[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8709-8713]
[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--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the issue of stem cell research, when 
those stem cells are derived from human embryos, is one of the most 
profound of our time. Confronting this issue means confronting a 
dilemma, one I am sure every one of my colleagues has grappled with as 
much as I have.
  On the one hand, many scientists believe that research using stem 
cells holds the promise of one day curing diseases. But we must also 
remember that the embryos from which these stem cells are derived are 
human life. Extracting the stem cells destroys the embryo and ends that 
life's possibility. The moral boundaries this research crosses is 
greatly troubling to me, and to many others.
  But what is too often missing from this important debate is a simple 
fact of modern science: Encouraging medical research and protecting the 
sanctity of life are not mutually exclusive goals.
  I have always believed that biomedical research must be conducted in 
an ethical manner that respects human life. Now I am pleased to report 
that new scientific research tells us that view is more possible than 
ever.
  This promising new research points the way out of the moral dilemma 
that embryonic stem cell research has always thrust us in.
  Alternative methods for research and the potential for cures are 
often simpler and more efficient and don't require the destruction of 
life.
  They have scientific advantages over the older method as well. That 
means that everybody who wants to find a cure for any of man's most 
devastating diseases, and find it fast, should support this form of 
research wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.
  With our votes, this Senate can advance this promising research 
through the power of Federal funds, and we can happily provide those 
funds without fear of offending the principles of millions of 
Americans.
  I thank my good friend from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, and my good 
friend from Georgia, Senator Isakson, for sponsoring this bill and 
giving the Senate this opportunity. I also commend Senator Specter and 
Senator Brownback who have led the debate on the competing measure upon 
which we will also be voting shortly.
  The Coleman-Isakson bill, S. 30, the HOPE Act, is a solution Senators 
from both parties can embrace and a solution that the President will 
sign into law.
  We should leave behind the heated debates of the past, pitting the 
hope for a cure to end human suffering against the need to protect life 
at all its stages, including its earliest.
  Last year, a minority of Members in the other body voted to block 
legislation promoting newer methods of research, such as the methods 
this bill will support. I don't understand that. The only explanation 
would be that they value the political clash and debate more than 
finding common ground--and more than the hope this research can bring.
  But this Senate can and should move forward united on the HOPE Act, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I want to stress to everyone just how much the possibility of finding 
cures for these life-altering diseases means to me personally. I have 
known what it is like to feel the shadow of a debilitating disease 
draped over one's life. As a child, I suffered from polio.
  When I was 2 years old, I came down with an infection that felt a lot 
like the flu. But after the fever passed, my left leg had gone lame.
  The only reason I am able to stand here today unaided is because of 
the heroic efforts of my mother. She was not a doctor or a nurse, but 
she fought as hard as she knew how to save her only son from being 
trapped forever in a leg brace.
  For 2 years, my mother put me through a physical therapy regimen 
taught to her by the doctors at Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for 
Rehabilitation, which was, of course, founded by President Roosevelt. 
That was over in Warm Springs, GA. From age 2 to 4, I was not allowed 
to walk or to run.
  But after 2 years of my mother's care, I was able to have a normal 
life. A lot of kids at that time in the 1940s were not so lucky. Some 
were paralyzed for life. Some were sentenced to an iron lung. Many 
died.
  So believe me, Mr. President, when I say I understand the urgency to 
find cures for the afflictions that are today's polio. I remember when 
the prayers of my mother and mothers across the country were answered 
when Dr. Jonas Salk developed his polio vaccine in 1955. To prove the 
new vaccine was safe, Dr. Salk administered it to himself, his wife, 
and their three children. As he did so, he was asked how he could dare 
his and his family's lives on his new treatment. He replied:

       It is courage based on confidence, not daring--and it is 
     confidence based on experience.

  Dr. Salk's wisdom ought to guide us today. The daring path is the one 
that asks us to destroy a life for the possibility that we might save 
another. If we go down that route, we are daring to ruin America's long 
and proud record of upholding the highest moral and ethical standards 
as we seek out new solutions, new cures, and new hopes.
  Then there is the path of confidence--the confidence that, thanks to 
new technologies and new methods of research, scientists can explore 
the promise of embryonic stem cell research without destroying the 
human embryo.

       Like Dr. Salk's, this confidence is based on experience--
     the experience of America's best scientists who are pursuing 
     these new methods of research.

  The next Dr. Jonas Salk is out there. Providing the money for these 
methods of research through this bill is how this Senate can help.
  I am a believer in the power of science and technology to improve 
people's lives. I saw it firsthand as a young boy.
  Like all of my colleagues, I have great hope for the cures that we 
will one day find. The Coleman-Isakson bill is something Senators of 
both parties can support. I hope that they will. Millions of Americans 
with loved ones in need hope that they will. And I look forward to the 
successful passage of this bill so America's dominance in medicine and 
medical technology can continue to move forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  How much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes 35 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on this side 
to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his support and 
particularly Meg Hauck who has been of immense value to us throughout 
the entire process of this deliberation.
  I thank majority leader Harry Reid and his staff on the floor for the 
equitable and fair way in which they allocated time in support of this 
debate.
  I thank Tyler Thompson on my staff, Chris Carr, Joan Kirchner, and a 
former member of my staff who retired but started this journey with me 
some time ago, Brittany Espy; also, Dr. Steven Stice at the University 
of Georgia, whom I have quoted many times on this floor in the course 
of the last 20

[[Page 8710]]

hours of debate, but a scientist like many in America who seeks to find 
cures for diseases not yet cured, who understands the potential, the 
vibrance, and the hope of embryonic stem cell research and found ways 
to develop those embryonic stem cells that are compatible with the 
directive of the President of 5 years ago but offer new, expanded hope 
and reality for research in the future.
  I particularly pay a compliment to Senator Harkin who has been the 
floor manager on S. 5 throughout this debate. He has been very 
cooperative in every way in allowing us to share our thoughts on two 
distinct bills, S. 5 and S. 30.
  I want to quote Senator Gordon Smith. Senator Smith, in his speech, 
said these bills should not be looked at as competitors but as 
companions. I agree with that statement because they seek to accomplish 
the same thing, although they travel down a highway that differs 
slightly.
  The minority leader has accurately expressed the hopes and dreams and 
aspirations of all Americans, and that is for us to be a catalyst at 
the Federal level, to ensure that breakthroughs in health, in medicine, 
and in science take place, and that we are never a hindrance or 
obstacle to that taking place, while at the same time respecting 
concerns of all Americans as we go down that path.
  Senator Coleman of Minnesota has been a tremendous leader in this 
effort and has brought many of the portions of S. 30 to reality through 
his research, through his dedication, and through his compassion. As he 
said so often, he and Senator Harkin and myself understand we can do 
better, we can do more, we can reach out, and we can do so without 
crossing those lines that cause us trouble or may become an obstacle to 
further research.
  So I conclude my remarks by thanking my colleagues in the Senate for 
their patience and their listening over the last 20 hours. My sincere 
appreciation to Senator Harkin for his cooperation, my praise for 
Senator Coleman and his contribution, and my hope and belief that 
Members of the Senate will look favorably on S. 30 so we can move 
science forward in the research of embryonic stem cells and the hope 
and promise they bring to all Americans.
  I yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have risen many times over the past years 
in support of the legislation that is now before this body, legislation 
that will unlock the hope of stem cell research for millions of 
Americans and tens of thousands of Nevadans who suffer from cancer, 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, heart 
disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and many other diseases.
  Initially, I extend my appreciation to Senator Harkin. Others worked 
hard on this legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein have 
done a wonderful job, but Senator Harkin, from his position as the 
chair and/or ranking member of the labor subcommittee on 
appropriations, has worked with Senator Specter--back and forth, the 
two of them have worked to come up with stem cell legislation.
  Senator Harkin has been a pioneer and a leader in this cause. I 
admire and respect him for a lot of what he has done as a longtime 
Member of the Senate, but I know I have more respect for him for what 
he has done on this legislation.
  He has a tremendously good staff: Erik Fatemi, Ellen Murray, and 
Adrian Hatlett. They have done good work.
  I have to throw a bouquet to my longtime, very important legislative 
advocate whom I have working for me, Carolyn Gluck. She has worked very 
hard on this issue. I appreciate her hard work.
  I have spoken in the past about a man I met who is in a wheelchair in 
Boulder City, NE. This man suffers from Parkinson's. I asked him why he 
was in his wheelchair. He told me. After this legislation was vetoed by 
President Bush, he felt so bad because he believes with this 
legislation he will be able to walk again and not be confined to that 
wheelchair.
  I have spoken of an 18-year-old twin from Las Vegas. She came to 
Washington for the first time when she was a little girl. She has 
suffered from juvenile diabetes for most of her life. She has had tens 
of thousands of needle pricks over these years--tens of thousands. But 
this 18-year-old girl still remains optimistic because of this 
legislation--optimistic for a healthy adulthood. Not only does she feel 
that way but her twin sister feels the same way.
  I have spoken of a 23-year-old man from Henderson who just weeks 
after his high school graduation was in a car accident which left him a 
quadriplegic and whose mother wrote to me a plaintive letter hoping, 
praying because of this legislation her son one day will lead a more 
normal life.
  The plight and suffering of these friends and neighbors pains my 
heart. But sadly, their stories are far from unique. Mr. President, 100 
million Americans suffer just like them. Those who suffer are parents, 
are children, are friends, are our neighbors. They know that stem cell 
research is not a guarantee or imaginable, but they know it holds 
promise, they know it holds hope, real hope, yes, scientific hope. They 
know it because the world's leading experts tell us so.
  In a letter to President Bush, 80 Nobel laureates wrote:

       . . . for disorders that prove not to be treatable with 
     adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell 
     research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who 
     may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness 
     of adult stem cells is evaluated.
  This is a statement from 80 Nobel Prize winners.
  According to the National Academies of Science, research on both 
embryonic and adult stem cells is needed ``to most effectively advance 
the scientific and therapeutic potential of regenerative medicine.''
  In a letter dated a few days ago, April 9, Dr. Harold Varmus, former 
Director of the National Institutes of Health and now the President of 
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and also a Nobel laureate wrote:

       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 of the testing of new drugs. Unfortunately, 
     current Federal policy, in place since 2001, has not kept 
     pace with the speed of scientific discovery and is today of 
     limited value to the scientific community.

  A man whom I have met, Dr. Jeffery Bluestone, a leading diabetes 
researcher and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of 
California, San Francisco, said:

       We have made great strides in understanding the role of the 
     immune system in diabetes, but fully pursuing both embryonic 
     and adult stem cell research will build on our current 
     successes and could be critical in the ultimate treatment and 
     cure of patients who suffer from this disease.

  I have spoken to him personally, and he has said we are going to 
cure, in the next few years, diabetes. They need this ability to go 
forward.
  The other day I received a letter signed by more than 500 leading 
organizations from all around the country. It crossed the political 
spectrum. It includes the AARP, the American Medical Association, 
Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the Mayo Clinic, the Episcopal Church, Iraq 
Veterans for a Cure, the American Diabetes Association, Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Cancer Center, Harvard University, and the Parkinson's Action 
Network--to name 11 of 500 organizations.
  They spoke with one voice in support of S. 5, writing:

       The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will move stem cell 
     research forward in our country. The bill holds promise for 
     expanding medical breakthroughs and hope for millions of 
     patients and their loved ones.

  Even President Bush's own Director of the National Institutes of 
Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, endorsed the need to pursue embryonic stem 
cell research in addition to alternative forms of research. At a Senate 
hearing a few weeks ago he said:

       It's not possible for me to see how we can continue the 
     momentum of science and research with the stem cell lines we 
     have at NIH. . . . [F]rom my standpoint as NIH director, it 
     is in the best interests of our scientists, our science, and 
     our country that we

[[Page 8711]]

     find ways and the nation finds a way to go full-speed across 
     adult and embryonic stem cells equally.

  Americans, by a huge majority, favor stem cell research because they 
see the suffering of their own friends and relatives and neighbors, 
similar to those described in my introduction today. They hear the 
opinions of experts similar to those I just mentioned and they put 
their faith in science.
  Californians, by ballot, voted, they agreed to spend billions of 
their own State Treasury on stem cell research, thus challenging the 
obstinacy of President Bush.
  Congress has supported this important cause already. Two years ago 
the House of Representatives passed something called H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act, with bipartisan support. Last year the 
Senate followed suit, as Republicans and Democrats united to pass a 
bill that will expand the number of stem cell lines available to 
federally funded researchers, while ensuring that strict ethical 
guidelines are followed.
  Yet when we sent this bipartisan bill to President Bush's desk, he 
responded with a veto--his only veto in 6 years, taking away the hope 
for millions.
  Today, as hundreds of millions of Americans wait for progress, our 
scientists, our innovators are marking time, waiting for President Bush 
to keep hope alive. The wishes of the American people and the 
overwhelming weight of evidence, scientific evidence, should trump the 
narrow ideology of President George Bush.
  Yesterday and today we debated S. 5, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act, a bill that is similar to the one both the House and 
Senate passed last year with strong bipartisan support. The House 
passed it again this year. S. 5 authorizes federally funded research on 
stem cell lines derived from excess embryos from fertility clinics, 
embryos that would otherwise be discarded--discarded, thrown away, 
trashed. These potentially discarded embryos could and should be used 
to advance lifesaving research.
  At the same time, our bill acknowledges the important ethical issues 
at stake and enacts stronger research guidelines than exist in the 
President's current policy. Because we believe that all forms of 
promising research should move forward, S. 5 includes a provision that 
supports the advancement of alternative forms of stem cell research 
based on the Santorum-Specter bill that passed the Senate unanimously 
last year.
  Tonight the Senate will also consider another measure sponsored by 
Senators Coleman and Isakson. Similar to our bill, theirs would promote 
research in alternative methods for deriving stem cells, some say. 
However, unlike our bill, this bill would retain the President's 
restrictions on stem cell research. The legislation is, in my opinion, 
more political than substantive, more political than scientific. The 
Coleman-Isakson bill is not a substitute for S. 5.
  I know some of my colleagues will disagree. I am not going to vote 
for it. I think S. 30 is a cover vote, and I am not going to provide 
any cover. S. 5 is the only bill being discussed that will lift the 
restrictions that are impeding scientific research and can lead to new 
treatments and cures of many dread conditions and diseases. For the 100 
million Americans who suffer from diseases that could be treated as a 
result of stem cell research, there is simply no alternative to S. 5.
  By supporting the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we are renewing 
our faith in society's steady march forward. Whether expanding our 
frontiers, putting a man on the Moon, or mapping the human genome, 
America has always embraced great scientific challenges that hold even 
greater promise. It is who we are and it is a commitment to the 
American people that we must honor.
  Jonas Salk, a great American scientist who moved science forward 
regarding the dread polio or, as they called it, infantile paralysis, 
when he invented the vaccine, once said, ``Our greatest responsibility 
is to be good ancestors.''
  If we give our scientists the tools to succeed and give hope to the 
millions who suffer, we will be doing just that, good ancestors.
  I yield any time I have.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Also, before the Chair enters an order, I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the second vote that we have this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the two bills will 
be read for the third time, en bloc.
  The bills (S. 5 and S. 30) were ordered to be engrossed for a third 
reading and were read the third time, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill (S. 5) having been read the third 
time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Louisana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Louisana (Ms. Landrieu) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dodd
     Johnson
     Landrieu
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 63; the nays are 34. Under the 
previous order of March 29, 2007, requiring 60 votes for passage of 
this bill, the bill is passed.
  The bill (S. 5) was passed, as follows:

                                  S. 5

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498C the following:

     ``SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary 
     shall conduct and support research that utilizes human 
     embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section 
     (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived 
     from a human embryo) .
       ``(b) Ethical Requirements.--Human embryonic stem cells 
     shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or 
     supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that 
     have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were 
     created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were

[[Page 8712]]

     in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking 
     such treatment.
       ``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and 
     through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility 
     treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be 
     implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
       ``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated 
     the embryos with written informed consent and without 
     receiving any financial or other inducements to make the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall annually 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress a report describing the activities carried out under 
     this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including 
     a description of whether and to what extent research under 
     subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.), as amended by section 2, is further 
     amended by inserting after section 498D the following:

     ``SEC. 498E. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL 
                   RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the 
     Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied 
     research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, 
     production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic 
     stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the 
     cell types of the developing body and may result in improved 
     understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse 
     health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
       ``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Director, shall issue final guidelines 
     to implement subsection (a), that--
       ``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required 
     for additional research, which shall include a determination 
     of the extent to which specific techniques may require 
     additional basic or animal research to ensure that any 
     research involving human cells using these techniques would 
     clearly be consistent with the standards established under 
     this section;
       ``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for 
     near-term clinical benefit; and
       ``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account 
     techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics 
     and any other appropriate techniques and research.
       ``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of 
     each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing 
     the activities carried out under this section during the 
     fiscal year, including a description of the research 
     conducted under this section.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--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.
       ``(e) Definition.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `human embryo' 
     shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable 
     appropriations Act.
       ``(2) Applicable act.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to 
     the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or 
     supported under this section, the Act making appropriations 
     for the Department of Health and Human Services for such 
     fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does 
     not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act 
     for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the 
     applicable appropriations Act.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2010, to carry out this section.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of S. 30. Under 
the previous order, there will be two minutes evenly divided before the 
vote. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise in favor of S. 30. Last year the 
Senate passed a similar measure, Specter-Santorum, 100 to nothing. The 
reality is that S. 30 goes beyond what Specter-Santorum did. When the 
dust settles and S. 5 is vetoed, the only real opportunity to expand 
pluripotent embryonic stem cell research is through S. 30. I ask my 
colleagues to please put politics aside and to do the right thing.
  I plead with my colleagues, on behalf of all of those who have looked 
to us and asked for hope to move the science of stem cell research 
forward in a way that does not divide but unifies, do what we did last 
year, 100 to nothing, keep hope alive, vote in favor of S. 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the bill we just passed, S. 5, does 
everything that S. 30 does. That was already said in the debate the 
other day. S. 5 has already passed by an overwhelming vote. Everything 
that S. 5 does is in S. 30. So the next vote really doesn't make any 
difference one way or the other, because by passing S. 5, we allow to 
be done what is done in S. 30.
  Secondly, I have always taken the position that we should not tell 
scientists what to do and what not to do within the ethical guidelines 
we have established. What S. 30 says is: Go ahead and investigate. I 
don't know if using so-called dead embryos and extracting stem cells 
will work. I am not a scientist. But I don't want to handcuff the 
scientists and tell them they can't research it. As far as I am 
concerned, a vote for S. 30 is saying again what we committed to do in 
S. 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is now on 
the passage of S. 30. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--28

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clinton
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70; the nays are 
28. Under the order of March 29, 2007, requiring 60 votes for the 
passage of this bill, the bill is passed.
  The bill (S. 30) was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 30

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hope Offered through 
     Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act'' or the ``HOPE 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) intensify research that may result in improved 
     understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse 
     health conditions; and
       (2) 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.

     SEC. 3. HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498C the following:

[[Page 8713]]



     ``SEC. 498D. HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct and support 
     basic and applied research to develop techniques for the 
     isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells, 
     including pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of 
     embryonic stem cells (whether or not they have an embryonic 
     source), that may result in improved understanding of or 
     treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, 
     provided that the isolation, derivation, production, or 
     testing of such cells will not involve--
       ``(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for 
     research purposes; or
       ``(2) the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury 
     to, a human embryo or embryos other than those that are 
     naturally dead.
       ``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final 
     guidelines that--
       ``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required 
     for additional research, which shall include a determination 
     of the extent to which specific techniques may require 
     additional animal research to ensure that any research 
     involving human cells using these techniques would clearly be 
     consistent with the standards established under subsection 
     (a);
       ``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for 
     near-term clinical benefit;
       ``(3) consistent with standards established under 
     subsection (a), take into account techniques outlined by the 
     President's Council on Bioethics and any other appropriate 
     techniques and research; and
       ``(4) in the case of research involving stem cells from a 
     naturally dead embryo, require assurances from grant 
     applicants that no alteration of the timing, methods, or 
     procedures used to create, maintain, or intervene in the 
     development of a human embryo was made solely for the purpose 
     of deriving the stem cells.
       ``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of 
     each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing 
     the activities carried out under this section during the 
     fiscal year, including a description of the research 
     conducted under this section.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as altering the policy in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this section regarding the eligibility of stem 
     cell lines for funding by the National Institutes of Health.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) 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.
       ``(2) Human embryo or embryos.--The term `human embryo or 
     embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human 
     subject under part 46 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as of the date of enactment of this section, 
     that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, 
     or any other means from one or more human gametes or human 
     diploid cells.
       ``(3) Risk of injury.--The term `risk of injury' means 
     subjecting a human embryo or embryos to risk of injury or 
     death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in 
     utero under section 46.204(b) of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, and section 498(b) of this Act.''.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL AMNIOTIC AND PLACENTAL STEM CELL BANK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine 
     for the conduct of a study to recommend an optimal structure 
     for an amniotic and placental stem cell bank program and to 
     address pertinent issues to maximize the potential of such 
     technology, including collection, storage, standards setting, 
     information sharing, distribution, reimbursement, research, 
     and outcome measures. In conducting such study, the Institute 
     should receive input from relevant experts including the 
     existing operators of federal tissue bank programs and the 
     biomedical research programs within the Department of 
     Defense.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Institute of Medicine shall 
     complete the study under subsection (a) and submit to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services and the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the results of such study.

  Mr. COLEMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                            Vote Explanation

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want the record to reflect that I 
would have voted ``aye'' on the previous vote on S. 5 had I been able 
to be here. I was traveling today for a funeral and was unable to get 
back. Subsequently, I voted ``aye'' on the bill that just passed. But I 
would like the record to reflect that had I been able to make the first 
vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________