years or however 
long, they are discarded. It happens every day of every week of every 
year.
  What we are saying and what the real question is, as long as we have 
leftover embryos, is it better to have them discarded and flushed down 
the drain or used for the kind of scientific research that would one 
day cure Karli Borcherding?
  What we are talking about is potential life, potential life frozen in 
nitrogen, or we are talking about real life. That is really the 
difference--potential life that would otherwise be flushed down the 
drain versus Karli Borcherding and her real life. That is why I think 
Senator Hatch had it correct. He said the real pro-life position is S. 
5. That is the real pro-life position.
  As I have said before, once an embryo is discarded in an in vitro 
fertilization clinic, it is discarded. It is dead. But if that embryo 
was taken and the stem cells are taken out and those stem cells are 
propagated, they are alive. They don't die; they are alive. They 
continue to be alive. They are developed into nerve tissue, bone 
tissue, heart muscle tissue that some day--or they could be developed 
into the kinds of cells that would help Karli Borcherding become 
insulin free. That is what this debate is about.
  It seems to me, if this is a moral problem for the President or 
anybody else, we ought to have legislation that would shut down every 
IVF clinic in this country. Shut them down and ban the procedure in the 
United States because there are leftover embryos. If it is immoral to 
take those embryos, even with the written, informed consent of the 
donors, with no money changing hands, and if they are going to be 
discarded anyway, if that is immoral, wouldn't it be immoral to just 
discard them? But you have to do one or the other.
  Senator Brownback talked about adoption. I am all for that. That is 
fine. If couples want to adopt babies from in vitro fertilization 
clinics, that is fine. But as I said, we have 400,000 frozen embryos 
right now; 50,000 babies born every year from IVF. I think we have had, 
what, 135 adoptions. That is fine. They can be adopted, and there may 
be a lot of donors who have donated embryos. They have had their 
children, but they really don't want to have other people having their 
children. That raises other kinds of ethical questions. They might want 
to say: We would rather donate that for stem cell research to save 
Karli Borcherding's life.
  We have to come to grips with this issue. Is it OK to have IVF 
clinics, is it OK to have in vitro fertilization? If that is the case, 
then we have to take it step by step and confront reality. The reality 
is in vitro fertilization is legal, it is acceptable. It provides 
couples with children they otherwise could not have, and the reality is 
that there are leftover embryos. We have to confront that reality. What 
do you do with them? They are not all going to be adopted. We have to 
agree that is an impossibility. So are they going to be discarded or 
with the consent of the donors be used for embryonic stem cell 
research? That is really the question.
  I think there is really only one answer, and that is what all the 
scientists--I say all, the vast majority of scientists, Nobel 
laureates, the head of NIH, the former head of NIH, 525 advocacy groups 
representing all diseases and injuries in the United States that you 
can imagine, why they all say that S. 5 is the bill we have to pass, 
that we have to enact into law to take the handcuffs off our 
scientists. That is why it is so important we have a good solid vote 
for this bill tomorrow.
  With that, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his patience and his 
kindness.
  I yield back whatever time we have remaining on our side for today's 
purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa. I have also enjoyed today and appreciate the 
questions, and hopefully we can do it throughout the rest of the debate 
so when people cast their votes they are informed.
  By way of interest, when we talked about the embryonic stem cell 
lines derived from naturally dead embryos, I thought it would be 
appropriate to end my remarks today by just acknowledging that lines 
BG01 and 02, which are under NIH funding now, which were grandfathered 
in the President's directive, and which were derived from naturally 
dead embryos, were the lines upon which the research was applied that 
has developed the first product to be marketed from embryonic stem cell 
research, pending patent, to deliver neural progenitor cells which will 
be the cells that deliver pharmaceutical and other therapy for spinal 
column and brain injuries.
  So it is very important to understand that not only is the process, 
A, an accepted process, B, currently under funding at NIH, C, covered 
under the

[[Page 8614]]

President's directive of 2001, but in that 5\1/2\ years since, research 
on two of those lines derived from naturally dead embryos is, in fact, 
producing a remarkable potential product for better health in all of 
America.
  With that said, I, too, yield back all of our time and again thank 
the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the stem cell bills on Wednesday 
following the opening of the Senate, there be 6\1/2\ hours remaining 
for debate, with the time controlled 1\1/2\ hours each: majority and 
Republican leaders or their designees, Senators Harkin and Brownback; 
with the time until 12:30 divided as follows: 90 minutes under the 
control of Senator Harkin or his designee and 45 minutes each for 
Senators Coleman, Isakson, and Brownback; that at 12:30 p.m., the 
Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conference 
work periods; that at 2:15 p.m., the time until 5:15 p.m. be allocated 
in the same manner, with the final 30 minutes equally divided and 
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the 
majority leader controlling the final 15 minutes; that at 5:45 p.m., 
without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of S. 5, to be followed by a vote on the passage of S. 
30; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to the second vote with the 
time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees; that the other provisions of the order governing the 
consideration of these bills remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________