Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act

Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Specter on an exemplary opening statement on this 2-day debate we will be engaged in and also thank him, as I will in my formal statement, for his leadership over the past several years on so many issues of health care, and this one in particular. I am proud to join him in this effort, as I have for the last year, to try to get H.R. 810 to come up.

Mr. President, we have waited a long time for this day to come, I think too long. We could have and should have voted on H.R. 810 more than a year ago after it passed in the House with a strong bipartisan majority. So we have lost some valuable time. But more to the point, America's best medical researchers have lost valuable time. But be that as it may, H.R. 810 has finally come to the Senate floor, and we will vote on it tomorrow afternoon.

I thank majority leader Bill Frist for brokering the agreement to make this vote possible. It took courage for him to announce last summer that he supports the bill. And it took courage for him to schedule this vote. I have already commended him privately, and I commend him publicly as well.

Again, I thank Senator Specter for leading the effort to promote stem cell research for so many years. He chaired the very first hearing in Congress on embryonic stem cells, as he said in his remarks, in December of 1998. And, again, just repeating what Senator Specter had said--but for the sake of emphasis--our Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee has held 18 hearings on this research since then.

Senator Specter and I also introduced the very first bill in Congress on stem cell research in January of 2000. So Senator Specter and I have traveled a long road together, and I thank him for being such an extraordinary leader and partner in this effort.

I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell research: Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Smith, and Senator Kennedy. Counting Senator Specter and myself, there are three Republicans and three Democrats on the list who have led the effort to bring up H.R. 810 and pass it, and it has been a truly bipartisan effort all the way.

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 are so eager to see H.R. 810 sent to the President's desk for his signature. They have kept the faith. Now it is our job to see they are not disappointed.

Under the UC agreement, we will debate and vote on three bills. But make no mistake, the only one that really matters is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This is the one bill that, at long last, will unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern times.

So, as we begin this debate, it is a good time to step back and ask: Why is there so much support for H.R. 810? Hundreds of patient advocacy groups have endorsed the bill; so have dozens of Nobel Prize winning scientists, dozens of research universities, and, I might add, so has the American public. Polls now show that 72 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research--72 percent--compared with 24 percent who oppose it. That is a 3-to-1 margin. So the American people--three out of four--are in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

Why? Well, the answer is very simple. Embryonic stem cell research offers real hope--real hope--for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, real hope for people with Parkinson's, real hope for people with spinal cord injuries, real hope for people with heart disease, real hope for people with diabetes, real hope for people with cancer, real hope for people who suffer from autoimmune diseases such as lupus. All told, more than 100 million Americans have diseases that one day could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research. Here is just a brief list of them: cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, birth defects, severe burns-- millions of Americans who could be cured or helped with stem cell research.

But it is not just Members of Congress who are saying it; we have asked top scientists. Senator Specter and I sent letters to the National Institutes of Health last week. Senator Specter referred to that in his remarks. We asked their top scientists for their thoughts on stem cell research. Every single one of them said embryonic stem cell research offers enormous potential. We asked 19 NIH scientists-- heads of the different individual institutes--and all 19 agreed.

Here is what Dr. Zerhouni, the NIH director, wrote to us:

Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for

treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease.

This is from Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the director of the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. She wrote:

Embryonic stem cell research has vast potential for

addressing critical health [care] needs.

And it is not just NIH scientists who believe this way. In a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1989, he writes:

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.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Scientists agree: embryonic stem cell research offers enormous hope--real hope-- for easing human suffering.

Now, some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already supports embryonic stem cell research. What about the speech the President gave 5 years ago?

Well, let me try to explain the President's policy as was enunciated 5 years ago. He gave the speech on August 9, 2001. I remember it well. I was listening to it. I was on the road. I was listening to it on the radio.

The President, at that time, said that federally funded scientists could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the stem cells had been derived prior to 9 p.m., August 9, 2001. Well, I thought to myself at the time--and I have thought since--that is rather odd. It is morally OK to do research on stem cells derived before 9 p.m., but it is not morally acceptable to do research on stem cells derived after 9 p.m.? Well, I thought to myself, why not 9:05? What about 9:15 p.m. or 9:30 or midnight? Why was 9 p.m. the magic cutoff hour on August 9, 2001?

Well, clearly it was totally arbitrary. That just happened to be when the President gave his speech. But for whatever reason, the President said only those lines derived by 9 p.m. August 9, 2001, were eligible for federally funded research.

At the time, after I checked into it, some of us were hopeful that the policy would work. But it has not, and here is why. When President Bush announced his policy, he said 78 stem cell lines were available. Many people thought 78 stem cell lines might be enough, might have enough genetic diversity to actually do the kind of research we needed. But as the years progressed, we found that only 21--only 21--of the approved lines are actually available for study; not 78, only 21.

We found out something else I did not know at the time. All 21 of these lines are contaminated by mouse cells. In other words, the embryonic stem cells were grown on mouse cells, so they are contaminated, making it highly unlikely ever to be used for any kind of human therapy. I ask: Would any of you want to have stem cells used for your illness if they were contaminated with mouse cells? I do not think so, and neither do the scientists. And the other thing we found out is that now many of the 21 lines are too unhealthy to use. They have actually become sick.

Dr. Nabel of the NIH Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute wrote to me that only four of these lines are in common use--four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, another NIH director, director of the general medical sciences, said there are about six lines in common use.

So what is happening now is that these policy restrictions are making our scientists work with one arm tied behind their back. It is having a chilling impact on scientists thinking about entering the field.

Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the NIH Drug Abuse Institute, said it is stifling interest in research. She said:

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.

Well, if you are a research scientist at one of our hundreds of universities around the country, and you are eligible for NIH funding, would you want to do research on only four lines that may not lead to anything? Would you put in a proposal to do that? You could be one of our budding genius researchers. You might want to put your efforts and endeavors into something else rather than a dead-end policy.

So I submit that the President's policy is not a way forward, it is a dead-end street. It offers only false hope--false hope; not real hope, 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 deadline of August 9, 2001. These lines are uncontaminated. They are healthy. But they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists. I do not mean just scientists who work at NIH; I am talking about all the scientists who work in all of our universities and research institutions across America. They are off limits--off limits. They cannot use it. It is really a shame.

I was listening to Senator Specter earlier talk about some of the earlier pronouncements, some by the Catholic Church, back in the Middle Ages, some by--he mentioned another Calvinist Church--I don't know who all he mentioned--but the views at that time and how we look back and say: How could they have been so blind to prohibit certain activities, such as using cadavers for scientific experimentation to learn how the body works so we could perhaps cure illnesses and diseases?

I was listening to that, and I thought: We have new stem cell lines, uncontaminated with mouse feeder cells, healthy, ready to go. Scientists cannot use them. And I thought: We do not require astronomers today to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. We do not tell our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available.

And, again, I would not want anyone to take just my word for it. I think Dr. James Battey knows more about stem cell research than anyone at the National Institutes of Health. He runs the stem cell task force there, and this is what he wrote when I asked him whether it would help our scientists to have access to more stem cell lines. Here is his direct quote:

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. For this reason, the

scientific community would be best served by having a greater

number of human embryonic stem cell lines available for

study.

That is from a letter to me from Dr. James Battey, chair of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, dated July 13, 2006.

Dr. Volkow of the Drug Abuse Institute was even more blunt. She wrote:

Access to a wider array of embryonic stem cell lines would

definitely increase scientific opportunity and the chances of

breakthrough discoveries.

I should note that scientists in many other countries around the world do not face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. When you talk 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. They do not have arbitrary barriers like that in England, and that is a big reason so many of the major advances in stem cell research are happening there rather than in the United States.

So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers real, meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what H.R. 810 would provide.

Under this bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line regardless of the date it was derived as long as strict ethical guidelines are met. I think it is important to run through some of those ethical guidelines.

First, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. As Senator Specter pointed out, there are more than 400,000 embryos in the United States left over from fertility treatments that are currently sitting frozen in storage. The moms and dads have had all the children they want; they no longer need any more of these embryos, and most of them will be discarded. It happens every single day at fertility clinics around the country. People have used in vitro fertilization, had their children, and they don't want any more. Rather than continue to pay the facility to store them and freeze them, they call up and say we don't want them anymore. The facility discards them. It happens every day.

All we are saying is, instead of discarding them as leftover embryos, let's allow couples, if they wish, to donate them to create stem cell lines that can cure diseases and save lives. The choice is this: Throw them away or use them to ease suffering and, hopefully, cure diseases.

It is the second choice that I believe is truly moral and truly respectful of human life. Again, I have to emphasize, as I will today and tomorrow time and time again, H.R. 810 does not create any new embryos. Not one new embryo will be created under H.R. 810--only

those left over in in vitro fertilization clinics, and only if the moms and dads give their written consent.

As I said, the second ethical requirement requires them to provide informed written consent. Again, a lot of people don't realize this, but the President's policy is a little fuzzy on the matter of informed and written consent. Some of the 21 federally approved lines-- especially those coming from other countries--don't meet that requirement. So we need to pass H.R. 810 to tighten the ethical guidelines on stem cell research, so there is no question that the embryos were donated voluntarily.

Finally, H.R. 810 prohibits anyone from being paid to donate embryos. There is no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go through the donation process against their will. So no money can change hands. The three ethical guidelines, to repeat, are: One, we can only use excess embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics; second, there must be informed written consent for the donation of those embryos; and third, no money can exchange hands to pay for any of these.

Let me address one more issue, and that is the matter of the so- called alternative ways of deriving stem cells. Some opponents of this will speak today and tomorrow and argue that we don't need to pass H.R. 810. Instead, they say, we should put our current stem cell research on hold in hopes that some new way of deriving stem cells will pan out some time, hopefully, in the future.

That would be a tragic mistake. I support any ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. In fact, Senator Specter and I included language in our appropriations bill last year urging NIH to support research on alternative ways of deriving stem cells. But not one of these so-called alternative methods has ever succeeded in producing a stem cell line. Right now, they are just theories. Maybe one day, 5 years or 7 years or 10 years or 15 years from now, one of these methods will pan out. But maybe not.

I think this chart tells the story. The NIH estimates that there are about 400 stem cell lines worldwide, almost all of which were derived after the President's arbitrary cutoff date of August 9, 2001. Every one of these lines was derived the same way, using embryos that were left over from infertility treatments that would otherwise have been discarded. So you see on the chart ``stem cell lines derived using current method,'' and we have about 400 stem cell lines worldwide. Now, how many lines were derived using unproven alternative methods? Zero. It is 400 to zero.

Yet we will hear today and, I think, tomorrow from some who say we should pass other bills. We should not use the proven method we have, but we should go to alternative methodologies. We know right now that zero stem cell lines have been derived from using those alternative methodologies.

Again, should we pursue these alternative methods? Of course. This is no prohibition against that. We should open every door we can in the ethical pursuit to cures. But meanwhile, people we love are dying from Parkinson's and ALS, and children are suffering from juvenile diabetes. Should we say wait another 5, 7, or 10 years and see if we can derive stem cells from these alternative methods? Maybe we can, maybe we cannot. If we cannot, what do we do then? Say the doors are all closed? Meanwhile, we have many stem cell lines derived from leftover embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics.

Another point about the alternatives bill. Even if Congress were to pass it and the President signs it, it has absolutely no impact on the progress of stem cell research. That is because the other bills we are voting on here don't authorize anything NIH cannot do already. We had a hearing. Senator Santorum, the author of that bill, was at the hearing. We had people from NIH. Senator Durbin was there and he asked the question:

Can you tell me whether S. 2754--

which is another one of the companion bills we will be voting on tomorrow--

authorizes research on stem cells at the NIH that currently

is not permissible or legal?

Dr. James F. Battey at NIH said:

No, it does not.

That was on June 27 of this year. So the alternatives bill, S. 2754, might not do any harm, but it doesn't do any good either. It just says, NIH, you can do what you can already do. Well, that is fine with me; I have no problem with that. But don't be fooled into thinking that S. 2754 somehow takes the place of H.R. 810. It doesn't.

That is one more reason we need to focus on H.R. 810.

In closing, my nephew Kelly is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. He has been a quadriplegic for about 27 years since suffering a spinal cord injury in a terrible accident while he was in the U.S. Navy and serving on an aircraft carrier. Kelly's hope has been that sometime scientists will finally find a way to mend his spinal cord so he can walk again. He has been following very closely the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research. His hope, like the hope of Christopher Reeve's, was--we all remember him, our first ``Superman''; he fought so hard for embryonic stem cell research before he passed away. They both hoped embryonic stem cell research would lead to a breakthrough that would allow them to walk again. Kelly asks all the time: When is the Senate going to vote on

Mr. President, my time is up. Again, this is going to be a good debate, a good airing of the issues. Tomorrow we will vote on this bill and send it to the President. I am hopeful that the President, after reviewing it and looking at what happened in the past--the new things that have come to light because of the mouse feeder cells and the contamination of those lines--will sign the bill and give real hope to millions of Americans.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

The Amyotrophic Lateral

Sclerosis Association,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2006.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators: The ALS Association (ALSA) strongly supports

the Senate's consideration of legislation to advance stem

cell research. We are grateful for the bipartisan efforts of

Senators to bring this important issue up for a vote before

the August Congressional recess and are particularly

appreciative of the leadership on this issue demonstrated by

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-

Mr. President, I have a letter from a number of different groups endorsing H.R. 810. It is patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific institutes, religious groups, and others. There are 205 groups listed here. I will not go through all of them, obviously, but I think it is important that all of these groups be laid upon the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have a letter from the American Society for Cell Biology. The letter was sent to Senator Hatch, dated July 17. It says:

The Senate will shortly be considering legislation to

permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund

research with additional and new and existing human embryonic

stem cell (hESC) lines. As staunch supporters of biomedical

research and particularly research with hESCs, we trust that

you will exert your influence to ensure passage of H.R. 810.

Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on you and

like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage.

The President must also be persuaded not veto this

legislation for if we continue on the path he set five years

ago, United States investigators will be out of the running

in coverting embryonic stem cells into important new

therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that

American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant

funds for research with the hundreds of hESC lines generated

outside the United States or generated in this country with

private funding.

I note there are 27 leading scientists on this letter, 17 of them having received the Nobel Prize for medicine in one form or another.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Yes.

I am not intimately knowledgeable of all of the nuances in research that is being done. We had hearings, and we have the information in our hearing record on a lot of that. Standing here now, I don't know all of that.

Will the Senator repeat that? I was reading something.

Let me respond this way: First, I note that the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, which represents families all over America who are affected with juvenile diabetes, is in support of H.R. 810. I want that on the record. In fact, they have been one of the strongest supporters.

Second, the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic cells is already known to reverse the most damaging symptoms of type 1 diabetes. The problem with that is the limited number of organ donors out there who donate pancreases. That seems to be the problem.

Could I ask the Senator, are there enough pancreas donors out there to take care of everyone with juvenile diabetes?

I have heard this argument before. I am not a scientist. I don't know all of the nuances, I would be the first to admit. I do know, however, that every time that has come up, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Association disagrees that this is a viable pathway toward curing all of those with juvenile diabetes.

How many people have been cured of juvenile diabetes with this?

Is it not being done in the United States?

Have any of these findings been published?

I would appreciate that.

I thank the Senator. There is a good colloquy.

I would further ask the Senator from Oklahoma--this has been done for 3 months--do we have any data to show that this does cure juvenile diabetes? Does it abate it somewhat? I don't know what the outcomes have been for these eight or nine people.

I thank the Senator.

I again say that all the Nobel scientists, all of the leading scientists in America simply do not agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. These are the people involved in cell biology and that kind of research.

The Senator says embryonic stem cells will produce tumors. We do not know that is true. We do not have any real long-term data to know anything about how embryonic stem cells will work later on.

Mr. President, I know that one of the cosponsors of the bill, one of the great leaders in the Senate on stem cell research, has arrived on the floor to speak. I know the Chair will be recognizing her shortly.

I wanted, again, to just take a moment to sort of repeat for emphasis sake what has been said before. I think the distinguished majority leader referred to that also. It is just that here we have an instance where so many leading scientists around, U.S. Nobel Prize winners, and all the disease groups--I submitted a compendium of about 205, and I think that may soar to 500 or 600 by the end of the day--are supporting

Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator from Kansas--I will even do it on my time. I guess our next speaker is not here right now. If the Senator from Kansas would perhaps engage me in a colloquy, I would ask about the gentleman whose picture he has up there. How is he doing now? I understand that, frankly, while his Parkinson's was relieved for a while, it has reverted and he is back in his previous state. Does the Senator know about that?

I say to my friend, I don't understand that. I have a chart here that shows stem cell funding, embryonic stem cell funding, is $38.3 million last year and adult stem cell funding is $200 million. You are telling me out of $200 million they can't help one individual?

Plus, I ask my friend from Kansas, if this is so promising, why is the entire Parkinson's network that represents all the people with Parkinson's disease 100 percent behind H.R. 810? Why are they so supportive of H.R. 810 and not this approach?

I say to my friend from Kansas--and I see Senator Nelson is here to speak. He had previously been

scheduled to do so--first, I didn't see all the figures the Senator sent to the desk. I would like to see those. I heard him talk about a half billion dollars. Frankly, what the Senator from Kansas is talking about is animal embryonic. We are talking about human--human experiments here, not animal.

I am more interested in the human than I am about human and animal.

Second, on cancer and tumors, it is my understanding--I am not a scientist, but in talking with the scientists--the fact that an undifferentiated stem cell causes cancer is exactly what they are looking for. It is the gold standard. I thought it was the gold standard for determining whether you have an embryonic stem cell.

Let me see if I can repeat it as told to me. If you derive a stem cell line from an embryo, you don't really know if you have stem cells. So the scientists take the undifferentiated cells and put them in a mouse to see if it causes cancer. That is the gold standard--to see whether there is a stem cell line.

No one is talking about putting undifferentiated cells into your body or mine or anyone else's. We are talking about undifferentiated cells and then finding how they make nerve cells, how they make heart cells, how they make tissue cells, how they make brain cells. Only after they are differentiated would they then be put into a person, not undifferentiated.

I hear all about the terms. I heard that earlier this morning. I thought I would check up on it. That is what I found out.

I would be glad to engage in a colloquy.

They are tumors. That is what I heard the Senator say.

I don't know. I am a little confused. Is the Senator saying, if a stem cell has been introduced and is undifferentiated, it causes cancer or teratoma?

But the fact is the inference from some of the statements, I think, is that thus far stem cells, when introduced, cause cancer. That is not so. That has not been proven. That has not been proven at all.

Tumors but not cancer.

We have gone down a lot of blind alleys in medical research in the past. I have often said that one of the reasons for basic research is that you have 11 doors that are closed. The answer to the problem and the answer to your endeavor may be behind one of those doors. When you have enough funding to open one door, you know what the odds are against you finding it. Or if you have funding for half, then you know what the odds are against you opening the right door. A lot of doors don't lead to anything. A lot of basic research goes down the path, and they find out that is not the answer. So they have to shift to something else. That happens all the time. That is what basic research is all about.

I do not know the specific thing. I am not surprised that many things in the past that scientists have gone down the road on have not led to something curative or therapeutic or something like that which helps us.

That doesn't mean that we have tried something before with devastating effects which doesn't say that we can't then do embryonic stem cell research.

I get back to the point that when you have almost every disease group in this country supporting the bill that is before us, H.R. 810, you have Nobel laureates, scientists, doctors, and you have 19 Directors of NIH saying that thi has great potential, then I say, again, to my friends that you have to make either one of two assumptions. Either all of these people have been hoodwinked and they do not know what they are talking about or they have no care or concern about ethics or morals or anything else. I think both assumptions are wrong. I think these people know. They are informed. They may not know every little thing medical doctors might know, but they know the potential.

Second, I think they are vastly ethical and moral people.

I hope we will have some further colloquies on this later.

The Senator has been very kind. I think we can engage at some other point.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I yield that time to the Senator from Kentucky. We had a colloquy earlier that maybe we can find some time before 5 for Senator Dorgan to speak. I yield the floor.

If I might, as a manager, we are on strict time limits. At 5 o'clock, Senator Kennedy gets 25 minutes and then 5 minutes goes to Senator Reed. At 5:30, it goes back to the other side. If we take time here and there, it spills over, and someone is going to lose time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of a Senator on our side to speak on the stem cell issues. Until that happens, I will take a couple of minutes to talk about something my friend from Kansas brought up earlier today about adult stem cell treatments.

I am reading a letter from Scienceexpress, a publication of Science magazine. It is entitled, ``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.

Again, it exposed most of these as kind of being bogus. One of those listed was testicular cancer. Testicular cancer is not being treated with adult stem cells, at least not successfully. In fact, according to the Sciencexpress article, the study that is supposed to be the basis for that claim is actually a study on how to isolate adult stem cells.

The Senator from Kansas also has a list that included several leukemias and lymphomas. Let's hear what George Dahlman of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has to say about that.

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 H.R. 810, 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.

Mr. Dahlman concludes:

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society asks that you and your

colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes.

All in all, according to the science journal, only nine diseases of the 65 examined have proved to even respond to treatment with adult stem cells.

The authors of the analysis conclude that claims about stem cells being in general use for 65 diseases are false. Such claims ``mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients.''

Again, we are going to hear a lot of talk about all we can do other than embryonic stem cell research. This should not be a debate about whether we do adult stem cells, cord blood, or all these other things. They are all worthy of research.

Those that are for adult stem cell research, cord blood, bone marrow research, that type of thing, all say they want to do that to the exclusion of embryonic stem cells. Those who are in support of H.R. 810 say let's do them all and do them all in an ethically acceptable manner.

Again, we have strong ethical guidelines. One, we do not create any embryos with this bill. You can only use the embryos that are already existing in IVF clinics that are left over that will be discarded. Second, we must have written informed consent of the donors. Third, no one can get paid; no money can change hands. You cannot entice someone to donate these embryos with money. We have strong ethical guidelines.

Lastly, I have heard comments today time and time again about how this bill, H.R. 810, involves the destruction of embryos. I challenge anyone to show me where in H.R. 810 it provides for the destruction of any embryos. Under the Dickey-Wicker amendment that is now existing, no Federal funds can be used to destroy embryos. All H.R. 8l0 says is that once stem cells are derived through private means or whatever, then Federal funds can be used to go to universities or to other researchers to study these embryonic stem cells.

There is nothing in this bill, and I challenge anyone to show me in H.R. 810 where it provides for the destruction of any embryos; it does not. To say otherwise is being disingenuous. The Dickey-Wicker amendment still applies. No Federal money can be used for the destruction of embryos, plain and simple.

I see my colleague from Illinois is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Washington is here to make her statement on this bill, and I would yield the floor to Senator Murray for her comments.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her very eloquent statement, and I thank all of the Senators who have come over here today to speak on this important issue.

We have about 20 minutes left in this half hour. I don't have any other Senators right now, but if there are other Senators on our side who wish to take a few minutes to speak on this bill, I would be glad to yield to them.

However, I would like to take this time to sum up, if I can, what we have heard today. We have come to the end of our first day of debate on stem cell research, and I think it has been a very enlightening debate and a very good exposition of the different sides of this issue. I hope the American people who have tuned in to watch this have learned a great deal about why we need to pass H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As we know, that bill passed the House by a bipartisan majority over a year ago, and I think it has a strong bipartisan majority here in the Senate. Certainly the bill itself is sponsored bipartisanly. If we can pass it tomorrow--and I am confident we can and we will--H.R. 810 can go straight to the President's desk.

I would like to reiterate a few things we have heard today.

First, H.R. 810 has enormous popular support. I have here a letter that was just transmitted to me, and it is a list of different advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups, and other interested institutions and associations representing millions of patients, scientists, health care providers, and advocates, writing in strong support for H.R. 810. They point out in this letter that this is the bill which holds promise for expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, are not substitutes for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 810.

This letter is signed by 590 advocacy groups. I have been on this Senate floor now 21 years. We all get letters and things that come in expressing support, but I daresay I have never seen anything as overwhelming as this: 590 different groups. Earlier this year, I submitted a list of 205 different groups.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my comments on this portion, this list of 590 groups be printed in the Record.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Again, those are advocacy groups and scientific associations--590.

How about the American people? Three out of four Americans agree: support stem cell research. The question asked in a national poll: Do you support embryonic stem cell research? Seventy-two percent of Americans said yes. Seventy-two percent. That is pretty overwhelming.

I heard the distinguished Senator from Ohio here just a few moments ago say that one of the reasons he was opposed to the bill was because we wanted to do things that would not divide Americans. He thought this would divide Americans. Divide Americans? Seventy-two percent are in favor of it. Over 590 different advocacy groups expressing support, and 205 other disease-related groups all in support. This doesn't divide America at all. Of course, there is always going to be somebody opposed to something around here. But I haven't seen anything that received this much overwhelming support in a long time. As a matter of fact, passing embryonic stem cell research, H.R. 810, will pull Americans together in the fight against disease. And it is bipartisan. As I said, the bill passed the House bipartisanly. The sponsors of the bill itself were three Republicans and three Democrats.

It was stated earlier today a couple of times about a letter that former First Lady Nancy Reagan had written. I thought I would have it blown up and put on a chart for people around the country to take a look at, just to show you how this has nothing to do with partisanship. It shows it is from the office of Nancy Reagan dated May 1, 2006, a letter to Orrin Hatch, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was one of the cosponsors of this bill. It says:

Dear Orrin:

Thank you for your continued commitment to helping the

millions of Americans who suffer from devastating and

disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope to so

many.

It has been nearly a year since the United States House of

Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that

would open the research so we could fully unleash its

promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific

progress to help their loved ones, the wait for U.S. Senate

action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.

I understand that the U.S. Senate is now considering voting

on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, sometime

this month. Orrin, I know I can count on friends like you to

help make sure this happens. There is just no more time to

wait.

Sincerely, Nancy.

When you have seen a loved one suffer from Alzheimer's--I am sure as Mrs. Reagan watched the former President suffer from Alzheimer's--it motivates you to say: Whatever we can do to advance the research, to hopefully get a cure someday, that is what we should do.

For those of us who have friends who have Parkinson's disease, those of us who have seen friends and loved ones die of Lou Gehrig's disease, for those of us who have members of our family or close friends who have had spinal cord injuries, this motivates us to do everything humanly possible to expand this field of research.

My friend Christopher Reeve said, one time when we had watched a film of a rat, a white mouse or white rat, that had its spinal cord damaged so it couldn't walk and then it received embryonic stem cells and then it walked again, Christopher Reeve, former Superman said, ``Oh, to be a rat.''

It holds so much promise, embryonic stem cell research, to ease the suffering and the pain of so many people.

I hear today talk about we have to do adult stem cells; maybe there is not enough money.

Again, I refer to my friend from Ohio, who was here earlier who said funding for medical research is probably going down because of the war and because of Katrina and because of homeland security.

I said: Wait a minute, earlier this year this Senate voted 73 to 27, to put $7 billion back in the budget so we wouldn't cut medical research--73 votes in the Senate. I don't know, 73 votes is pretty overwhelming. It was $7 billion we were supposed to put back in to help medical research. I don't know to what the Senator was referring.

I have heard talk today about adult stem cells and all these other things and how we had adult stem cells do this and adult stem cells do that. Why haven't embryonic stem cells led to treatment as much as adult stem cells have? Scientists have been doing research on adult stem cells for over 30 years, and we still, after 30 years, have not extracted one stem cell line from adult cells--not one.

Now embryonic stem cells were only derived in 1998, 8 years ago, and they have only been getting Federal funding in a limited manner since 2002, under the guidelines the President set down in 2001, which limited the number of stem cell lines to then 78, which we found out later was only 21 stem cell lines.

Again, there are no arbitrary restrictions on research on adult stem cells. Scientists and private companies don't have to be skittish about doing the research. They don't have to worry that all of a sudden the Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it, so they can plan ahead and do long-term research.

Let's compare that situation with human embryonic stem cells. As I said, we didn't derive them until 1998 and the first Federal grant wasn't awarded until 2002. Even now, only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for human stem cell research is used for human embryonic stem cells. The vast majority still goes for adult stem cells.

Here it is. I pointed this out earlier today. Human embryonic stem cells in fiscal 2006 from NIH, $38.3 million. Adult stem cells, $200 million. Again, only a tiny fraction going for human embryonic stem cells. Five times as much is going for adult stem cell research. So it is no wonder, after 30 years and all this research and all this money, that more diseases are being treated today with adult stem cells.

Scientists have only been studying embryonic stem cells for 5 years, with

one arm tied behind their back. That one arm being tied their back by the President's proclamation of August 9, 2001, that only stem cell lines derived before 9 p.m. that evening could receive Federal funding. Anything derived after 9 p.m. could not receive Federal funding.

I have wondered ever since, why was it morally acceptable to use stem cell lines derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 but morally unacceptable for funding of stem cell lines derived after 9 p.m. Can someone please tell me the ethics of that. Can someone please tell me why 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 is some kind of a moral dividing line? It is totally arbitrary. The President could have said stem cell lines derived at 10 p.m. or he could have said stem cell lines derived before Christmas of this year. It is the same thing. No one has taken this floor to define why August 9, at 9 p.m, is some kind of a moral dividing line.

The fact is, it doesn't really matter what I think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't matter a heck of a lot what other Senators may think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. What matters is what does the great body of scientists think about the potential.

The overwhelming majority of reputable biomedical scientists also believes we should pursue embryonic stem cell research; not to the exclusion of others but that we should pursue it.

I have a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1989. Here is what he says:

The vast majority of the biomedical community believes that

human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key

discoveries relating to many debilitating diseases. In fact,

some of the strongest advocates for human embryonic stem cell

research are those scientists that have devoted their careers

to the study of adult stem cells.

I have a letter from Dr. Alfred G. Gilman, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1994.

It has become obvious, however, that the number of stem

cell lines actually available under current policy is too

small and is controlled by a limited monopoly, which has made

it significantly more difficult and expensive for research to

be conducted. These limits have hindered the important search

for new understanding and treatment of devastating diseases.

I have a letter from the Director of the NIH, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.

Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for

treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease.

The breakthroughs are coming. But they take time. They take a lot of scientists researching. This is not something you can put two people on. They need a lot of different lines. Embryonic stem cell research should be ongoing at universities all across America, at our great research institutions, and it ought to be done under the guidance and direction and ethical guidelines of NIH and the ethical guidelines that we have in this bill.

The clampdown on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance to start shows a total lack of understanding about how science works, how research works. I have often said that basic research is similar to having 10 doors and they are closed. There is a high probability that behind one of the doors is the answer to your question. If you open one door, you know what the odds are of finding the right answer. If you open two doors, the odds are a little bit better. If you open five doors, the odds are 50-50.

That is what basic research is about. It has been said here a lot of the earlier research on fetal tissue came to nothing. A lot of basic research comes to nothing--in terms of an actual application. But almost all basic research adds to our body of knowledge. Maybe, from one of those basic research grants that was put on the shelf, some other scientist coming along later on might pick something from that, put two or three together and find something.

I am reminded of John Embers, a scientist--I believe he was at Harvard. I will check my facts on that, but I believe he was a doctor at Harvard many years ago. I am talking about a long time ago. I am talking about in the 1940s. He had done some interesting research, basic research on kidney cells of monkeys because they had unique properties. It was a funny research. It was on certain Rhesus monkeys and the oddity of certain kidney cells.

Dr. John Enders didn't get anything for it. He did the research, put it on the shelf, and nothing ever came of it, until a few years later another scientist, examining in another area, remembered Dr. Enders' work, went back and got it, coupled it with his, and came up with something called the Salk polio vaccine. It wasn't until over 25 years later that Dr. John Enders finally received the Nobel Prize for his research.

But I suppose someone 5 years after Dr. Enders had done his research would have said: Why did we spend money on that foolish kind of research? It didn't lead to anything. It kept some scientists employed, but it didn't lead to anything. But Dr. Salk came along, coupled that research with what he was doing and came up with the Salk polio vaccine.

That is a true story.

Again, we have to understand a lot of this is basic research. A lot of it will lead to nothing. But as more and more scientists get involved in examining embryonic stem cells and how they grow, how they multiply, how they differentiate, how they become nerve tissue, how they become brain tissue, how they become skin tissue, how they become blood tissues--as they begin to investigate that, I am sure there will be a lot of blind alleys. But I submit that everything that is done builds the body of scientific evidence that we need, the science that will eventually lead to a cure of a disease. That is the promise of embryonic stem cell research. To stop it now or to limit it doesn't make sense.

People talk about the ethics and morality. I have heard talk about we have to protect innocent life. This is an embryo; an embryo with 100 cells, 200 cells. You can take whatever view you want of that embryo. The point is that the bill we are talking about does not destroy one embryo. It only says that we can get funding for the research on those. These are embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, in in vitro fertilization clinics. They are being discarded every day.

Why don't people come out and say: Stop in vitro fertilization. Make it a crime. You don't hear anybody saying that because 50,000 babies were born last year to people who wanted to have a baby and couldn't have one and used in vitro fertilization. Once they have their children, they call up the in vitro clinic and say: I don't want the remaining embryos, just discard them. I ask you, what is the moral thing to do, just discard them or, with the written consent of the donors, use those embryonic stem cells to save lives and ease suffering and cure disease? That, to me, is the moral and the ethical choice.

I see my time is up and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2006.

Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups,

health organizations, research universities, scientific

societies, religious groups and other interested institutions

and associations, representing millions of patients,

scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you

with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem

Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of

H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.

Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810

will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is

the bill which holds promise for expanding medical

breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative

Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and

the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT

substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810.

H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote

in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support

of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial

progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810

immediately.

Sincerely,

A O North America; AAALAC International; AARP; Abbott

Laboratories; Acadia Pharmaceuticals; Accelerated Cure

Project for Multiple Sclerosis; Adams County Economic

Development, Inc.; AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology

Association); Affymetrix, Inc.; Albert Einstein College

of Medicine of Yeshiva University; Alliance for Aging

Research; Alliance for Lupus Research; Alliance for

Stem Cell Research; Alnylam US, Inc.; Alpha-1

Foundation; ALS Association; Ambulatory Pediatric

Association; AMDeC-Academic Medicine Development Co.;

America on the Move Foundation; American Academy of

Neurology.

American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of

Pediatric Dentistry; American Academy of Pediatrics;

American Association for Cancer Research;

American Association for Dental Research; American

Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; American

Association for the Advancement of Science; American

Association of Anatomists; American Association of

Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Colleges

of Osteopathic Medicine; American Association of

Colleges of Pharmacy; American Association of

Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological

Surgeons; American Association of Public Health

Dentistry; American Autoimmune Related Diseases

Association; American Brain Coalition; American Chronic

Pain Association; American College of Cardiology;

American College of Medical Genetics; American College

of Neuropsychopharmacology; American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

American College of Surgeons; American Council on

Education; American Council on Science and Health;

American Dental Association; American Dental Education

Association; American Diabetes Association; American

Federation for Aging Research; American

Gastroenterological Association; American Geriatrics

Society; American Institute for Medical and Biological

Engineering; American Lung Association; American

Medical Association; American Medical Informatics

Association; American Medical Women's Association;

American Pain Foundation; American Parkinson's Disease

Association; American Parkinson's Disease Association

(Arizona Chapter); American Pediatric Society; American

Physiological Society; American Psychiatric

Association.

American Psychological Association; American Public

Health Association; American Society for Biochemistry

and Molecular Biology; American Society for Bone and

Mineral Research; American Society for Cell Biology;

American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and

Therapeutics; American Society for Microbiology; American

Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair; American

Society for Nutrition; American Society for Pharmacology

and Experimental Therapeutics; American Society for

Reproductive Medicine; American Society for Virology;

American Society of Clinical Oncology; American Society of

Critical Care Anesthesiologists; American Society of

Hematology; American Society of Human Genetics; American

Society of Nephrology; American Society of Tropical

Medicine and Hygiene; American Surgical Association;

American Surgical Association Foundation.

American Thoracic Society; American Thyroid Association;

American Transplant Foundation; Americans for Medical

Progress; amFAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research;

Arizona State University College of Nursing; Arthritis

Foundation; Arthritis Foundation, Rocky Mountain

Chapter; Association for Clinical Research Training;

Association for Medical School Pharmacology Chairs;

Association for Prevention Teaching and Research;

Association for the Accreditation of Human Research

Protection Programs, Inc.; Association of Academic

Chairs of Emergency Medicine; Association of Academic

Departments of Otolaryngology; Association of Academic

Health Centers; Association of Academic Physiatrists;

Association of American Medical Colleges; Association

of American Physicians; Association of American

Universities; Association of American Veterinary

Medical Colleges.

Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology

Chairs; Association of Anesthesiology Program

Directors; Association of Black Cardiologists;

Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology;

Association of Independent Research Institutes;

Association of Medical School Microbiology and

Immunology Chairs; Association of Medical School

Pediatric Department Chairs; Association of Medical

School Pharmacology Chairs; Association of Professors

of Dermatology; Association of Professors of Human and

Medical Genetics; Association of Professors of

Medicine; Association of Public Health Laboratories;

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals;

Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry;

Association of Specialty Professors; Association of

University Anesthesiologists; Assurant Health; Asthma

and Allergy Foundation of America; Athena Diagnostics;

Aurora Economic Development Council.

Axion Research Foundation; B'nai B'rith International;

Baylor College of Medicine; Baylor College of Medicine

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences; Biotechnology

Industry Organization; BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Inc.;

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Foundation on Health Care;

Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Boston University

School of Dental Medicine; Boston University School of

Public Health; Brigham and Women's Hospital; Bristol-

Myers Squibb Company; Broadened Horizons, LLC; Brown

Medical School; Buck Institute for Age Research; Bums &

Allen Research Institute; Burrill & Company; Burroughs

Wellcome Fund; C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition;

California Biomedical Research Association.

California Institute of Technology; California Institute

for Regenerative Medicine; California Wellness

Foundation; Californians for Cures; Campaign for

Medical Research; Cancer Research and Prevention

Foundation; Canon U.S. Life Sciences, Inc.; Case

Western Reserve University School of Dentistry; Case

Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Cedars-

Sinai Health System; Center for the Advancement of

Health; Central Conference of American Rabbis; CFIDS

Association of America; Charles R. Drew University of

Medicine and Science; Charles River Laboratories; Child

& Adolescent Bipolar Foundation; Children's Memorial

Research Center; Children's Neurobiological Solutions

Foundation; Children's Research Institute (Columbus);

Children's Research Institute (Washington).

Children's Tumor Foundation; Childrens Hospital Boston;

Christopher Reeve Foundation; City and County of

Denver; City of Hope National Medical Center; Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory; Coleman Institute for

Cognitive Disabilities, University of Colorado System;

Colfax Marathon Partnership, Inc.; Colorado Bioscience

Association; Colorado Office of Economic Development

and International Trade; Colorado State University;

Columbia University; Columbia University College of

Dental Medicine; Columbia University Medical Center;

Community Health Partnership; Conference of Boston

Teaching Hospitals; Connecticut United for Research

Excellence, Inc.; Conquer Fragile X Foundation; Cornell

University; Council for the Advancement of Nursing

Science (CANS).

Creighton University School of Medicine; CURE (Citizens

United for Research in Epilepsy); Cure Alzheimer's

Fund; Cure Paralysis Now; CuresNow; Damon Runyon Cancer

Research Foundation; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute;

Dartmouth Medical School; David Geffen School of

Medicine at UCLA; DENTSPLY International; Digene

Corporation; Discovery Partners International; Doheny

Eye Institute; Drexel University College of Medicine;

Drexel University School of Public Health; Duke

University Medical Center; Dystonia Medical Research

Foundation; East Tennessee State University James H.

Quillen College of Medicine; Eli Lilly and Company;

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

Emory University; Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff

School of Nursing; Emory University Rollins School of

Public Health; Emory University School of Medicine;

FasterCures; FD Hope Foundation; Federation of American

Scientists; Federation of American Societies for

Experimental Biology (FASEB); Federation of State

Medical Boards of the United States, Inc.; Fertile

Hope; Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority; Florida

Atlantic University Division of Research; Ford Finance,

Inc.; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Research Center; Friends of Cancer Research, Friends of

the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial

Research, Friends of the National Institute of Nursing

Research; Friends of the National Library of Medicine;

Genetic Alliance.

Genetics Policy Institute; George Mason University;

Georgetown University Medical Center; Guillain Barre

Syndrome Foundation International; Gynecologic Cancer

Foundation; Hadassah; Harvard University; Harvard

University School of Dental Medicine; Harvard

University School of Public Health; Hauptman-Woodward

Medical Research Institute, Inc.; Hereditary Disease

Foundation, HHT Foundation International, Inc.; Home

Safety Council; Howard University College of Dentistry;

Howard University College of Medicine; Huntington's

Disease Society of America; IBM Life Sciences Division;

Illinois State University Mennonite College of Nursing;

ImmunoGen, Inc.; Indiana University School of

Dentistry.

Indiana University School of Medicine; Indiana University

School of Nursing; Infectious Diseases Society of

America; Institute for African American Health, Inc.;

Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus; International

Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery (IFADD);

International Longevity Center--USA; International

Society for Stem Cell Research; Invitrogen Corporation;

Iraq Veterans for Cures; Iris Alliance Fund; Iron

Disorders Institute; Jacobs Institute of Women's

Health; Jeffrey Modell Foundation; Johns Hopkins; Johnson

& Johnson; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare

Organizations (JCAHO); Joint Steering Committee for Public

Policy; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Keck School

of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Kennedy Krieger Institute; Keystone Symposia on Molecular

and Cellular

Biology; KID Foundation; Kidney Cancer Association; La

Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology; Lance

Armstrong Foundation; Lawson Wilkins Pediatric

Endocrine Society; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society;

Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown

University; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute

at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center; Louisiana State

University Health Sciences Center; Louisiana State

University Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry;

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Loyola

University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine; Lung

Cancer Alliance; Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.;

Lupus Foundation of Colorado, Inc.; Lupus Research

Institute; Lymphatic Research Foundation; Mailman

School of Public Health of Columbia University.

Malecare Prostate Cancer Support; March of Dimes Birth

Defects Foundation; Marine Biological Laboratory;

Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource Center; Masonic

Medical Research Laboratory; Massachusetts

Biotechnology Council; Massachusetts General Hospital;

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MaxCyte, Inc.;

McLaughlin Research Institute; Medical College of

Georgia; Medical University of South Carolina; Medical

University of South Carolina College of Nursing;

MedStar Research Institute (MRI); Meharry Medical

College School of Dentistry; Memorial Sloan-Kettering

Cancer Center; Memory Pharmaceuticals; Mercer

University; Metro Denver Economic Development

Corporation; Miami Children's Hospital.

Midwest Nursing Research Society; Morehouse School of

Medicine; Mount Sinai Medical Center; Mount Sinai

School of Medicine; National Alliance for Eye and

Vision Research; National Alliance for Hispanic Health;

National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and

Depression; National Alliance on Mental Illness;

National Alopecia Areata Foundation; National Asian

Women's Health Organization; National Association for

Biomedical Research; National Association of Hepatitis

Task Forces; National Caucus of Basic Biomedical

Science Chairs; National Coalition for Cancer Research;

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; National

Coalition for Women with Heart Disease; National

Committee for Quality Health Care; National Council of

Jewish Women; National Council on Spinal Cord Injury;

National Down Syndrome Society.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National

Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias; National Health

Council; National Hemophilia Foundation; National

Hispanic Health Foundation; National Jewish Medical and

Research Center; National Marfan Foundation; National

Medical Association; National Multiple Sclerosis

Society; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National

Partnership for Women and Families; National

Pharmaceutical Council; National Prostate Cancer

Coalition; National Quality Forum; National Spinal Cord

Injury Association; National Venture Capital

Association; Nebraskans for Research; Nemours; New

Jersey Association for Biomedical Research; New Jersey

Dental School.

New York Blood Center; New York College of Osteopathic

Medicine; New York State Association of County Health

Officials; New York Stem Cell Foundation; New York

University College of Dentistry; New York University

School of Medicine; New York-Presbyterian Hospital;

North American Brain Tumor Coalition; North Carolina

Association for Biomedical Research; Northwest Association

for Biomedical Research; Northwestern University;

Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine;

Nova Southeastern University College of Dental Medicine;

Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Oklahoma Medical Research

Foundation; Oral Health America; Oregon Health & Science

University; Oregon Health & Science University School of

Nursing; Oregon Research Institute; Oxford Bioscience

Partners.

Pacific Health Research Institute; Paralyzed Veterans of

America; Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; Parkinson's

Action Network; Parkinson's Disease Foundation;

Partnership for Prevention; Pennsylvania Society for

Biomedical Research; Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America; Pittsburgh Development

Center; Princeton University; Project A.L.S.; Prostate

Cancer Foundation; Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

International; Quest for the Cure; RAND Health;

Research! America; Resolve: The National Infertility

Association; RetireSafe; Rett Syndrome Research

Foundation; Rice University.

Robert Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins;

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science;

Rush University Medical Center; Rutgers University;

Salk Institute for Biological Studies; sanofi-aventis;

Scleroderma Research Foundation; Secular Coalition for

America; Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Inc.; Society

for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research

(SAVIR); Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology;

Society for Education in Anesthesia; Society for Male

Reproduction and Urology; Society for Neuroscience;

Society for Pediatric Research; Society for

Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; Society for

Women's Health Research; Society of Academic

Anesthesiology Chairs; Society of General Internal

Medicine; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.

Society of Reproductive Surgeons; Society of University

Otolaryngologists; South Alabama Medical Science

Foundation; South Dakota State University; Southern

Illinois University School of Medicine; Spina Bifida

Association of America; Stanford University; State

University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental

Medicine; State University of New York Downstate

Medical Center College of Medicine at Brooklyn; State

University of New York Upstate Medical University; Stem

Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation;

Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Stony Brook

University, State University of New York; Strategic

Health Policy International, Inc.; Student Society for

Stem Cell Research; Suicide Prevention Action Network-

USA (SPAN); Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's, Inc.;

Targacept, Inc.;

Temple University School of Dentistry; Texans for

Advancement of Medical Research; Texas A&M University

Health Science Center; Texas Medical Center; Texas Tech

University Health Sciences Center; The Arc of the

United States; The Association for Research in Vision

and Ophthalmology; The Biophysical Society; The Brody

School of Medicine at East Carolina University; The

Burnham Institute; The CJD Foundation; The Critical

Path Institute (C-Path); The Endocrine Society; The

FAIR Foundation; The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis

Network; The Food Allergy Project, Inc.; The Forsyth

Institute; The Foundation Fighting Blindness; The

George Washington University Medical Center. The

Georgetown University Center for the Study of Sex

Difference in Health, Aging and Disease.

The Gerontological Society of America; The J. David

Gladstone Institutes; The Jackson Laboratory; The Johns

Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health;

The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing; The

Medical College of Wisconsin; The Medical Foundation,

Inc., The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's

Research; The Ohio State University College of

Dentistry; The Ohio State University College of

Medicine and Public Health; The Ohio State University

School of Public Health; The Parkinson Alliance and

Unity Walk; The Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene,

Inc.; The Rockefeller University; The Schepens Eye

Research Institute; The Scientist; The Scripps Research

Institute; The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute;

The Society for Investigative Dermatology; The Spiral

Foundation.

The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine;

The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine; The

University of Iowa College of Dentistry; The University

of Iowa College of Public Health; The University of

Mississippi Medical Center; The University of

Mississippi Medical Center School of Dentistry; The

University of Oklahoma College of Dentistry; The

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; The

University of Tennessee Health Science Center; The

University of Tennessee HSC College of Nursing; The

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San

Antonio; The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer

Center; The University of Texas Medical Branch at

Galveston School of Medicine; The University of Texas

Southwestern Medical Center; The University of Toledo

Academic Health Science Center; Tourette Syndrome

Association; Travis Roy Foundation; Tufts University

School of Dental Medicine; Tulane University.

Tulane University Health Sciences Center; Union for

Reformed Judaism; Union of Concerned Scientists;

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations;

United Spinal Association; University of Alabama at

Birmingham School of Medicine; University of Alabama at

Birmingham School of Nursing; University of Alabama at

Birmingham School of Public Health; University of

Arizona College of Medicine; University of Arkansas for

Medical Sciences; University of Buffalo; University of

California System; University of California, Berkeley;

University of California, Berkeley School of Public

Health; University of California, Davis; University of

California, Irvine; University of California, Los

Angeles; University of California, Los Angeles School

of Dentistry; University of California, Los Angeles

School of Medicine; University of California, San

Diego.

University of California, San Francisco; University of

California, San Francisco School of Dentistry;

University of California, San Francisco School of

Nursing; University of California, Santa Cruz;

University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati Medical

Center; University of Colorado at Denver and Health

Sciences Center; University of Colorado at Denver and

HSC School of Dentistry; University of Colorado at

Denver and HSC School of Nursing; University of

Connecticut School of Medicine; University of Florida;

University of Florida College of Dentistry; University

of Georgia; University of Illinois; University of

Illinois at Chicago; University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Dentistry; University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Nursing; University of Iowa; University of

Kansas; University of Kansas Medical Center.

University of Kansas Medical Center School of Nursing;

University of Kentucky; University of Kentucky College

of Dentistry; University of Louisville; University of

Louisville School of Dentistry; University of Maryland

at Baltimore; University of Maryland at Baltimore

College of Dental Surgery; University of Maryland at

Baltimore School of Nursing; University of Miami;

University of Michigan; University of Michigan College

of Pharmacy; University of Michigan Medical

School; University of Michigan School of Dentistry;

University of Michigan School of Nursing; University of

Michigan School of Public Health; University of Minnesota;

University of Minnesota School of Public Health;

University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Dentistry;

University of Montana School of Pharmacy and Allied Health

Sciences; University of Nebraska Medical Center.

University of Nebraska Medical Center College of

Dentistry; University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of

Dental Medicine; University of Nevada, Reno School of

Medicine; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of

Dentistry; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

School of Public Health; University of North Dakota;

University of North Texas Health Science Center;

University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania School

of Dental Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School

of Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School of

Nursing; University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of

Public Health; University of Pittsburgh School of

Dental Medicine; University of Pittsburgh School of

Medicine; University of Rochester Medical Center;

University of Rochester School of Medicine and

Dentistry; University of Rochester School of Nursing;

University of South Carolina Office of Research and

Health Sciences; University of South Dakota School of

Medicine and Health Sciences.

University of South Florida; University of South Florida

College of Nursing; University of Southern California;

University of Southern California School of Dentistry;

University of Utah HSC School of Medicine; University

of Vermont College of Medicine; University of

Washington; University of Washington School of

Dentistry; University of Washington School of Nursing;

University of Washington School of Public Health and

Community Medicine; University of Wisconsin-Madison;

Van Andel Research Institute; Vanderbilt University and

Medical Center; Vanderbilt University School of

Nursing; Virginia Commonwealth University School of

Dentistry; Virginia Commonwealth University School of

Medicine; Wake Forest University School of Medicine;

Washington University in St. Louis; Washington

University in St. Louis Center for Health Policy;

Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

WE MOVE; Weill Medical College of Cornell University;

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research; WiCell

Research Institution; Wisconsin Alumni Research

Foundation; Wisconsin Association for Biomedical

Research and Education; Woodruff Health Sciences Center

at Emory University; Wright State University; School of

Medicine; Yale University; Yale University School of

Medicine; Yale University School of Nursing.

If the Senator would yield, I understand the Senator from Virginia wanted 10 minutes. I said I didn't intend to speak for half an hour; I just wanted to speak for about 5 minutes at 8 o'clock and yield back the remainder of my time and he could speak as long as he wanted to at that time. It is only 15 minutes from now. I thought the Senator from Kansas was probably going to use up most of the time.

I say to the Senator from Virginia, go ahead and take your time. I will speak later. That is fine.

(The remarks of Mr. Warner are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I will not take the entire 25 minutes that are left, but I did want to close out a little bit today before we proceed into tomorrow by just responding to a few of the things that were said today to try to clear up a couple of issues.

The Senator from Kansas, my good friend, was going on and on about stem cells, as he has most of the day, and about how all these treatments and everything are out there. I could respond to every one of them, but I think what we have to keep in mind is that if all of these diseases that the Senator from Kansas talked about have been treated with adult stem cells, how come all of the patient advocacy groups for these diseases support H.R. 810?

One has to wonder, when you listen to the Senator from Kansas outline all these diseases that are being helped by adult stem cells. He brings up the picture of the guy who had Parkinson's. He was helped with adult stem cells. But, again, he has now gone back and he is where he was before.

Well, if adult stem cells are doing so much, why is the Parkinson's group, the Parkinson's Action Network, supporting H.R. 810? Why are all these advocacy groups supporting H.R. 810 if adult stem cells are so great? Are they just a bunch of stupid people out there? Have they been hoodwinked and misguided?

These advocacy groups know. They know what is going on. And they know that S. 2754 is no substitute for H.R. 810. While adult stem cells are fine, as I pointed out earlier, they have been investigating and doing science on adult stem cells for over 30 years.

Now, just another little thing that happened: The Senator from Kansas, I heard him say: Well, they have been investigating animal stem cells for 20 years.

That might lead you to think: Well, we have been looking at stem cells for 20 years. Not so. We never derived human embryonic stem cells until 1998--8 years ago. So I wanted to make the record clear on that.

Now, the Senator also mentioned something about testicular cancer. He made all kinds of claims about adult stem cells helping testicular cancer. Let me read from a letter written by Craig Nichols, MD, a member of the board of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. We all know the Lance Armstrong Foundation is basically focused on testicular cancer because that is what Lance Armstrong had. And he licked it. But let me quote from the letter written on July 14:

Dear Senator Frist:

As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation's 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 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 H.R. 810 . . . that we have NOT completely eradicated

the disease.

There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment

generally available to treat testicular cancer.

The Senator from Kansas kind of, in his comments, led us to think that there might be. Here is what Dr. Nichols said:

Rather, adult stem cells enable testicular cancer patients

to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment

for the disease.

The adult stem cells enable patients to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy. Dr. Nichols says:

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 H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Lance Armstrong Foundation be printed in the Record.

Now, we hear claims that leukemia and lymphomas have been cured or treated by adult stem cells. Here is what George Dahlman of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has to say about that:

On behalf of the Leukemia and 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 H.R. 810 . . . that we exist today because we

have not found cures for these devastating diseases. . . .

the claim that treatment of blood cancers with cord blood,

blood or marrow stem cells--known as hematopoietic stem

cells--demonstrates a potential of ``adult stem cell''

research or is a substitute of embryonic stem cell research

is misleading and disingenuous.

Again, this says that the claim that treatment of blood cancer with marrow stem cells demonstrates that adult stem cells is a substitute is misleading and disingenuous.

Mr. Dahlman concludes:

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society asks that you and your

colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes.

Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk about these embryos and that we all started as a dot. I have often used this example. I have said: What is an embryo? I have often put a dot on a piece of paper and held it up for audiences to see and said that is what we are talking about. It is that big, the size of a period at the end of a sentence. That is not to diminish the importance of an embryo. But I use it in comparison. An embryo at the blastocyst stage has between 100 and 200 cells. That embryo we are talking about that is in an in vitro fertilization clinic and frozen in liquid nitrogen will never become a human being unless and until it is implanted into a uterus and it takes hold and develops. Sometimes they are implanted and they don't take hold and they are discharged. So an embryo is potential life--potential in that if it is implanted and takes hold, it could become a human being. It is potential life.

Look at this photo of Lauren Stanford. She says:

I am so happy to hear that the Senate is thinking of

passing H.R. 810. I can dream again--dream of that great day

when I write a thank you letter to the Senate, the House, and

everyone who helped me become just another girl; a girl who

dreamed and hoped and one day got just what she wanted; her

health and future.

Lauren Stanford has diabetes. She knows what will happen if she is not cured. At some point in her life, she will probably become blind. At some point in her life, she will probably lose a foot, a leg, one or more of her limbs. At some point in her life, diabetes will take her. Lauren Stanford. I don't know her. I don't know that I ever met Lauren Stanford. This is not potential life; this is real life. This is a human being who is living right now.

That dot on the paper is an embryo. Is it alive? Of course it is alive. Is it a human being? No. It is potential life. Lauren Stanford is real life.

Read the bill. Read H.R. 810. Ethical guidelines. We can only use those embryos that are left over from in vitro

fertilization that are going to be discarded. Read the bill:

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.

Written consent.

The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the

embryos with written informed consent and without receiving

any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

It has to be determined, before any embryo could ever be used for stem cell derivation, that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded. Every day, fertility clinics discard unwanted embryos. People have IVF--50,000 babies were born last year to couples who wanted to have a baby and could not and needed IVF. But some embryos were left over. Well, couples who have had their children then call up the clinic or the clinic calls them and the clinic says: Do you want to continue to pay for us to keep these embryos frozen?

If you have had your children and you don't want to expand your family, you say: No, I don't want to pay for that anymore. Guess what. The IVF clinic discards it. I have heard they basically throw them in the sink and wash them down the sink. They are only as big as a period at the end of a sentence.

So the real question for us really comes down to that, unless we want to outlaw in vitro fertilization and make it a crime, which I don't hear anybody here wanting to do. As long as we have in vitro fertilization and have leftover embryos, the real question for us is this: If the donors of those embryos, through written informed consent, determine it will never be implanted in a woman and will be discarded, is it better to have them discarded and flushed down the drain or used for the kind of scientific research that will cure Lauren Stanford of her diabetes? Potential life versus real life. Potential life that will be discarded versus real life. Potential life that will be flushed down the drain versus Lauren Stanford, real life. That is the question for us.

We hear all of these arguments around here about we were all an embryo at one time. Of course we were. The question is, What happens to all those embryos? Right now, they are being discarded, and it is perfectly legal to do so. I don't see anyone here with legislation saying it is going to be a crime for them to be discarded, a crime to have in vitro fertilization. Really, that is the choice. Do we discard potential life or do we use it to save real life? This is not potential life, this is real.

My nephew Kelly, who suffered a tragic accident on an aircraft carrier 27 years ago, hasn't walked since. He keeps hope alive that one day he will walk again. He knows about the research that has been done on rats and mice where spinal cords have been reconnected using embryonic stem cells. He knows that. I have never heard him say it, but I suppose he would probably echo what Christopher Reeve once said: Oh, to be a rat.

He knows that. That is real life. Kelly is a real person. He is alive. He is not potential life. That is our decision when we face the vote tomorrow on H.R. 810.

So all these other arguments about adult stem cells and this kind of stuff, fine, I have nothing against adult stem cell research. I am in favor of it. We ought to keep it going. But to choke off--not what I say but what the leading scientists say, the leading Nobel Prize winners say, what all of these disease groups who have medical people sitting on their boards, what they all say is the most promising avenue of research for curing Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, and ALS, the most promising is not adult stem cells. It is embryonic stem cells. That is what they say, not me.

To cut that off and to say, no, we won't do it is telling Lauren Stanford that potential life, that an embryo the size of a pencil dot, yes, is life; it is human potential that is as important as she is; that they have equal weight on the scales. I am sorry, Mr. President, I don't think so, not when it is going to be discarded, legally thrown down the drain. And as long as we have strict ethical guidelines in the bill--strict ethical guidelines, more than exists right now, stronger ethical guidelines than are in the law right now.

To me, there is really only one answer. We should be in favor of this real life of curing diseases, seeking treatments and cures in an ethical manner, which is what this bill does. So I hope that tomorrow we have an overwhelming vote in favor of H.R. 810.

I understand today the administration came out with a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP as it is called around here, saying the President would veto it. I hope the President rethinks this. He is overseas anyway. Let's face it, we are all kind of captives of our staff around here. Staff tells us this and that. OMB says this, OMB says that. I am hopeful this is the work of some staff, that the President hasn't thought about it. He has been overseas focused on the G8; now, I am sure, focused on the Middle East.

I hope when President Bush thinks about it that he remembers Lauren Stanford, that he will remember the letter from Nancy Reagan and he will come down on the side of real life, and he will come down on the side of an ethical approach to embryonic stem cell research.

I still believe in miracles, and I hope a miracle will occur and the President of the United States finds it in his heart to say that what he did on August 9, 2001, was done with a lack of adequate knowledge. He can say: Look, we thought there were 78 lines, and there were not; there were only 21 lines. We didn't know they were all contaminated with mouse feeder cells. They can't be used for human therapies. That he will say in light of all that we know now, and with the strict ethical guidelines we have in this bill, I see fit to sign into law

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his short, clear statement. I have some charts that will back him up.

I am delighted we are having this debate. It is time. We last debated this issue on the Senate floor in 1998. A lot has developed since then. As my colleague from Oklahoma pointed out, much of the science has passed by the embryonic stem cell and the need for embryonic stem cells, as the science has gone to adult stem cells and cord blood, and that is where the treatments are. I will show pictures of patients in that area and what is taking place.

I am delighted to be debating my colleagues. We have been debating this issue for some time. I think it is time we have a vote and look at this issue.

When I was a young Congressman first running for Congress in Chanute, KS, a young man approached me. He knew me and knew I was running for office. He said: Can you answer one question for me?

I said: I will try. I was anxious to be of help. I was anxious to prove I knew policy issues, I knew right from wrong, and I would be a good Congressman for him.

He asked me: Why is it we will fine somebody up to half a million dollars for destroying a bald eagle's egg, and yet we will fund the destruction of young humans? Why is it Federal law, both cases at that point in time, as far as the funding of abortion--I don't remember when that was changed, although now we are talking about the destruction of young human life again.

He said: Why is that?

I thought for a while. I thought: That is a good question. I don't know why that is.

I have a picture which may seem an odd place to start this debate, but it will tie in, and I will show how. I have a picture of a bald eagle's egg and a bald eagle. If I asked my 8-year-old children what happens if I destroy this egg, will I get this eagle? they will say: No, you don't get the eagle if you destroy the egg.

Why not? That egg is not an eagle.

I know, but the egg is the eagle because the eagle comes out of the egg.

Well, he doesn't look like him.

I know it is an eagle in the egg, and if you destroy the egg, you don't get the eagle. That is why we say in the Endangered Species Act, if you destroy this bald eagle's egg, you can have a maximum fine of up to half a million dollars.

I want to show some other eggs, if I can. These are human embryos, fertilized eggs. They are fertilized eggs such as this bald eagle's egg is. This one, Mother Teresa once was a human embryo. JFK was once a human embryo. Martin Luther King was once a human embryo. Ronald Reagan was once a human embryo.

Again, I think if we ask ourselves a simple question: If I destroy this, do I destroy this in the same way? Does it happen? If I destroy this human embryo--everybody on the Earth was a human embryo at some time--if I destroy that human embryo, do I somehow go ahead and get to be here anyway?

The answer, of course, again, if you ask my 8-year-old children, is: No, you don't get to be here because you destroyed the very start of your life, you destroyed the beginning of it, you destroyed that biological entity you were because the same genetic material that was there was in Ronald Reagan, and it was a unique set of genetic material, unique to him. The same for Martin Luther King, JFK, or Mother Teresa, and the billions of people around the world. We all started as a human embryo, and if you destroy the embryo, you destroy the person.

It is a unique set of genetic material right after the fertilization takes place. It doesn't matter where the fertilization takes place. It can take place in an IVF clinic or the old-fashioned way or it can take place by cloning. You still have this. You can have this, or you can destroy this and never get that. That is pretty direct, straightforward, nobody argues it. And we are not talking theology, as people try to drag this into the debate. We are talking basic biology. This is basic biology 101. If you destroy the embryo, you don't get the full-scale person. This is a genetic person, entity, special, unique, sacred, and so is this person.

My point one of this is, if we use taxpayers' dollars to fund the expansion of embryonic stem cell research, you have to inherently destroy young humans to do this, and do we want to do that? What was previously said in Dickey-Wicker was: No, we will not use taxpayers' dollars to destroy young human life. Here we would change that and say: Yes, we do; it is for a special purpose, a special reason; these are unique; these are something we are really going to get cures for. And that is my second point, cures.

The other side has talked about cures for a long period of time, and I want cures, and we are getting cures to take place. If we had taken the half a billion dollars, $500 million that we have invested in embryonic stem cell research in animals and humans and invested that instead in adult stem cell research and cord blood research, we would probably have a lot more people in clinical trials today. We would have a lot more people, I believe, being treated and alive today if we had taken the half a billion dollars that we put, in the last 5 years, into these areas of embryonic stem cell research and put them in adult stem cells and cord blood, we would have more people alive today, walking around, experiencing treatments and I believe cures. Let me show some faces of these people.

This is a beautiful lady, Jacki Rabon. She was involved in a traffic accident. She is a paraplegic. She had to go to Portugal to get a treatment with her own adult stem cells. They are olfactory stem cells from the base of the nose. They take them out, grow them, and put them back in the spinal cord injury area. She had no feeling, no mobility, nothing below the waist. She is now getting feeling in her hips through this treatment, adult stem cells, her own stem cells. She is getting feeling in the hips and walking with the use of braces, but she had to go to Portugal to do this. Why isn't this being done in America? Why aren't we having people treated here? We are not adequately funding this area. She wants to walk and I want her to walk and she could, but we are taking money and putting them into these speculative areas when we have cures that are working. We have to go to Portugal to get them.

Let's look at this next picture. This is an amazing story. This young man is named Ryan Schneider. I hosted him at a press conference 2 hours ago. He is 3 years old, a young man with cerebral palsy. His mother saved his cord blood.

At 2 years of age, she started noticing that he was not growing and that his arms were retracting. She took him to the doctors and they said: Yes, CP; he has CP. The mother was devastated, but she would not give up.

The morning after the diagnosis, she was lying in bed and she had this a-ha moment. She said: I saved his cord blood and let's use the cord blood and treat him with the cord blood because I think that can work and get him moving again.

She called all around the country and couldn't find anybody willing to do this procedure. She was pleading with these doctors: It is simply his own cord blood, taking his own cord blood and putting it back in; this isn't going to hurt him.

They said: We can't do it, not sure, we don't have FDA protocol.

Finally, she finds a researcher at Duke University, whom we had in to testify, who said: Yes, we will do it, and the worst thing that can happen is nothing because nothing will happen, it is his own cord blood; it is not going to hurt him.

She goes down to Duke University, takes his own cord blood, and they inject it in him. This is when he was 2. He was at a press conference today. There is no retraction taking place in the arms. He has full mobility. The thing he likes to do the most is bug his 8-year-old sister, which is what his mother said today: We like that, too, that he wants to do that. He has a word vocabulary that is normal for the age range. She said: Why isn't this an FDA-approved situation? Why are we not doing more research? Why aren't more people storing and saving cord blood so when this happens people can get cures?

Well, we haven't put enough funding into it. If we had put the half a billion more dollars into this area instead of embryonic, we might have a bunch of kids treated for CP who are not getting treated and be like Ryan running around and bugging his sister instead of having CP.

Here is a real interesting story, too, Keone Penn. We had him in to testify. He has sickle-cell anemia. He was dying. It is a real difficulty. Sickle cell is a very difficult problem to face, very painful problem for a child to face. He went through the New York Cord Blood Center, got treatment there, got a match. They had enough of a genetic match that it works for him. There are no indicators of sickle- cell anemia today. None. He isn't in Washington today, but we have had him in to testify.

We need a lot more cord blood stored. We need a lot more diversity of cord blood stored. We could use that half a billion dollars to store more cord blood and have more ethnic diversity so more people can get treated, so more people such as him will live, not die; so more people will not have to suffer what he went through. There could be real treatments with these dollars to help them.

No. 1, why are we destroying young human life? We fine people for destroying life in other forms that we want to preserve, such as the bald eagle. No. 2, why would we take this money away from current areas where we can really treat people and especially in the areas where we are not getting any treatments, we are having all the problems with tumor formation, as Dr. Coburn noted. Why are we doing that? So that fewer people are getting treatments and people are having to go overseas to get these treatments? Why? And why would we ask to do more of it now? That is what this bill is basically asking to do: That we would change Federal law so you could destroy human life with Federal taxpayer dollars. No. 2, that we would use this money, and more of it, to fund speculative areas

that even their set of scientists are saying are a minimum of a decade or two away from treatments which we are not getting, and we have taken away from Keone Penn, and treatments that he could get. Why? What sense does that make?

In 1943, C.S. Lewis delivered a series of lectures--this is the gentleman who did the Narnia series that has been made into a movie that a lot of young people have seen and read the Narnia series books, along with a lot of other pieces--a brilliant writer and a brave man. He did a lecture series called ``The Abolition Of Man'' in 1943, a very forward-looking series, and he noted at one point: ``If man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be.'' It echoes themes of what we are hearing today. I don't give anybody over to a bad heart. I think everybody wants cures. I want cures. I see a way we can get treatments and hopefully cures. I want things done ethically. I don't give anybody over to a bad heart. But what we are doing is treating man as raw material--raw material to feed into a system that we hope will produce some results.

Unfortunately, it is not the first time we have in human history that we have treated people as raw material. We have frequently, in the past, subjected the weaker to the will of the stronger, and we have always regretted it afterwards. We shouldn't do that today. It shouldn't have happened then, and we don't need to do it now. We are talking about the embryo, the young human life.

I want to go through a couple of these points about what it is we are talking about. President Clinton's bioethics board defined young human life--and I want to give their definition for it. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission says that an embryo is: ``The developing organism from the time of fertilization''--the time of fertilization-- ``until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism then becomes known as a fetus.'' So it is an embryo by that Presidential advisory bioethics analysis.

And here is a definition taken from a textbook, the Human Embryology textbook states:

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a

critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a

new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus

results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote.

Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic

genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.

That isn't Sam Brownback saying this, this is Human Embryology, Third Edition, saying that.

We have a distinct genetic entity once it is formed. It doesn't matter the location. It can be the old-fashioned way, as I noted at the outset, via the human body; in vitro fertilization; it can be what some refer to as somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, or what most refer to as human cloning. It is a separate entity.

Pioneer stem cell researcher Jamie Thompson goes further. He says of human cloning: ``By any reasonable definition, you're creating an embryo. If you try to define it away, you're being disingenuous.'' Jamie Thompson. So we are talking about a human embryo.

Now, some would say it is not big enough to be human life. Here I want to make a point, on this chart, if I could. My colleagues made the point that the human embryo is about this big; very small at its beginning of life. Therefore, because it is small and is fragile and it can't do anything on its own, you know, it is really not human life. And we should be able to destroy it, for a good purpose. We are doing this for a good purpose. This isn't us being malicious; we are doing this for a good purpose. Well, the interesting thing about that, as I said at the outset--of course, when you destroy this, you never get the full human at any point in time. This is a separate genetic entity, even at this point in time. Also, the point was made to me one time that if the Big Bang theory is correct, then at one point in time, this is the size of the universe. Then it is all condensed down, this much matter is condensed down to that infinitesimal, small size before it blows. So I guess if you destroy it then, it doesn't become the universe, but that doesn't matter. It is too small to be seen as significant, and it can't do anything on its own. It sits in a frozen state, and because it can't take care of itself, because it can't grow, because it can't breathe in this situation, then it is not human-- because it can't care for itself, because it is too fragile. It doesn't breathe. It doesn't do some of the things that we give over to the presence of life.

I want to give some examples, real quick, of young people--let's use this one. This is Isaiah Sullivan Royal, born to Hannah and Jed Royal. Hannah works in my office. Isaiah was born significantly premature. As you can see, he is a fighter. He is a tough little guy. He has been through a lot--more medical treatments than most people would have gone through in their lifetime already. Without human intervention, without help, he doesn't survive and make it. Yet he is a young human, and he is beautiful. Talk to his parents about him. So the idea that just because of smallness, you can't take care of yourself doesn't make you human, is completely false. Do we want to say that because you are young and small and weak, you are worthless or helpless or you are not human, which would be even worse? That just doesn't stand. That doesn't stand to reason. Yes, human life is fragile, but it is of infinite worth and it is of infinite value.

I want to now look at the overall issue of where we are with adult stem cell work. Dr. Coburn hit on this area, and I want to put some more points to it. We have, by peer review articles, 72 different areas, different human maladies being treated with adult stem cells or with cord blood--72. There was recently an article in one of the magazines saying: Well, we don't think the number is actually 72, it may be 68, it may be this or that.

We can wait a day or two and it will be up to 72 because there are more coming out in all of the areas. Some people are quibbling and saying: Well, these are not in FDA treatment trials. That is true, a number of them are not because we don't have sufficient funding. A half a billion dollars would really help us to move that along to get these in FDA treatment trials. These are in human clinical applications, where there are human beings treated for 72 different maladies by adult stem cells or cord blood--72, and for embryonic, we have zero.

We have known about embryonic stem cells in mice for 25 years. We have not been able to get them to work in this situation. They form tumors and they are rapid growing. With adult stem cells we know what they are about, we know what they are doing, and they are working, and people are being treated: 72 adult stem cell treatments to zero embryonic treatments. Again, you can quibble that they are not in FDA trials, not available to everybody. That is true. A lot of people are having to go overseas for treatments in some cases, and in some cases they are actually treatments that were developed in the United States, but because of FDA approval processes being long, they are having to get treatment overseas, even though the process was developed here.

I want to show you the specific areas, and this is--I am breaking the rules on charts because this one has--this one is too busy, but it is the only way I can get it all on one chart: 72 current human clinical applications using adult stem cells.

As I said, we could wait a week or 2 weeks, it will be more. Here are some of the amazing ones: Bladder diseases, they are developing, actually growing bladders with your own stem cells for people who have had bladder cancer or something of that nature, they are able to actually form a shell structure and the cells grow around it. The ones I like the best are in the heart areas, the cardiovascular. I had David Foege speaking at a press conference we had, he could hardly walk, advanced stroke, because of his heart problem, no infracturing rate. The physicians--I am sure I am butchering the words--I am a lawyer. I apologize for that. But he got this treatment, and he went first to a place in the United States, and they said: Look, you are just too advanced in your problematic stage. We are not going to treat you here because we want to treat early on and we only have so much money and we could use more, but we only have so much.

So the guy goes to Thailand for the treatment--it may have been developed in the United States. I am not certain that it was developed in the United States, but it is used here but only on

people with great opportunity to make it through. He goes to Thailand, gets this treatment. His indicators of what happened to him in the stroke are diminishing. He is out walking. He spoke at the press conference that we had, and this man has got life again. Otherwise, he would, in all probability, be dead today. And how many people are like him, that because we have slowed the development of the adult field down by putting so many of our resources in the nonproductive embryonic area, and we are getting interesting science, but with adult we are talking about real people now. We are talking about real lives of individuals. How many more of them can get treated, and how many people can afford to fly to Bangkok to get this treatment? How many are able to do that? Yet they could go somewhere in the United States. I mean, my goodness, I hope we start thinking about the people involved in this and seeing the success in so many various and different fields. I think it is important we would do that.

Mr. President, I want to point out we will have, as my colleagues know, three votes that will be taking place. I do hope people will support the fetal farming ban. We shouldn't be growing young fetuses and using them for research, period. Some people are wanting to grow them further, cells differentiate and use it then. What we are talking about is an actual ban on that. I am hoping my colleagues will support that because we should not be doing that. I hope everybody would see that there is a huge moral dilemma with doing that. It is a bill that will be put forward. There is an alternative bill coming up with these pluripotent cells that I am hoping my colleagues can support.

The focal point is this, do we use taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, to destroy young human life for research purposes? I would hope it is seen that we could develop and put forward a very clear argument and rationale as to why you shouldn't do that. It is illegal. The Dickey-Wicker appropriations language, to start off with, that is the law we previously passed. It is immoral. We shouldn't use a weaker person for the benefit of a stronger person. And it is unnecessary. That is actually the beauty of it. We are presenting false choices to people. The choice that works has no ethical problem, and we can get broad-based support for it. Then, we can have more Jacki Rabons, Ryan Schneiders, and Keone Penns who are getting treatments now, and their lives are being saved, people staying in the United States for treatment rather than going overseas for the treatment, and we have got a lot of people being successfully treated and hopefully cured.

I may use that term ``cured'' too loosely because these are at the early stages. These are treatments that are showing enormous promise, but we can't--they are not, many of them are not in any sort of FDA- approved trial, so we can't use that term ``cure.'' But we have a lot of successes.

The other road that is being talked about is the use of human life as raw material, and if we do that, raw material we will be. We will cheapen life. And we cheapen life any time we use it for anything other than the sacredness that life is. I hope, at the end of the day, that would be the thing we grab onto. Clearly, embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary. We don't want to cheapen human life.

I am happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, no, there is not. There is no limitation today on State dollars, private dollars, foreign dollars, whatever you want to call it.

I think actually the number is $3 billion.

None whatsoever.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, it is, and it is a very interesting feature that where the private money is going, where people have to show production coming out of it, it is all going into the adult cord blood because people know the science. And that is why I want to conclude with what I started with.

In many respects, the science has passed this debate by. The science is saying: Do the adult, do the cord blood. The embryonic is not working, and you have enormous ethical problems with doing that, and we don't need to go that way. That is where the private dollars then are going, which I would hope my colleagues would look at as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma. He is learned. He has spent the time to study these issues as a doctor. He has worked on these issues and he cares a great deal about them, and I appreciate his time and his focus on this issue.

I want to discuss a few additional things in response to the comments that have been made thus far. I want to get back to what we are talking about. We are talking about destroying young human life for research purposes. I will show a picture of that so people will get the idea-- and I know people do--but it is important to remember we all started out looking like this. Even the Presiding Officer, as handsome as he is, looked like this at one point in time. Just a clump of cells--that was him.

This is a particular young person by the name of Hannah with whom I just met a few hours ago. This is when she was adopted as a frozen embryo, and this shows her development taking place. If you destroy her here, we don't get her here. That is the key. She was called a snowflake: an adopted frozen embryo.

I hope some people who are maybe watching or hear about this, if they have frozen human embryos, they consider putting them up for adoption because a number of people want to adopt them.

A couple of people adopted Hannah. They had fertility problems themselves, could not conceive. They used IVF, and so adopted her as a snowflake, as a frozen embryo. She was implanted, and now we have Hannah. Hannah is quite--I guess you would say out of the mouths of babes, children, comes great wisdom.

This is a chart she did last year when she was in Washington. When the House was considering legislation--this same legislation--she did this chart, this letter that kids write, my kids write--I love them. She said--this is

Hannah--snowflake: We're kids, I love you. Then she draws three pictures here below. This is her smiling because she got adopted, and she is here. Here is another frozen embryo--these are embryos--that is sad because he is still sitting in a frozen state, and then here is one that, as she explains, is saying: What, are you going to kill me? This was her explanation to her mother who just gave this chart to me.

I hope people really would think about that. This is not just a clump of tissue. This is not just a group of a few cells. This is not a hair follicle. This is not a fingernail. This is Hannah. And, if nurtured, she grows to be just this beautiful child. We have a lot of them, frozen embryos, and I hope people will consider putting them up for adoption because there are a lot of people who want to adopt them.

My colleagues talked about cures. I want cures. I have talked a lot about cures here on the floor. I have talked about it for a lot of years. There are 72 clinical human trials using adult cord research. If we want the people Senator Feinstein and others talked about to get cures now, the certain way to do this is to not fund embryonic stem cell research. The people she is talking about are not going to be cured any time soon.

I want to read some quotes from scientists talking about cures from embryonic stem cell research. I want to lay my hands on this real quick so that people can hear what the scientists are saying about this particular area. Let me get to that in a second, as soon as we can pull that out from the notebook.

I want to hit a second point on this and then print this for the Record. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. President, this is a series of one-page--a cover article on stem cells, embryonic stem cells forming tumors. We have talked about this being a problem. This has been a problem on fetal tissue research, about 15 years ago. This stack is of the front pages of peer-reviewed articles citing embryonic stem cells creating tumors when implanted in other animals. Let me just read a few of these summations. This is just the front cover, and people can look up the whole article if they want.

More than 70 percent of the mice that received embryonic stem cells derived neuro processors--or precursor cells developed teratomas, 70 percent teratomas, tumors. That was a 2006 article.

Rats grafted with embryonic stem cells de-differentiated in vitro for 16 days developed severe teratomas--tumors. This is an article for publication, March of 2006. I am just reading the front page of these.

Here is another article, a 2005 article. We conclude that pluripotent cell types used in this study are unsuitable for achieving safe engraftment in a Guinea pig brain. Why? Creation of teratomas--tumors.

Unlimited self-renewal and high differentiated potential poses the risk of tumor induction after engraftment. This is just the front page of another article, December of 2004.

Here is another article. Conclusions: the cells will, however, form a tumor if they leak into an improper space such as the thoracic cavity. This is an article from 2003.

Then I have three more articles. These are just summations of peer- reviewed articles. They form tumors. That is the problem with embryonic stem cells.

So the Senators from California, Michigan, Iowa, and Pennsylvania and other places saying we want cures--I want cures. The research is saying embryonic stem cells form tumors. You put them into individuals, they form tumors. And while we hope at some point in time something positive happens, the problem is, they form tumors. This isn't working. So if we want treatments and cures, the answer isn't embryonic stem cells, it is adult stem cells, cord blood, where we don't have a tumor formation problem and where we are getting all of these initial successes that are taking place

We are also going to consider legislation--and I will come back to another point here--we are going to consider legislation on fetus farming. There are three bills that are up and one of the bills is to ban fetal farming--fetus farming. I want to speak on that bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill. It would prohibit a gruesome procedure known as fetus farming. I am hopeful this passes with broad bipartisan support.

What this prevents is growing young humans to a certain stage, then harvesting their parts like an organ donor--parts. You grow a cloned human to a certain stage, let the cells differentiate and then harvest the parts. The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act is intended to prevent the exploitation of women for the purpose of harvesting spare organs, bodies parts, and tissue. In an ideal world we wouldn't need this type of legislation, yet we have already seen four scientific papers published on proof of concept of where they clone an animal to harvest the tissue to put into another animal to see if there was a rejection issue. Such proof of concept or proof of principle is simply the first case you take before actually moving to doing it in humans. That is why we seek to ban this particular procedure.

Some of my colleagues are saying of course nobody would think about doing this. I remember at the outset of this debate 8 years ago, everybody said of course we are not going to clone human beings. That is not necessary; that is abhorrent, and we wouldn't do that. The same people who were saying that are now saying it is essential we clone human beings, so the distance from ``of course we would never'' to ``of course we must'' seems to only take a matter of years and that is why we are seeking to ban this particular area of using human beings. Human beings, as I said at the outset, are ends in themselves. They should not be used for somebody else's purposes. It is beneath human dignity to turn humans into commodities--that is organ factories--and that would be the case with fetus farming. That is what this act does; it prohibits it. I am hopeful my colleagues can strongly support this ban on fetal farming that is going to come before this body and I hope will pass the House and be sent to the President for signature.

I want to talk about an area that perhaps we all pretty easily fall into. That is, we get contacted by individuals who have a particular malady or disease or genetic problem and we tell them we want to give them a cure.

We do want to give them a cure. Everyone in this body wants to give them a cure. But then false hope can be held out or people can start down a road that doesn't produce. That is where we have been going. That is where we are going with the embryonic stem cells. This is a route into which we put half a billion Federal taxpayer dollars and it hasn't produced. It is time to move somewhere else. We have tried this route before.

I want to quote one of my colleagues on fetal tissue research. Some of my colleagues remember 10 or 15 years ago we were debating fetal tissue research. The promises sound strangely familiar, what people said.

There is substantial evidence that fetal tissue research

will offer a new hope of prolonged life, greater quality of

life, and perhaps one day even a cure for many of these

diseases at a tremendous economic and social cost-saving to

the country.

Then people frequently would list different areas that would be covered, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and the like.

We funded fetal tissue research. The reason I mentioned this is it is quite a bit like fetal farming. In fetal tissue research the fetus is aborted and then body parts harvested for use in somebody else, and that was going to cure everybody. We were going to get rid of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's and cancer and all these areas with great promise. Yet we saw what happened on the fetal tissue research.

Parkinson's research is set back by failure of fetal cell

grants--disastrous side effect--absolutely devastating--it

was tragic, catastrophic, it's a real nightmare. And we can't

selectively turn it off.

That was what the researchers said when they took fetal tissue and put it in somebody to deal with Parkinson's disease. What we are trying to prohibit with the Fetal Farming Act is this from backing up even further, or doing it in a clone state, and inserting cancerous tumors into individuals. You can't selectively turn it off. That is why we want to ban this. That is why it is the wrong thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do then, using fetal tissue in that particular case.

It is also the wrong thing to promise people these cures when we look at the

science of this and you know pretty likely this is not going to work-- from all the scientific evidence. Let me read from some of the eminent scientists. By the way, the material I had printed for the Record on tumor formation, I believe every one of these scientists, at least most of the scientists published in these articles, are pro embryonic stem cell research. They support embryonic stem cell research. They want it to work. The problem is, tumor formation, just as we saw with fetal tissue research. The cell grows fast, undifferentiated, but it can get in the brain and in some cases formed fingernails or hair follicles instead of brain tissue.

What are some of the scientists who are strong embryonic stem cell supporters saying about the likelihood of human treatments using embryonic stem cells? Here I am quoting from people who support this research. Lord Winston, a British stem cell expert, has warned his colleagues over the political hype in support of human embryonic stem cells:

One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public

that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in

promising what we might achieve. This is a real issue for the

scientists. am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem

cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's

lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise

that we desperately hope they will.

This was in a lecture he gave in 2005. If we want to cure people, as different colleagues are talking about and giving different human examples, people examples--this is a clear route here, adult and cord blood. Put the money there if we want to cure people. If we want to do the scientific research, that is another thing, but if we want to cure people, we have an answer and it has no ethical problem to it. But we should not overhype the embryonic stem cells when the lead scientist say he thinks it is unlikely any time soon, if ever, to work, as I just quoted to you there.

Let me give another quote from the journal ``Science.'' It carried a piece last summer in which supporters of embryonic--destructive human embryonic stem cell research admitted:

It is necessary that prospective donors of human eggs

recognize the large gap between research and therapy. This is

particularly important in frontier areas of research where

therapeutic impact in humans is unproven.

Also, it is nearly certain that 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.

If we are talking cures, we have an answer here. But it is not embryonic stem cell research. Otherwise we should not be talking about cures. We should be talking maybe about research on embryos, research on embryonic stem cells. We are interested in how they work, but we should not be talking cures because the cures are coming in the adult and cord blood route.

I will have the ``Science'' article printed. I ask unanimous consent all these be printed in the Record at the end of my presentation.

This is an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. David Shaywitz put it in, in 2005.

While stem cell advocates have helped voters connect stem

cell research with compelling images of patients who might

one day benefit from treatments, 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 knowledge, taking care to

emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of

these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such

therapies.

That is from scientists who support embryonic stem cell research. Let's be clear what we are talking about in this particular field.

Now I want to talk about the pluripotent nature of adult stem cells. Here, Dr. Coburn, Dr. Frist, and others would be better qualified, obviously, than I could ever dream of being about this topic, but this has been raised for some period of time. The theory has gone, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, they can form any type of cells. Adult stem cells cannot. Their plasticity is insufficient for them to be able to form other types of cells.

I simply point to this chart, listing 16 peer-reviewed studies showing alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells other than embryonic stem cells, and almost all of these are out of adult stem cells--pluripotency.

I urge my colleagues, the science has moved quite rapidly on this. I hope we can get up to speed with where the science is on this. There is pluripotency in other stem cells. There is pluripotency in cells other than the embryonic stem cells. We have the alternative bill, the Santorum-Specter bill, looking at other alternative sources of embryonic-type like stem cells that you do not have to destroy an embryo to get to. Look at those fields and those areas, these adult stem cells and this research, rather than saying the only source is embryonic, because it is not. That is not the only source because the science continues to move on through this and find other areas of pluripotency in adult stem cells as they are created.

Because I have a little bit of time--I ask the Chair, how much time is remaining?

Fantastic. I have a picture I want to show, then, because this is a real hope. It is also a bit of a tragedy. Here is a gentleman I hosted at a hearing about Parkinson's disease. He suffers from Parkinson's disease. He had an adult stem cell treatment. We got him in to testify. It is adult stem cells put back in his own part of the brain, it is his own cells, so there is not a rejection problem. He was Parkinson's free for 5 years. We had trouble getting him in to testify. He was out doing African safaris and things. We couldn't get him to come in.

I say that because that is the beauty of it. The tragedy of it is some of the Parkinson's traits are coming back. He would love to have another treatment for Parkinson's with his own adult stem cells. Yet we have so few clinical trials going on, we are so short in the funding of this, that he is not able to get additional treatments or other Parkinson's patients aren't able to get this.

I ask my colleagues, if we want to treat, let's take the half a billion dollars and let's put it into research for a guy such as this, where we have a real promising start. He was Parkinson's free of things here for 5 years, and then it started coming back.

My final comment I have in the time I have left is: What a beautiful time. What an opportunity we have for people to live longer and better lives. This is a glorious time for us to make a step forward.

Senator Feinstein from California and I cochair the cancer caucus. We are setting an objective of ending deaths by cancer in 10 years. It is going to have to be aggressive to be able to do this. We are going to have to do some work on these adult and cord blood stem cell areas. What a beautiful time. Let's invest wisely. Let's not check our morals at the door--our values. Let's treat every single human as a sacred, beautiful child of the living God and we are going to be here 10 years from now with amazing stories of things that have happened, and a happy heart, and a clear conscience at the same time--that we did it, we did it the right way, that more people are alive today, not dead, we didn't sacrifice other human beings in the process, and people are cured. People with spinal cord injuries are walking. People with Parkinson's no longer have it.

We have people in whom this is taking place today. We didn't give them cancer in the process of trying to cure them--where we are having the troubles with the embryonic stem cells.

This can happen if we will go the right way, ban the fetal farming, not expand and use taxpayer dollars to fund destructive human embryonic research where you destroy a human, and look at these alternatives. It can and it will happen. And that--that is going to be a beautiful day.

I believe my time has expired and I yield the floor

Exhibit 1

Stem-Cell Reality: ``ESC Treatments Decades Away''

``Similarly, it is important not to use the term `therapy'

when what is meant is `research' and not to refer to human

embryonic stem cell research as `therapeutic cloning.' There

is currently no such thing as `therapeutic cloning' and this

is not `therapeutic cloning research,' nor can we say with

any certainty that ``cell therapy'' is in the near future.''

(Source: Magnus & Cho, ``Issues in Oocyte Donation for Stem

Cell Research,'' Science Vol. 308, 1747-1748, June 17, 2005.)

Last summer, the prestigious journal Science carried a

piece, in which supporters of destructive human embryonic

stem cell research admit:

``It is necessary that prospective donors [of human eggs]

recognize the large gap between research and therapy. This is

particularly important in frontier areas of research where

therapeutic impact in humans is unproven.

``Also, it is nearly certain that 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.

Stem-Cell Reality: Over-Hyped ESC's

British Stem Cell Expert Lord Winston

Lord Winston, a British stem cell expert, has warned his

colleague over the political hype in support of human

embryonic stem cells:

``One of the problems is that in order to persuade the

public that we must do this work, we often go rather too far

in promising what we might achieve.

This is a real issue for the scientists. I am not entirely

convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and

possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter, be holding quite

the promise that we desperately hope they will.''

(Source: ``Should We Trust the Scientists?'' Gresham

College Lecture, June 20, 2005)

Stem-Cell Reality: ``ESC Therapies Unlikely Soon''

Harvard stem cell researcher--and proponent of destructive

human embryonic stem cell research--David Shaywitz writes in

an op-ed carried by the Washington Post:

``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 knowledge, taking care to

emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of

these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such

therapies.''

(Source: David Shaywitz, ``Stem Cell Reality,'' The

Washington Post, April 29, 2005.)

Yes. If you caught my comments on the floor, I stated that is part of the tragedy here. He had 5 years Parkinson's free, wants an additional treatment using the same adult stem cell procedure he had before that worked, and can't get it. We don't have sufficient funding to move that on forward.

If I could answer on both of those, I would have printed in the Record the funding over the past 4 years for both embryonic and adult and cord blood stem cells. We put about half a billion in embryonic, both animal and human, over the past 5 years. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record, to point to the level of funding we have put in both of those

Second, I would point out on Parkinson's, I don't know why the Parkinson's advocacy community would support that. I find it hard to believe they would oppose us doing more work in this field. I would simply ask you, or others, if we have a place that is working and we have another place that is producing tumors, why wouldn't you put more in a place that is working?

If I could respond?

Mr. President, I submitted for the Record seven peer- reviewed articles on the creation of tumors.

We have been down this road before. We tried this on the fetal tissue research. Remember that debate of 10 to 15 years ago. They had fast-growing cells, Parkinson's, and heart disease. When we inserted them into actual human patients, here is what it did. It created disastrous results because they formed all sorts of tissues along with cancer. We have been here before, as the Senator knows, on trying to get these sort of different cells from other bodies into one.

I would love to respond with a quick response. I think a third option is people are kind of interested in what these cells will do. I quoted from Lord Winston, a British stem cell researcher, saying it is an interesting area, but it is not going to produce any likely cures in my lifetime. But they are curious. They are looking at it and saying it is an interesting area of research. If we are going to cure people, let us cure people and let us talk about that kind of research.

The Senator has been very kind to let me speak.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I see the next speaker is here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Thank you very much.

I want to point out in a little different format to my colleagues that when we talk about direct areas of being able to get treatments-- we covered this some today--this is a little bit of a different presentation and a little more directly related to where we are getting treatments in this field, which is in the adult stem cell field. Here are some of the various areas where we get direct treatments.

The area of embryonic research, while interesting and intriguing, is not producing any results. It is not producing any cures. We are getting direct results from the adult, and we are not getting the formation of tumors in the adults. This area is working.

I also point out this is at no cost. People say these are embryos and we are throwing them away. You look at that. And I had this morning in my office and at a press conference three snowflake babies. These are all babies who were in in vitro fertilization clinics, were not going to be implanted by the natural parents, were given up for adoption. They are here now, and they are beautiful and they are wonderful. They are absolutely precious.

This isn't some sort of throwaway commodity. I point out to people that if you are one of those individuals who have frozen embryos--the number I hear is that 1 in 10 people in the United States suffer from infertility problems. There are a lot of people who would want to and do want to implant these frozen embryos and give them the nurturing they need to become humans we would all recognize. I hope people will look at that.

My other point is on President Reagan, who certainly was an inspiration for me to get into public office, and had a beautiful winsomeness about his presentation of truth. He was a fabulous individual. President Reagan was pro life. President Reagan did not and would not agree with the destruction of young human life. In fact, he said at one point in time, if there is a doubt about whether it is a life, if somebody was dying and there was a doubt about whether they are dead, you wouldn't put them in a casket and bury them. You would give them the benefit of the doubt. You would say, Well, let us work to bring them back.

The same on the young end--if there is a question, you err on the side of life. You treat this as life. There is a kind of common sense about it.

President Reagan was pro life. He fought for pro-life issues. He would not want to see us destroy one human life for the benefit of another.

A final point in this area: President Reagan suffered Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's is, as I understand it being explained to me, a plaque disease on the brain material. It is highly unlikely it is going to be treated with stem cells. Parkinson's is an area where we have adult stem cell treatment--a different type of disease. But the disease President Reagan fell to was Alzheimer's. It is highly unlikely that any stem cell, even adult or cord blood, and even more unlikely embryonic or cloning, would deal with the area of Alzheimer's.

The only reason I mention that is I think we need to try to be very accurate in our debate in saying what is a good possibility and hope and what is not. That one would be unlikely. Parkinson's we have a good shot at in the adult stem cell, and we have some early treatments already showing some promise in that particular field. But I don't think it is wise that we bring that up in that particular instance in the case of Alzheimer's. I think it is important that we be very clear about what this is and what will work and what will not.

The other thing I want to make mention of when we are talking about cures for things in this field is let us talk about areas where we have real scientific prospects of getting this done in the adult field. In the embryonic, as we have said for some period of time, it is unlikely to produce any sort of direct benefit to patients any time in the near future. That is according to scientists who are pro embryonic stem cell research. We can do more research in this field. There is some understanding from the presentation of the Senator from Georgia talking about other areas to derive embryonic type of stem cells. That is something we can do. The scientific community is producing more and more results in that particular area which I think are quite helpful and quite promising for us. It removes the ethical dilemma on this. It would be deriving embryonic type stem cells but without destroying embryos.

We are coming up with this along with the stem cell line. People are coming up with this in other fields. There is no reason to go into the ethical area--the question of destroying human life with taxpayer dollars to be able to get that done. I think it is important that we point out those particular areas in this bioethical debate.

One of the bills we will be voting on is an alternative bill. I talked about the fetal farming bill. I hope that passes 100 to zero so we can ban fetal farming. A lot has been talked about on H.R. 810, which is expansion of the stem cell lines using embryos and Federal taxpayer dollars to do that.

What has been talked about less is this area of the Santorum-Specter bill which would create embryonic type stem cells without destroying embryos. Here is a way for people, if they are troubled about the ethics of destroying a young human--I really do not want to do that, but you think there is a promising area of inquiry on these embryonic type stem cells and you are looking at this saying, Yes, it is not producing cures or results right now, but it might in a decade or two, so I would like to see this pursued--here is an ethical alternative for you to pursue. You don't have to say, Let's destroy this young human life. You can

say, Let us go with the alternative here where we are finding scientifically that we can derive these types of stem cells without the destruction of human life, embryos. If you like this field of inquiry, I raise a question about embryonic stem cells because we have invested $.5 billion in animal and human. We don't have any applications for it today, but if you are still saying we still ought to invest in this field because it might produce something, it might produce something big, you have an alternative which you can vote for in this Santorum- Specter alternative bill, and say, We want to pursue the science in this particular field. That is an area and a possibility that could work and we can and should, I think, pursue. I think it would be a good alternative for somebody who is in that type of quandary about which way to pursue this.

I will have further comments later on this evening. I don't want to take up the other side's time. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we are waiting for my colleagues to come to the floor, I want to address some issues that have been brought forward and talked about previously.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Iowa, and I am prepared to answer--he had raised a question about whether we had 72 different areas of treatment for adult stem cells, and so I wanted to respond.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his comments. We are about to wrap up the first full day of debate. We will vote tomorrow on a package of three votes. This is an important debate. This is one area that we have needed to debate for some period of time. We haven't had a real debate on a pending bioethics bill since 1998. The science has changed dramatically since 1998 and the debate at that point in time. We should benefit from this debate and from the science. All of us are interested in people such as Jacki Rabon. I have shown her picture before, but I want to make the point again because several of my colleagues have talked about people with spinal cord injuries. They talk about people with Parkinson's disease and what they wanted to do was cure that--to get something that would work for them. That is what was motivating them. I just want to help this person.

Here is a real live person; traffic accident; paraplegic from the waist down; an active athlete; excited about her future--and that all changed in a few seconds.

We all know this story too well because we have heard it and seen it in our own communities. I simply ask my colleagues: What is the most likely treatment route for her? Is it adult and cord blood stem cells or is it embryonic stem cells? We have to make choices

on dollars and where you invest funds. If we take the $.5 billion that we have invested in the embryonic stem cells in human and animals over the last 5 years and say we are going to get people such as Jacki walking again, what are we going to invest that money in? Is it going to be on embryonic or adult? She is already showing some improvement and feeling in her hip area. She is able to walk now with braces-- through use of adult stem cell therapy which, unfortunately, she has had to go to Portugal to get. Researchers are here, but they cannot get into the FDA trials.

Clearly, the answer, if we want her to walk again during her lifetime, is to work and to fund adult and cord blood stem cells. That is where we are going to get the treatments. That is where it is working.

The other areas may provide some interesting science. But if we are interested in helping people such as Jacki, we have one area that works, and we have another area into which we have put $.5 billion and it hasn't worked--and we know that.

I want to show you a picture of Dennis Turner. He has been brought up in this debate. I have had him in to testify. He is a Parkinson's patient. We want to cure Parkinson's disease. He was Parkinson's-free for 5 years because of adult stem cell therapy. It started to come back after that period of time, but he got 5 years of his life back.

If our objective is to have a treatment or cure for people such as Dennis Turner, where are we going to put the money? Are we going to put it in embryonic stem cells, where the scientists supporting it say this will take decades to find any sort of treatment, if they ever find a treatment, or put it into the adult stem cell area where they are already showing some results?

I know if I have limited resources, I would want to put my money where it is most likely to yield. It clearly is in the adult and cord blood stem cell area.

A lot of allegations and questions have been made regarding adult stem cells and cord blood and whether they are actually showing the types of results that I have been suggesting.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the current list--it gets updated often--of 72 current human clinical applications using adult stem cells.

Mr. President, next week it will may be 75, but for this week it is 72.

My point in saying highlighting this is that some have said they really question whether we are getting that many treatments. There have only been nine FDA-approved full clinical trials, full treatment areas using adult stem cells. Okay. I will take that. I do not know if that is an accurate number. But remember that FDA is the standard where you have to go through clinical trials 1 and 2 to get the application and get it tested before it is fully used.

I note that people are challenging how many areas of adult stem cell are being treated. I welcome this debate. I think we should be looking at the science and where it is going. They were saying we really question whether this many areas of adult stem cell treatments are actually happening. They produced an addendum to their challenge on it. They went through all of the 65 areas at that time. It is now 72. But when they did the review, it was 65. The Senator from Iowa was particularly challenging whether we have this many treatment areas. He pulled out one on testicular cancer and said: I don't think they are really getting it there. But this addendum is the people challenging the number of adult stem cell areas that have treatment. On testicular cancer, the researcher described a clinical evaluation showing improved long-term survival of a relapsed testicular cancer patient following the radical therapy that included a transplant of adult stem cells from bone marrow or blood. The research is actually showing that it was an improvement.

I am not saying that these are all FDA-approved areas. This is an area of research. But you actually have a researcher saying it showed improvement. This isn't the group who is challenging whether we are getting these treatments at all. They are not cures today. This is research. But the research shows a promise even in the area that they challenge.

Leukemia--this is from the same addendum. Two clinical studies, each incorporating multiple leukemia types, indicate that adult stem cell transplants from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood improved the survival of children with leukemia.

That is not FDA approved. But it is working. This, after only a short period of time that we have been working with all these different types of adult stem cells. We have known about them in bone marrow for some period of time.

Some patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma show an overall improved survival rate when transplanted with adult stem cells from blood.

The list goes on and on.

I welcome a debate about whether we are getting treatment for areas where people are showing improvement taking place with adult and cord blood because the truth of matter is we are. These are not all FDA approved. We never said that they were. The problem is we need more money to be able to get more of these FDA trials so that we can get more people treated. If we do that, there is a very promising area that is already showing results. Why not put your money there?

Let me give my colleagues a visual of this, if anybody is interested. There is a notebook of showing the accumulation of recent advances in adult stem cell research and other alternatives to cloning and embryonic stem cell research. This is a one-page summary of each of these areas where we are getting treatment. Note that I am not saying cures. I want to be very careful with my words. The treatments are promising in adult and cord blood.

Look how thick this book is. This is just one-page summaries of each of these various areas--cord blood, cartilage, brain damage, cancers. It has been very impressive.

If you do not like this example or if you are still questioning whether we are showing this much progress in adult stem cell, I invite people to go on the Internet and look at a site called ClinicalTrials.gov. This is an area where clinical trials are listed on the Internet. I didn't know about it until today. It sounded very interesting to me. It shows, as of now--I guess these numbers are actually growing with 565 such clinical trials currently active or recruiting patients using adult or cord blood stem cells to treat people.

If we want to cure people, if we want to find real treatments, if we want to see cures for people with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer or heart disease, the clear area to invest in is adult and cord blood. That is the clear area to go into.

Let us look on the other side of the aisle on this the embryonic stem cell work which is being pushed here today.

By the way, my colleagues have known about this for a very long time. We have known about embryonic stem cells for 25 years. We have worked and looked at these things for a long period of time.

They say this is arbitrary and it is not going to support killing embryos. What is being talked about is using taxpayer money to expand the lines of embryonic stem cell research. To get embryonic stem cells, you have to destroy an embryo.

The President set a date, August 9 at 9 p.m, when he was delivering a speech to the Nation saying, after this point in time, we are not going to fund it any further because we do not want to fund the additional destruction of human life. We will work on it on a prior date. That is why that date was picked.

Here is a clear demarcation. We will fund it prior; we have to the tune of half a billion on human and animal. It is both. After that, we will not fund it on humans because the life-and-death decision has already been made on these designs prior to August 9 but not on future ones.

Now, if we say we are going to use taxpayer money to fund any human embryonic stem cell research, people could go out today after we fund this, destroy human embryos, develop the lines, and have Federal taxpayer dollars. I again point out to my colleagues, there are no prohibitions in the United States today against any embryonic stem cell research. You can do it anywhere you want. We do have a

limitation on the Federal taxpayer dollars, on where they can go in the future destruction of human life.

Now, with this half a billion that we have invested over the last 5 years, how many human treatments do we have from embryonic stem cells? I have a notebook that shows the number of human treatments. I will show this notebook again. This is adult and cord blood. Here are human treatments on embryonic stem cell research. We do not have the research. It is not there. They do not exist.

It is interesting research. It has proven very problematic to get to people.

A number of my colleagues have been pushing this bill for some period of time, and I do not question or challenge what they were doing. I think they want to find cures. But the problem is we have not found treatments in the embryonic field.

They were saying in the year 1999 one of my colleague's medical experts testified that it may well be within 5 years of a cure for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and a long list of other human ailments. Stem cell research has enormous potential.

That is true. But it is adult cord blood stem cell research that is working. It is not embryonic. The embryonic has not produced the treatments. That was 1999. We are 7 years later, and it has not produced a peer-reviewed treatment.

We have scientists who testified at a hearing in 1998. Mr. President, I refer my colleagues to www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate for that testimony.

Mr. President, when Dr. Gearhart was asked how long will it be before we get these cures to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or cancer, he responded:

I actually think within several years, to be honest with

you . . .

That was 1998. Eight years later, here we are. Dr. Gearhart--one of the leading researchers in this field.

Then Dr. Thompson, one of the leading researchers on Parkinson's:

I am going to say 5 to 10 years more.

It will be one of the first ones.

We do have a treatment being developed. And it is adult stem cells for Parkinson's. We do not need to make this life-and-death decision and expand taxpayer funding for the embryonic lines.

My point is, in 1998 the leading researchers were saying we will have these cures in a few years, 5 to 10 years, and now researchers are saying it is decades, if even in their lifetime, that it will happen.

I conclude with this point. If this were all in the abstract and we were saying that we will spend another half a billion in this area, go ahead and do that, you could say: Well, all right, we spend a lot of money around here, we will do that. The problem with it is: how many millions of dollars will be spent on research, which is based on destroying human embryos that become human people? This is the beginnings of human life. That is the real ethical rub on top of the financial rub of whether this is the right place to invest.

I have cited the snowflake child, Hannah previously. Was she just a clump of stem cells? Early life can be very fragile.

This is Isaiah Royal, born to one of my staff members. Isaiah Royal was born at 24 weeks of age, very early. He is a fighter. But I don't think you can possibly say he is not human life. He is just 23 weeks after the embryonic stage that we are talking about, 23 weeks and a couple of days after that. Would you deny that he is human life? You would say no, of course not. Isaiah is struggling. He weighed 1 pound 14 ounces at birth. He is a good, tough, fighter. But we are talking about fragile human life, and it should be treated as sacred. We should not do research on it. Human life is important.

This is an important question. I urge my colleagues to vote against

I yield to my colleague from Virginia who is here to speak on some important topics.

I have other things I can cover. I understand the distinguished Senator from Virginia wanted to come over and speak on a very pressing matter of foreign policy. That is why I yielded the time to my colleague.

Good.

If I could, what does the Senator from Iowa desire?

I was. But I understood that my colleague wanted to speak on this particular issue. If the Senator wants to summarize and my colleague from Virginia wants to wait, I was offering him that courtesy because he had discussed coming over here early to do that.

I just must say, Mr. Speaker, this has got to be a new record of transmission of a bill from the Senate to the House. I was literally on the Senate floor a few minutes ago when S. 3504 was passed, and I had to run to the House to have it considered.

I think this bill is just fine. I am not sure that there is a pressing problem in this country right now of fetal farming, but I will support it. Like my chairman, Mr. Barton, I have complete and abhorrent opposition to the idea of people doing fetal farming.

I must say, though, that if people are worried about women becoming pregnant so they can be paid for making fetal tissue available for research, I want to point out that the current law already prohibits the sale of fetal tissue. Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human fetal issue for valuable consideration.''

In addition, a yearly amendment that we do, called Dickey-Wicker, already forbids the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes. So while this bill is completely unnecessary, I guess we will just pass it today and move on.

But here is the real reason this bill has been fast-tracked from the Senate, why there is a second bill that will be fast-tracked from the Senate, and that is because of H.R. 810, the Embryonic Stem Cell Enhancement Act, which has been cosponsored by my friend Mike Castle from Delaware and myself.

This important piece of legislation expands embryonic stem cell research so that the 110 million Americans and their families who suffer from diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, nerve cell damage and on and on, so that the bill would allow embryonic research to be expanded so that those patients can have hope for cures.

Unlike many other kinds of stem cells, adult stem cells and cord blood, embryonic stem cells have shown great promise in being a potential cure for these diseases. That is why a majority of this body passed that legislation on May 24 of 2005.

This is why the Senate is poised to pass that legislation with over 60 votes today.

H.R. 810 will go directly to the President's desk. Sadly, the President has announced his intention to make H.R. 810 the very first veto of his 6-year administration. He has signed over 1,600

bills, but he has announced he is going to veto a bill that could provide hope for tens of millions of Americans.

In order to do that, though, the President will need cover, since 72 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and that is what this bill, S. 3504, and its companion bill from the Senate will hopefully I guess give the administration cover.

There will be no solace, these bills, to the patients of America. These bills are merely a fig leaf to show that the veto that is happening is going to prevent the most promising research that could happen for all these patients, and so while I support S. 3504, no one would support fetus farming. Let us really call this what this is.

This is the first in a pair of fig leaf bills designed to give cover to the President, and I, for one, think it is a sad day when we are rushing to judgment on such an important research potential.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

That message from the Senate, I guess, means that within moments, sheer moments, S. 2754 will also be up on the House here because, as I said, this entire package is being railroaded through so that it can reach the President's desk in a neat little package.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, we rushed over here literally from the Senate floor. I do have other Members who would like to speak on this bill, but they are not here yet. I intend to close for my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, which as we mentioned just passed the Senate a few moments ago, is important in the sense that it is Congress' way of saying that we need to ensure that the scientific research that we do is ethical, that what we do to try to cure diseases is always ethical.

I, frankly, very rarely find myself agreeing with people like Mr. Smith and Mr. Weldon on this issue. But in the case of S. 3504 I do, because I don't agree we should have fetal farming. None of us agree that we should have fetal farming. It is wrong, and it is unethical.

But nobody should again convince themselves that this bill has anything whatsoever to do with the great promise that embryonic stem cell research holds. In addition, S. 2754 which came over here just on the heels of the other legislation, this bill is also attempting to give cover to those who say that they want to support research, but they don't support embryonic stem cell research.

As I will discuss moments from now when we bring up that bill, that bill is no substitute for embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the greatest promise for creating cures to diseases that affect millions of Americans is H.R. 810 which, as we just now learned moments ago again, has now passed the Senate by a solid majority, bipartisan Members who consider themselves pro-choice and Members who consider themselves pro- life. The reason they support embryonic stem cell research is because the vast majority of scientists agree that research holds the cure to potentially curing diseases that affect 110 million Americans and their families.

I have a 13-page letter signed by many, many groups, universities, patient advocacy groups, all kinds of folks, and this letter says: ``We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups and other interested institutions and associations, representing millions of patients, scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

``Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is the bill which holds promise for expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills are not substitutes for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 810.

``H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial progress for research.''

I include this letter for the Record.

July 14, 2006.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups,

health organizations, research universities, scientific

societies, religious groups and other interested institutions

and associations, representing millions of patients,

scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you

with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem

Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of

H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.

Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810

will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is

the bill which holds promise for expanding medical

breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative

Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and

the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT

substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810.

H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote

in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support

of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial

progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810

immediately.

Sincerely,

AO North America, AAALAC International, AARP, Abbott

Laboratories, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Accelerated Cure

Project for Multiple Sclerosis, Adams County Economic

Development, Inc., AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology

Association).

AMDeC-Academic Medicine Development Co., America on the

Move Foundation, American Academy of Neurology, American

Academy of Nursing, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry,

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for

Cancer Research, American Association for Dental Research,

American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, American

Association for

the Advancement of Science, American Association of

Anatomists, American Association of Colleges of Nursing,

American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine,

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American

Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological

Surgeons, American Association of Public Health Dentistry,

American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, American

Brain Coalition, American Chronic Pain Association, American

College of Cardiology, American College of Medical Genetics,

American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

American Society for Cell Biology, American Society for

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, American Society for

Microbiology, American Society for Neural Transplantation and

Repair, American Society for Nutrition, Affymetrix, Inc.,

Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University,

Alliance for Aging Research, Alliance for Lupus Research,

Alliance for Stem Cell Research, Alnylam US, Inc., Alpha-l

Foundation, ALS Association, Ambulatory Pediatric

Association, American College of Surgeons, American Council

on Education, American Council on Science and Health,

American Dental Association, American Dental Education

Association, American Diabetes Association, American

Federation for Aging Research, American Gastroenterological

Association, American Geriatrics Society, American Institute

for Medical and Biological Engineering, American Lung

Association, American Medical Association, American Medical

Informatics Association, American Medical Women's

Association, American Pain Foundation, American Parkinson's

Disease Association, American Parkinson's Disease Association

(Arizona Chapter), American Pediatric Society, American

Physiological Society, American Psychiatric Association,

American Psychological Association, American Public Health

Association, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular

Biology, American Society for Bone and Mineral Research,

American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental

Therapeutics, American Society for Reproductive Medicine,

American Society for Virology, American Society of Clinical

Oncology, American Society of Critical Care

Anesthesiologists, American Society of Hematology, American

Society of Human Genetics,

American Society of Nephrology, American Society of

Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, American Surgical Association,

American Surgical Association Foundation, American Thoracic

Society, American Thyroid Association, American Transplant

Foundation, Americans for Medical Progress, amFAR, The

Foundation for AIDS Research, Arizona State University

College of Nursing, Arthritis Foundation, Arthritis

Foundation, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Association for Clinical

Research Training, Association for Medical School

Pharmacology Chairs, Association for Prevention Teaching and

Research, Association for the Accreditation of Human

Research, Protection Programs, Inc., Association of Academic

Chairs of Emergency Medicine, Association of Academic

Departments of Otolaryngology.

Association of Public Health Laboratories, Association of

Reproductive Health Professionals, Association of Schools and

Colleges of Optometry, Association of Specialty Professors,

Association of University Anesthesiologists, Assurant Health,

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Athena Diagnostics,

Aurora Economic Development Council, Axion Research

Foundation, B'nai B'rith International, Baylor College of

Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine Graduate School of

Biomedical Sciences, Biotechnology Industry Organization,

BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Foundation on Health Care, Boston Biomedical Research

Institute, Boston University School of Dental Medicine,

Boston University School of Public Health, Brigham and

Women's Hospital, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Broadened

Horizons, LLC.

Children's Research Institute (Columbus), Children's

Research Institute (Washington), Children's Tumor Foundation,

Childrens Hospital Boston, Christopher Reeve Foundation, City

and County of Denver, City of Hope National Medical Center,

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Coleman Institute for

Cognitive Disabilitites, University of Colorado System,

Colfax Marathon Partnership, Inc., Colorado Bioscience

Association, Colorado Office of Economic Development and

International Trade, Colorado State University, Association

of Academic Health Centers, Association of Academic

Physiatrists, Association of American Medical Colleges,

Association of American Physicians, Association of American

Universities, Association of American Veterinary Medical

Colleges, Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and

Neurobiology Chairs, Association of Anesthesiology Program

Directors, Association of Black Cardiologists, Association of

Chairs of Departments of Physiology, Association of

Independent Research Institutes, Association of Medical

School Microbiology and Immunology Chairs, Association of

Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Association of

Medical School Pharmacology Chairs, Association of Professors

of Dermatology, Association of Professors of Human and

Medical Genetics, Association of Professors of Medicine,

Brown Medical School, Buck Institute for Age Research, Burns

& Allen Research Institute, Burrill & Company, Burroughs

Wellcome Fund, C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition, California

Biomedical Research Association, California Institute of

Technology, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine,

California Wellness Foundation, Californians for Cures,

Campaign for Medical Research, Cancer Research and Prevention

Foundation, Canon U.S. Life Sciences, Inc., Case Western

Reserve University School of Dentistry, Case Western Reserve

University School of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Health System,

Center for the Advancement of Health, Central Conference of

American Rabbis, CFIDS Association of America, Charles R.

Drew University of Medicine and Science, Charles River

Laboratories, Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation,

Children's Memorial Research Center, Children's

Neurobiological Solutions Foundation, Columbia University,

Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, Columbia

University Medical Center, Community Health Partnership,

Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, Connecticut United

for Research Excellence, Inc., Conquer Fragile X Foundation,

Cornell University, Council for the Advancement of Nursing

Science, (CANS), Creighton University School of Medicine,

CURE (Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy), Cure

Alzheimer's Fund, Cure Paralysis Now, CuresNow, Damon Runyon

Cancer Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute,

Dartmouth Medical School, David Geffen School of Medicine

at UCLA, DENTSPLY International, Digene Corporation,

Discovery Partners International, Doheny Eye Institute,

Drexel University College of Medicine, Drexel University

School of Public Health, Duke University Medical Center,

Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.

FD Hope Foundation, Federation of American Scientists,

Federation of American Societies for Experimental, Biology

(FASEB), Federation of State Medical Boards of the United

States, Inc., Fertile Hope, Fitzsimons Redevelopment

Authority, Florida Atlantic University Division of Research,

Ford Finance, Inc., Fox Chase Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson

Cancer Research Center, Friends of Cancer Research, Friends

of the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial

Research, Friends of the National Institute of Nursing

Research, Friends of the National Library of Medicine,

Genetic Alliance, Genetics Policy Institute, George Mason

University, Georgetown University Medical Center, Guillain

Barre Syndrome Foundation International, Gynecologic Cancer

Foundation, Hadassah, Harvard University, Harvard University

School of Dental Medicine.

Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, Jeffrey Modell

Foundation, Johns Hopkins, Johnson & Johnson, Joint

Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations

(JCAHO), Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy, Juvenile

Diabetes Research Foundation, Keck School of Medicine of the

University of Southern California, Kennedy Krieger Institute,

Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology, KID

Foundation, Kidney Cancer Association, La Jolla Institute for

Allergy and Immunology, Lance Armstrong Foundation, Lawson

Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, Leukemia and Lymphoma

Society, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown

University, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, East Tennessee State University

James H. Quillen College of Medicine, Eli Lilly and Company,

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Emory University,

Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing,

Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Emory

University School of Medicine, FasterCures.

Harvard University School of Public Health, Hauptman-

Woodward Medical Research Institute, Inc., Hereditary Disease

Foundation, HHT Foundation International, Inc., Home Safety

Council, Howard University College of Dentistry, Howard

University College of Medicine, Huntington's Disease Society

of America, IBM Life Sciences Division, Illinois State

University Mennonite College of Nursing, ImmunoGen, Inc.,

Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indiana University

School of Medicine, Indiana University School of Nursing,

Infectious Diseases Society of America, Institute for African

American Health, Inc., Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus,

International Foundation for Anticancer Drug, Discovery

(IFADD), International Longevity Center--USA, International

Society for Stem Cell Research, Invitrogen Corporation, Iraq

Veterans for Cures, Iris Alliance Fund, Iron Disorders

Institute.

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center,

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of

Dentistry, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Loyola

University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Lung Cancer

Alliance, Lupus Foundation of America, Inc., Lupus Foundation

of Colorado, Inc., Lupus Research Institute, Lymphatic

Research Foundation, Mailman School of Public Health of

Columbia University, Malecare Prostate Cancer Support, March

of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, Marine Biological

Laboratory, Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource Center, Masonic

Medical Research Laboratory, Massachusetts Biotechnology

Council, Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, MaxCyte, Inc., McLaughlin Research

Institute, Medical College of Georgia, Medical University of

South Carolina, Medical University of South Carolina

College of Nursing, MedStar Research Institute (MRI),

Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry.

Miami Children's Hospital, Midwest Nursing Research

Society, Morehouse School of

Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Mount Sinai School of

Medicine, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research,

National Alliance for Hispanic Health, National Alliance for

Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, National Alliance

on Mental Illness, National Alopecia Areata Foundation,

National Asian Women's Health Organization, National

Association for Biomedical Research, National Association of

Hepatitis Task Forces, National Caucus of Basic Biomedical

Science Chairs, National Coalition for Cancer Research,

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National

Coalition for Women with Heart Disease, National Committee

for Quality Health Care, National Council of Jewish Women,

National Council on Spinal Cord Injury, National Down

Syndrome Society, National Electrical Manufacturers

Association, National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias.

New York Presbyterian Hospital, North American Brain Tumor

Coalition, North Carolina Association for Biomedical

Research, Northwest Association for Biomedical Research,

Northwestern University, Northwestern University, The

Feinberg School of Medicine, Nova Southeastern University

College of Dental Medicine, Novartis Pharmaceuticals,

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oral Health America,

Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Health & Science

University School of Nursing, Oregon Research Institute,

Oxford Bioscience Partners, Pacific Health Research

Institute, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Parent Project

Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson's Action Network, Parkinson's

Disease Foundation, Partnership for Prevention, Pennsylvania

Society for Biomedical Research, Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America.

Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, Society for

Neuroscience, Society for Pediatric Research, Memorial Sloan-

Kettering Cancer Center, Memory Pharmaceuticals, Mercer

University, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation.

National Health Council, National Hemophilia Foundation,

National Hispanic Health Foundation, National Jewish Medical

and Research Center, National Marfan Foundation, National

Medical Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society,

National Osteoporosis Foundation, National Partnership for

Women and Families, National Pharmaceutical Council, National

Prostate Cancer Coalition, National Quality Forum, National

Spinal Cord Injury Association, National Venture Capital

Association, Nebraskans for Research, Nemours, New Jersey

Association for Biomedical Research, New Jersey Dental

School, New York Blood Center, New York College of

Osteopathic Medicine, New York State Association of County

Health Officials, New York Stem Cell Foundation, New York

University College of Dentistry, New York University School

of Medicine, Pittsburgh Development Center, Princeton

University, Project A.L.S., Prostate Cancer Foundation,

Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum International, Quest for the Cure,

RAND Health, Research!America, Resolve: The National

Infertility Association, RetireSafe, Rett Syndrome Research

Foundation, Rice University, Robert Packard Center for ALS

Research at Johns Hopkins, The Rockefeller University,

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Rush

University Medical Center, Rutgers University, Salk Institute

for Biological Studies, sanofi-aventis, Scleroderma Research

Foundation, Secular Coalition for America, Sjogren's Syndrome

Foundation, Inc., Society for Advancement of Violence and

Injury, Research (SAVIR), Society for Assisted Reproductive

Technology, Society for Education in Anesthesia Society for

Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Society for

Women's Health Research, Society of Academic Anesthesiology

Chairs, Society of General Internal Medicine, Society of

Gynecologic Oncologists, Society of Reproductive Surgeons,

Society of University Otolaryngologists, South Alabama

Medical Science Foundation, South Dakota State University,

Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Spina

Bifida Association of America, Stanford University, State

University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental

Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical,

Center College of Medicine at Brooklyn, State University

of New York Upstate Medical University, Stem Cell Action

Network, Stem Cell Research Foundation, Steven and Michele

Kirsch Foundation, Stony Brook University, State

University of New York, Strategic Health Policy

International, Inc., Student Society for Stem Cell

Research, Suicide Prevention Action Network-USA (SPAN),

Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's, Inc.

The Georgetown University Center for the Study of Sex

Difference in Health, Aging and Disease, The Gerontological

Society of America, The J. David Gladstone Institutes, The

Jackson Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg

School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University School

of Nursing, The Medical College of Wisconsin, The Medical

Foundation, Inc., The Michael J. Fox Foundation for

Parkinson's Research, The Ohio State University College of

Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and

Public Health, The Ohio State University School of Public

Health, The Parkinson Alliance and Unity Walk, The Research

Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc., The Rockefeller

University, The Schepens Eye Research Institute, The

Scientist, The Scripps Research Institute, The Smith-

Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, The Society for

Investigative Dermatology, The Spiral Foundation, The

University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, The

University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine.

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine,

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Nursing,

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health,

University of Arizona College of Medicine, University of

Arkansas for Medical Sciences, University of Buffalo,

Targacept, Inc., Temple University School of Dentistry,

Texans for Advancement of Medical Research, Texas A&M

University Health Science Center, Texas Medical Center, Texas

Tech University Health Sciences Center, The Arc of the United

States, The Association for Research in Vision and

Ophthalmology, The Biophysical Society, The Brody School of

Medicine at East Carolina University, The Burnham Institute,

The CJD Foundation, The Critical Path Institute (C-Path), The

Endocrine Society, The FAIR Foundation, The Food Allergy and

Anaphylaxis Network, The Food Allergy Project, Inc., The

Forsyth Institute, The Foundation Fighting Blindness, The

George Washington University Medical Center.

The University of Iowa College of Dentistry, The University

of Iowa College of Public Health, The University of

Mississippi Medical Center, The University of Mississippi

Medical Center School of Dentistry, The University of

Oklahoma College of Dentistry, The University of Oklahoma

Health Sciences Center, The University of Tennessee Health

Science Center, The University of Tennessee HSC College of

Nursing, The University of Texas Health Science Center at

Houston, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San

Antonio, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of

Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical

Center, The University of Toledo Academic Health Science

Center, Tourette Syndrome Association, Travis Roy Foundation,

Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Tulane

University, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, Union

for Reformed Judaism, Union of Concerned Scientists,

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United

Spinal Association, University of California System,

University of California, Berkeley, University of California,

Berkeley School of Public Health, University of California,

Davis, University of California, Irvine, University of

California, Los Angeles, University of California, Los

Angeles School of Dentistry, University of California, Los

Angeles School of Medicine, University of California, San

Diego, University of California, San Francisco, University

of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry,

University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing,

University of California, Santa Cruz, University of

Chicago, University of Cincinnati Medical Center,

University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences

Center, University of Colorado at Denver and HSC School of

Dentistry, University of Colorado at Denver and HSC School

of Nursing, University of Connecticut School of Medicine,

University of Florida, University of Florida College of

Dentistry, University of Georgia, University of Illinois.

University of Michigan School of Dentistry, University of

Michigan School of Nursing, University of Michigan School of

Public Health, University of Minnesota, University of

Minnesota School of Public Health, University of Missouri at

Kansas City School of Dentistry, University of Montana School

of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences, University of

Nebraska Medical Center, University of Nebraska Medical

Center College of Dentistry, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

School of Dental Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School

of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of

Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School

of Public Health, University of North Dakota, University of

North Texas Health Science Center, University of Oregon,

University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine,

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of

Pennsylvania School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh

Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of

Medicine.

Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, WE

MOVE, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Whitehead

Institute for Biomedical Research, WiCell Research

Institution, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, University

of Illinois at Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Nursing, University of Iowa, University of Kansas,

University of Kansas Medical Center, University of Kansas

Medical Center School of Nursing, University of Kentucky,

University of Kentucky College of Dentistry, University of

Louisville, University of Louisville School of Dentistry,

University of Maryland at Baltimore, University of Maryland

at Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of

Maryland at Baltimore School of Nursing, University of Miami,

University of Michigan, University of Michigan College of

Pharmacy, University of Michigan Medical School.

University of Rochester Medical Center, University of

Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of

Rochester School of Nursing, University of South Carolina

Office of Research and Health Sciences,

University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health

Sciences, University of South Florida, University of South

Florida College of Nursing, University of Southern

California, University of Southern California School of

Dentistry, University of Utah HSC School of Medicine,

University of Vermont College of Medicine, University of

Washington, University of Washington School of Dentistry,

University of Washington School of Nursing, University of

Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine,

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Van Andel Research

Institute, Vanderbilt University and Medical Center,

Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Virginia

Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, Virginia

Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Wake Forest

University School of Medicine, Washington University in St.

Louis, Washington University in St. Louis Center for Health

Policy, Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research and

Education, Woodruff Health Sciences Center at Emory

University, Wright State University School of Medicine, Yale

University, Yale University School of Medicine, Yale

University School of Nursing.

Mr. Speaker, many have said that adult stem cell research can be a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. To those people I would say that is simply not true. I support adult stem cell research. I support cord blood research. I support anything that could help cure all of the diseases that affect Americans.

But those who say adult stem cell research will be a substitute are demagoguing that issue for political gain and that is wrong.

Dr. Harold Varmus summarized it for all of the hundreds of researchers and the people who have done studies when he said just this week: ``Compared to adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have a much greater potential, according to all existing scientific literature.''

Some researchers have said well, maybe we can find cures through adult stem cell research. Some researchers have said maybe we could do embryonic stem cell research in alternative ways, but those methods have shown no promise whatsoever.

By way of contrast, recently researchers were able to create beta cells in mouse pancreases which then became insulin-producing islet cells. Even more recently, researchers were able to take embryonic stem cells and make nerve cells to help with nerve damage and paralysis. Adult stem cells cannot be used for that purpose.

So in fact, the only promise for many diseases like the ones I mentioned, is embryonic stem cell research. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good if people want to vote for S. 3504. It is all well and good if they want to say they support these other kinds of research, but in truth the only research that the tens of millions of Americans will rely on is embryonic stem cell research.

In closing, our President has said that he will veto this legislation, H.R. 810, and sign S. 3504. I will say this to the President: In 6 years in office, over 1,600 bills he has signed, he has signed bills that make our budget deficit the worst in our country. He has signed bills that allow us to go to war against other nations. He has signed post office namings, and so many other bills. This bill, Mike Castle and I, we drafted this bill to be very narrow.

We only allowed embryos which are created to give life for in vitro fertilization clinics and are then slated to be destroyed as medical waste to be donated voluntarily by the donors to be used for embryonic stem cell research. This is the pro-life alternative. This is the alternative that lets people, once they have had their babies for in vitro fertilization, say, I don't want my embryos thrown away. I want them used for medical research. I want those embryos to be used to save lives.

I just have one personal thing to say in closing. When people say that a 12-celled embryo is more important than patients today, I think of my 12-year-old daughter who suffers from type I diabetes. I think of the medical test that she does every day, sticking her finger. I think of the insulin that she must have to stay alive, and I say to the President, and I say to those that think that those embryos are more important than they are, I say, you know, come walk in her shoes for a day.

Come walk in the shoes of Lane Evans, our colleague who cannot appear on this floor because of his debilitating illness.

Come walk in the shoes, unfortunately you couldn't walk in the shoes of our colleague, Jim Langevin, who was paralyzed in a tragic gun accident and never walked again. And you tell all of those people that an embryo which is going to be thrown away for medical waste is more important than those people.

And that is why tens of millions of people will be watching this vote, and tens of millions of people will be watching the President this week. I suggest that the most important vote we can take is a vote for life and a vote for 810.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House for passing this bill. It was a bipartisan effort. And I want to urge them to think about that later this week if, as expected, a veto override vote comes to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to take 5 minutes of my allotted 15 minutes to answer some of the questions raised by Senator Harkin and Senator Specter.

I think it is very important that the American public understands what this debate is. We have heard a lot of statements this morning that there are no cures other than fetal stem cell research, and that could not be further from the truth. I am a practicing physician. I deliver babies. I have read almost every article published in the last 12 months on stem cells, both embryonic and nonembryonic adult. The fact is there is not one cure in this country today from embryonic stem cells.

We talked about 21 lines, but what they don't say is there is no limitation in this country at all on private research from any of the 400 lines Senator Harkin mentioned. There also is a statement by the caretaker and many scientists that the lines are not contaminated. As a matter of fact, they are not contaminated. The question is, do we want to do what is best to get us further down the road to treat people? I am a two-time cancer survivor; I had cancer of the colon and melanoma. With the treatments that are available--I desire the treatments that can come out of stem cell research, there is no question. But every disease Senator Harkin listed--every disease save ALS--has an adult stem cell or cord blood stem cell cure that has already been proven in humans, without using embryonic stem cells. What is the science behind it? What is the science that tells us we are going to have trouble with embryonic but not with the other? It is called the mitochondria. If you study physiology at all, what you know is every cytoplasm of every cell has mitochondria in it.

The only way to use an embryonic stem cell line and to use it effectively without falling into the trap of contamination or cross- immunization--in other words, allergy to the treatment--is to somehow quiet mitochondria. They are the energy source for cells. They have DNA. So none of the problems that are seen with your own adult stem cells or cord blood from your own child will be existing in a treatment from your own stem cells.

The reason we should spend more money on our own stem cell lines today is because there will not be complications from them as is noted in every study that has thus far been done on embryonic stem cells.

The Senator mentioned the rats. The only study that shows neurologic improvement is when the rats were sacrificed at 8 weeks. Every other study, when they let the rats live to 12 weeks, show teratoma or tumor formation, which is the problem with embryonic stem cells.

I hope the American people will listen. It is not about not getting where we want to go, but there is false hope, tremendous false hope in what we are about to do when, in fact, if we would redouble our efforts on the other areas of stem cells.

One final point and then I will yield. There is a germ cell line, stem cell line, which goes against everything Senator Harkin says. It has been proven in this country; it has been proven in Germany. It comes from ovarian tissue and testicular tissue. It is, without a doubt, the greatest thing on the horizon for us because it has none of the problems associated--I am not talking the ethical problems, I am talking the scientific problems associated with embryonic stem cells. There are none of the problems with it.

I have seen beating heart tissue from germ cell lines. It can create every area. There are three tissues, endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. That is the important reason why embryonic is thought to be so important.

One final point on dedifferentiation, the ability to take a cell that is in your body today and make it go backward. That has been accomplished. We now see multiple lines of pluripotent cells from our own bodies.

The choice is not destroy embryos, and if we don't, we will not get good research; the choice is go where the money is leading us, and the money is leading us into adult stem cells, germ cell lines, and other lines that have none of the problems of embryonic stem cells.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Is there any prohibition in the United States today for private money to fund any type of fetal research, embryonic stem cell research?

As a matter of fact, California passed, I think, Proposition 71: $500 million over the next 10 years in fetal stem cell research?

Three billion dollars. So there is no limitation at the present time.

Is the Senator aware of the private investment dollars that are presently--the private investment dollars--not Government dollars, not State dollars--that are now going into embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell and germ line stem cell and cord blood, the ratio is about 100 to 1?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware of the research that has been done on juvenile diabetes thus far in terms of embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research?

Is the Senator aware that the only successful treatments for juvenile diabetes to come from stem cells have come from adult stem cells, and in fact that the embryonic stem cells have one-fiftieth the amount of insulin, were not effective, and ended after about 80 days after transplantation? Is the Senator aware of that?

Is the Senator aware that of the human studies which have thus far been done on juvenile diabetes in fact the successful one was adult stem cells and the unsuccessful one was embryonic stem cell? Is the Senator aware of that fact?

It is not required. Actually, today the science shows that ductal cells from the patient's own pancreas can be induced to become stem cells that then produce insulin-producing cells. There is no transplantation needed. In fact, these ductal cells have been proven and demonstrated to produce the same eyelet cells that the patient did initially when they were grown as an embryo.

They cannot disagree. It has only been done for 3 months, and it is successful. There have been no successful embryonic cells taken from the duct of the pancreas of children with diabetes, converted into cells, and have in fact cured their diabetes.

For 3 months is all we know. I don't know the numbers. I think it is eight or nine. This protocol is being done in Europe at the present time.

No, it is not being done in the United States.

They have been published in peer-reviewed articles. I would be happy to submit them for the Record.

I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask those questions.

Here is the key point that needs to be made in this debate: If you use your own cells, you will not have tumors, you will not have teratomas, and you will not have rejection. If you use embryonic stem cells, you will have tumors, you will have teratomas, and you will have rejection.

That is what we know. That is why I, as a scientist, have not raised the life issue here once, but I am adamantly pro-life. I believe the science is so far ahead of this debate. When everyone knows what is really going on in terms of research, they are going to want the dollars put into the stem cells, both in terms of dedifferentiation--we know we can differentiate cells backward to make them pluripotent--and also to isolate cells from our own human body to use back on us. That is an important part of the debate.

I inquire of the Chair, under the previous order, if the majority is not here, who assumes control of the time?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Frist has this time. He has advised me I can use the time until he arrives.

I will spend a few minutes. This is a very emotional debate for every family in this country. Every family in this country has someone who, in fact, has a disease that will be impacted in the future by research that is ongoing in terms of stem cell research.

I make a couple of points. We have heard today a couple of very strong statements that are highly inaccurate.

One is that the only way you will cure this is with embryonic stem cells. No one knows that. As a matter of fact, most of the cures in science have come not by what we thought was going to happen but by what happened that surprised us. That is not true.

No. 2, there is no ban at the present time on research in this country on embryonic stem cells. What there is a ban on is using additional Federal funds to create additional stem cells, but additional stem cells can be created outside of the Government.

The Senator from South Dakota created a false choice. The false choice is not incineration. There are 400,000 embryos that are frozen in this country today; 93 percent of those the parents want to save for themselves. So that leaves us a smaller portion. If you look at the numbers, when you thaw embryos, you have a 50-percent wastage, you lose 50 percent of them. The false choice Senator Johnson put forward was this: they either get burned up or they get used for embryonic stem cell research. This last week, the 108th baby was born through this Operation Snowflake--which is adopted embryos--so that is not the only choice.

The other thing is, if everyone will recognize, in the fertility community in this country, that in Europe, they do not have a problem with excess embryos. We overdo it in this country in terms of creating embryos for fertility clinics. We create about four times as many obstetrician and fertility specialists as the rest of the world. The choice is not incinerate or use for embryonic stem cell research.

The majority leader has arrived. I yield my time.

Mr. President, Senator Brownback has graciously allowed me to take 10 minutes of his time. I would like to do that at this time.

First of all, I would like to set the record straight: the United States remains the world's leader of published stem cell articles and human embryonic stem cell articles. Specifically, it was April 6 of this year when that statement was made. From 1998 through the end of 2005, the United States published 46 percent of all papers published worldwide--by far the single largest proportion. The remaining 54 percent was divided among 17 other countries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the latest peer review articles that have been brought up to date for this year. This is about 15 pages long, and it has multiple entries. For every disease that has been mentioned on the Senate floor by those supporting the embryonic stem cell research, there are treatments ongoing today using adult stem cells.

Mr. President, the other thing I think we ought to make sure of--and I just want to go back. The Senator from California claims 72 percent of Americans favor stem cell research. That is true. That is true, if you ask it that way. But if you ask it: Should your tax dollars be used to destroy embryos to then create a research mechanism, it falls to 38 percent. So there is a difference between the ethical dilemma. I understand people can honorably disagree on the ethical dilemma, but we ought to be truthful about what the polling actually says. If you specifically say what we are doing, you get a much different answer.

I want to talk for a minute about something the majority leader discussed. He is a transplant surgeon. There are two problems transplant surgeons face. One is enough organs, which is a difficult problem in our country today, but the second problem is rejection. Nobody is talking about the long-term consequences of where we go.

Let's assume everything that everyone says about embryonic stem cell research is right. I am highly skeptical of that, but let's assume that it is. You still have this little problem called histocompatibility; in other words, rejection. Whatever you do with it, you are going to have a problem with rejection. And the thing that is so exciting about germ cell--and I want to explain that for a minute. Germ cells--pluripotent stem cells--just as powerful as embryonic, they can do everything that embryonic can. They don't have that problem. No. 1, they are pluripotent; No. 2, they continue to reproduce pluripotent cells just like embryonic. That is new research. That is 6 months old. It was discovered here first. It was duplicated in Germany last month. So that is a brand new study.

The point is, you don't have rejection because you are taking your own cells to create a pluripotent cell, and that is the wonderful thing about adult stem cells, about cord blood stem cells, about germ cells, is that they create a pluripotent cell. There is no rejection. So when you hear all the talk about embryonic stem cell research, the thing to remember is when you get the treatment, you are going to have the side effects like everybody else who has the transplant--if it works--and that is immune-suppressive drugs. You are going to have to have them. The only way not to have that is to do fetal farming or human cloning, where you clone yourself and then take part of what you have cloned back, which we already know is illegal and is banned. So it is important for the debate to focus on that.

Everybody in this country wants cures. Everybody wants to do the thing that will get us there the fastest with the least complications, and we want to invest our dollars in what will be most successful.

One of the things my dad taught me is to look around the world, and if you want to see what is happening, follow the money. If you look around the world today, the world as a whole, and you look at where the money is being spent, it is not being spent on embryonic stem cells. It is being spent on stem cells from us, just like we had the debate a moment ago. We now know ductal cells from somebody's pancreas can create new insulin-producing cells. We know now the mucosa, the lining of your mouth, can create cells to make you a new cornea. You don't have to have a cornea transplant in the future because your own cells are going to be able to create a new cornea. We also know that we have stem cells in our body that can take away cystoid macular edema, this aging process where we as seniors start to lose our vision--the cloudiness--the macular area of the retina starts to fall away. All of these wonderful things that we are doing versus nothing that has been accomplished.

I also would refer to the reference of the Senator from California to the renal success. It wasn't done with an embryonic stem cell, it was done with an adult stem cell. That research was all adult stem cells. So we end up tending to confuse what has really happened.

The fact is, all the success in treatment, all the success in terms of who is willing to invest private capital, where they are putting it, they are not putting it in embryonic. There is a reason for it. It is because in the long term it won't be the best treatment. It is fun science. As a doctor, I will tell you there could be no more fun or rewarding or interesting science than embryonic stem cell because you can turn things on and turn things off. There is no question about it. But what we are finding out is you can actually do that with our own cells, our own stem cells.

This idea of de-differentiation--and I want to explain that for a minute because we are going to hear a lot about it in the next 10 years--we take one of your stem cells, one of your multipotent--not totipotent, not pluri potent, but multi--and reverse its mechanism where we make it pluripotent. We are doing that in several stem cells now with an enzyme called reversa, where they are reversing the cell structure and making it revert back to what it was; in other words, grow in reverse to become pluripotent.

So I hope everybody will remember, this isn't a choice about cures or no cures. We are getting cures like crazy right now with adult stem cells and cord blood. We are going to be doing tons more when this germ cell comes forward. There is no question the scientific community is extremely excited about germ cell pluripotent stem cells because it has all the potential that an embryonic stem cell has and none of the problems.

With that, I yield back my remaining time, and I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Exhibit 1

Mr. President, let me clarify for the record. I think it is very important. There is a difference between cancer and teratoma. They use the formation of teratomas to make a differentiation of whether this is a part of the cell. That is not a cancer. Teratomas are not necessarily cancer. They are tumors but not necessarily cancer.

If you do not have a tumor, I would just as soon have a teratoma as cancer.

No. The Senator alluded to the fact that there is a gold standard of whether an embryonic stem cell is pluripotent or whether it produces a teratoma. That means it has components of the three layers of an embryo--exoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm--which create all the other tissues.

It has. Most of the time teratoma.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes to kind of outline some of the statements that have been made. To just show how off base from reality some of them are, we heard there was a ban on embryonic stem cell research. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. As a matter of fact, the American people paid $40 million this last year on embryonic stem cell research--human, $40 million. So there is no ban. And considering that, there is a significant industry in the private sector that is researching it.

We heard there are only 21 cell lines around, available. There are 400 cell lines available to scientists. There are 21 that Federal dollars can be spent on. So let's be real clear about what the real facts are.

We also heard from the Senator from Florida that all medical researchers believe that embryonic stem cell research is the best hope. That could not be further from the truth. All of them do not. As a matter of fact, there is a large number who do not believe that way at all, based on not ethical concerns, on scientific concerns. They think it is not an acceptable way.

We heard the Senator from Illinois saying that adult stem cells can only be collected in small quantities. That is not true at all. Many adult stem cell lines are reproductive of themselves. They are progenitor cells. They reproduce themselves. They come from amnionic membrane. They come from bone marrow. They come from endometrial lining. They come from placental tissue. They come from cord blood. They come from the spleen and the liver. They come from all sorts of areas in our body.

We heard the Senator from California say we should let the scientists decide, not the Senators. Let's talk about Tuskegee. We let the scientists decide that one. I can think of two or three more instances in the 20th century when we let the scientists decide, and we went down a path that all of us were grieved over.

When Senator Specter opened the debate today, there was, again, the assumption, in his first statement, that there is no embryonic fetal stem cell research. Not true. He also said none of the others have the potential of embryonic stem cell research. Well, I think there is a large body of science and a larger body of scientists who would disagree with that, especially as they study the new breakthroughs on germ cell pluripotent stem cells.

I am going to ask to have printed in the Record a Rand study on the available numbers of human embryos, where in fact there are 400,000. But they outline, in great detail, that the fact is, a very small percentage of those are available for fetal research. They also outline in great detail so the American public can know that for every two embryos you are going to thaw, one of those two will die during the thawing process.

So for this limited number, the most number of new cell lines, if you took all that are available today, would be less than what is available in the world today. It is 273 cell lines. So we have this great big demand, that we are going to get all this, but what we are going to get is less than what is out in the world today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rand study I referred to be printed in the Record.

Now, why do we want multiple cell lines? It goes back to the issue I have been talking about all day. It is called tissue rejection. That is the wonder of adult stem cells and germ cell pluripotent stem cells versus embryonic. With embryonic, there is rejection because there is an allergy to the foreign tissue. It is called the HLA, histocompatibility complex. The only way around that, with fetal embryonic stem cells, is to clone yourself--the only way you will get around it. And it will only work well in women. Only if you clone yourself with your own egg do you avoid all the allergy implications of foreign tissue.

So I think it is very important that we--it is OK to have this debate, but some of the claims we hear--we actually heard, and I know he did not mean this, Senator Specter talking about embryos injected into the pulp of the tooth to create a new set of teeth. He did not mean embryos. He meant pluripotent stem cells. But you do not want pluripotent. What you want is the epidermal stem cells that produce teeth in the first place. That is what is great about adult stem cells. We are going to be able to do that with adult stem cells.

He also stated that embryonic stem cell research is outstripping all of the research. That is not true. It is not true at all. The vast majority of success in stem cells today lies not with embryonic stem cells, it lies with everything but embryonic stem cells.

Now, I do not deny as a scientist that would be a wonderful area in which to work. There is lots unknown, and if you are a scientist today, and they say you can go to this area where there are all these areas where you can work and go and move and everything, it is a fun area of research. But it is loaded with hazards, just like the Senator from Kansas talked about, in terms of fetal tissue. The fact is, as we may someday learn how to turn on and turn off some of these cell lines, we do not know that yet. It is fine to perfect that in animals. It is not fine to perfect that in human clinical trials until we have that absolutely controlled. I do not have any trouble with what we are doing now, doing that in the private sector.

But the question is, do we ask American taxpayers to use their money to destroy embryos--embryos for which there are 2 million people in the country who would love to adopt--do we ask them to destroy that with their tax money so we can do that research, even though it is occurring in the private sector at a far greater rate than it is in the public finance sector?

So I think this really boils down to two questions: false choices and false promises. Let me outline them. The false promise is that only embryonic stem cells are going to solve the problem. It is not true.

The second promise is we are going to get treatments, but we are not going to have to clone. You are going to have to clone if you are going to get treatments from embryonic stem cells.

No. 3 is that adult stem cells and the pluripotent lines, as well as germ cell lines, will not be able to do what embryonic stem cells do. That is not proven anywhere in the scientific literature. That is a false promise.

And No. 4 is the false promise issue that you cannot take adult stem cells and dedifferentiate, move backwards, to make them pluripotent, which we are seeing great science with an enzyme today called reversa. So those are the false promises that are out there.

Now, there are four false choices, I believe. One is that there is no cure without embryonic stem cells. That, for sure, the evidence does not show. Another is that there will not be any research unless the Government pays for it. That is not true at all. The research is ongoing across the world in lots of areas without government research, and much more so in our country outside of government research.

The third choice is that there is no life in an embryo. The fact is there is. Now, we had one Senator talk about the fact that they are going to be incinerated. If you talk about the 108 snowflake babies, the other 2 or 3 organizations that are adopting those, those children belie that fact that there is wonderful potential with the amount of demand.

I am not saying that people who disagree with me on the ethical issues are bad or immoral people. I am saying I am not fighting this on ethical issues. I am fighting this on common sense, to see what things are happening and where we are seeing success and keeping up with the science. This debate in the Senate today is almost all about a year and a half old, as far as the science is concerned. I am talking about the new science. That is why I worked so hard to stay up on it.

Finally, the promise is what every scientist knows, what every embryologist knows and every cell biologist knows, which is the mighty mitochondria. You cannot clone without having potential rejections unless you clone yourself with your own egg. There is different DNA in the mitochondria and the cell cytoplasm. I appreciate the spirit of the debate, and I hope the American people understand that it is not a false choice of no research versus some. The question is, Do we destroy unborn children? Two, do we give Federal dollars to do that? Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for the superb comments thus far over the last 30 minutes but, indeed, since we started at 12:30 today.

As I opened this morning, I made it clear that this debate would be the first of the 21st-century dilemmas that involve ethical considerations and considerations around science, probably the first of many. I say the first; obviously, we have dealt with some other ethical issues in medicine over the last 5 years, but much of the discussion will focus around science and ethics and that nexus, that crossing of those two, and the interplay.

It is important that we debate this and that all concerns are put on the table, ultimately. These three bills give that opportunity.

Let me add that this probably will be the first of many debates like this in the Senate. I know there are a lot of my colleagues who asked: Why are we bringing this up now? Why are we talking about these tough issues which do force us to address issues about the distinctions of life, the early days of life and also the hope and the promise of science as it goes forward and that interplay? This Senate will have to get used to it.

This Senate will have to focus on those issues as we move forward because science, where it used to be growing at a small clip, is now growing at leaps and bounds, not exponentially but close to exponentially, and will continue to do so.

Less than a century ago, we did not have antibiotics, we did not have vaccines. We had measles, mumps, smallpox, polio--all diseases that ravaged our populations, in this country and around the world. Because of science, because of public health initiatives, they have essentially been eradicated. We will see forward momentum. That momentum will be accelerated in biomedical research.

I mentioned earlier today in opening the debate that when people look back at the 21st century, I would say maybe the next decade is the decade of the cells. Much of our discussion is about developmental biology. That has built upon the foundation of the shoulders of new knowledge regarding molecular and cellular development, coupled with the new understanding that is a product of a sequencing of the human genome from a decade of the last century.

What is important is that the rules, regulations, guidelines, and the framework must be defined and in large part must be defined by this Senate. That is our responsibility as Senators, as representatives of the American people, their attitude, their thought, their philosophies. They are our constituents.

A second point I made when I first started talking about stem cell research 5 years ago is we will have to continually assess and then reassess in light of advancing science certain rules, guidelines, and regulations we put in place. In part, that is why we are here today.

We have three bills before the Senate. My colleagues have talked about those three bills: the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Each addresses a different facet of the issues raised by advancing research, advancing developmental biology, advancing stem cell research. Each one of them demands thoughtful consideration and deliberation which will play out over the course of today and tomorrow.

I spent my entire professional career as a transplant surgeon, a professional who specializes in moving living tissue from one person to another person--say an organ or a heart. Take out a heart, put in a heart. Take out a lung, put in a lung. Thus, my interest before coming to this Senate focused on many of the same issues that come before the Senate today: advancing science, how do we define ``brain death,'' something we did in the 1960s, to make transplantation of the human heart possible.

Thus, it was a little over 5 years ago--on July 18, 2001--that I laid out a comprehensive proposal, a framework at that time, which I believed would both promote stem cell research but also provide an ethical framework through which such research could be conducted. That was 2001, about 2\1/2\ years after embryonic stem cells had just been discovered by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, or the human embryonic stem cells.

At that time, 5 years ago, I laid out 10 specific interdependent principles. The principles dealt with all types of stem cell research-- the adult stem cells, the germ stem cells, embryonic stem cells. They have helped to guide my assessment of stem cell research over the last 5 years, and they have provided a framework I have used and consistently gone back and adopted as I looked at various pieces of legislation on stem cells before this Senate. I will read those 10 principles because of their inclusiveness and their interdependence:

No. 1, ban embryo creation for research.

No. 2, continue funding the ban on the derivation.

No. 3, ban human cloning.

No. 4, increase adult stem cell research.

No. 5, provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded.

No. 6, require a rigorous informed-consent process.

No. 7, limit the number of stem cell lines.

No. 8, establish a strong public research oversight system.

No. 9, require ongoing independent scientific and ethical review.

No. 10, strengthen and harmonize fetal tissue research restrictions.

The principles are meant to stand the test of time even when applied to a field as rapidly changing as stem cell research.

Yes, I do believe both embryonic and adult stem cell research should be Federally funded but should only be done so within a carefully regulated, fully transparent, fully accountable framework, ensuring the highest level of respect for that moral significance of the human embryo. But we should fund research when it comes to embryonic stem cell research only if those embryos, only if those stem cell lines were derived from blastocysts that, with 100 percent certainty, are not going to be frozen forever, are not going to be adopted but with 100 percent certainty and with appropriate consent would be discarded, would be thrown away.

Today, we do debate science, developmental biology, and we debate ethics. We are called upon to confront the distinctions around life's early goings when we do so. As my colleagues know, I am pro-life. I do believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment, at conception, that the organism is complete--immature, yes, but complete. It is genetically distinct, it is biologically human, living. Development is a gradual process, it is a continual process. All of us in this Senate were at one time an embryo. It represents human life at its earliest stage of development. It is a continuum, coming all the way through. That is the science. That is not religion. That is not faith. That is the science. Thus, I believe strongly that an embryo does have moral significance. It needs to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

We have three bills before the Senate. The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, the implantation and gestation of the human embryo into either a human or an animal for the purpose of aborting for research-- that prohibition is what the discussion is about. Clearly, that would fall far short of ``utmost dignity and respect.''

The bill before the Senate ensures this practice is never employed in human research in the United States. That purposeful development of a human embryo, the manufacturing of human life for experimentation and its ultimate destruction is morally reprehensible. It offends the conscience, degrades the value of human life, and, of course, is not medically necessary. Yet it is a practice that some in the field of developmental biology just might be inclined to pursue if those guidelines, if those regulations, are not out there. Why? To look at the later stages beyond the embryo in terms of development and how cells function, or it might be, as we have heard argued before, that the cells have a different nature after the embryo stage but before delivery of the fetus itself and have more stability or more differentiation. This particular legislation preempts, it stops that possibility.

Not only would this be a flagrant lack of respect for nascent human life, but it would also create powerful incentives for women to undergo an intense regimen of superovulation drugs and surgery with potentially devastating side effects. It could exploit women, the most likely targets of egg harvesting or fetal farming. Under no circumstances could human fetus farming be labeled ``medical advancement.'' It is the exact opposite, an unconscionable regression of the mores that define our culture, a culture that upholds respect for life and health.

As a transplant surgeon, I have had that opportunity to see firsthand how new medical discoveries and technologies can save lives and make life more fulfilling for others. In fact, my entire professional career was spent on these newer therapies, these newer technologies, in order to give others a better life. But at the same time, whether it is in the laboratory, where I spent a lot of time, or at the bedside, I have been able to also witness how fear can also delay scientific advances that are out there before us.

So before us today is that challenge to bridge this divide. And we should reject an outright fear of all technological advance. We have to work together to allow science to advance and to promote those medical advances, whether it is in developmental biology or the human genome project, in order to give a healthier life or more life to others. But we have to do so. That is why we bring these bills to the floor, within an ethical and moral framework, in this pursuit.

Even while we reject a fear of scientific and technological advancement, we still have to--we must; it is our responsibility--live within limits. Limits do not hamper human advances but, rather, allow us to preserve them and to promote them. That is why we can reject this practice of fetus farming while still embracing the hope that is offered by stem cell research. Senators Brownback and Santorum worked hard to bring this important legislation to the floor, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

The second bill, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, put forth by Senators Santorum and Specter, is a very important bill, the purpose of which is to step back from and to remove the ethical considerations that surround the unique potential that these pluripotent stem cells have.

Five years ago, when I came to the floor in 2001, I said the following:

We should not let the potential of this research drive the

moral considerations themselves. . . . We do not know what

the next great discovery is going to be 6 months from now. .

. . So the oversight process has to be responsive, has to be

ongoing. It has to recognize that science moves very quickly.

That is why we are here. We recognize that science cannot be practiced in a vacuum. We need to promote and accelerate these medical advances. But we also need to ensure that research practices are channeled along lines that respect human life and dignity.

What seemed impossible even 5 years ago now seems possible. Exciting techniques are beginning to emerge that just may make it unnecessary to have to destroy that embryo, to disaggregate or dismember that embryo, in order to obtain cells that have the pluripotent properties that are either exactly like or very similar to the embryonic stem cells. And we have talked about it a little bit earlier today, and in the past, as to the unique property these embryonic stem cells have, which is this pluripotentiality, which has two concepts to it: No. 1 is that they can become any tissue--theoretically, they can become any tissue--and that is in the differentiation; and, secondly, this overall process of self- renewal, that they can renew and replicate themselves again and again and again.

An adult stem cell might be reprogrammable. You might be able to directly reprogram that cell to an earlier stage to make it more pliable, to take it back to an earlier or closer to an embryonic phase. Adult stem cells can be what we call multipotential, and that means they can differentiate, and you can back them down to differentiate into certain tissues. The embryonic stem cell is pluripotential, and the range of tissues it can differentiate to are much greater.

But this reprogramming, coming back earlier to the adult stem cell, earlier and earlier along its chronological development, gives the opportunity to send that adult stem cell into various regions; thus, this direct reprogramming concept opens up great potential. To me, and I would hope to every Member of this body, this type of research-- research that stops short of having to destroy an embryo--to obtain pluripotent cells through alternative ways should be supported, and I hope can be supported, by everybody in this body.

In May of last year, 2005, the President's Council on Bioethics issued a report bringing these alternative sources attention. At that time, I asked and worked with several of my colleagues to put together a piece of legislation for which we could say Federal funding will go in that direction to derive these alternative means of developing these pluripotential cells. With more Federal support, and with more emphasis, these newer methods may pay off hugely in terms of scientific advantage and clinical advantage.

They may be the way to bridge these moral and ethical differences among people who hold wildly different and broadly different views, which we will actually hear on the floor over the course of today and tomorrow on stem cell research. Why? Because they avoid any destruction of the human embryo. The alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent cells, that were spelled out in the Council on Bioethics report of May of last year, include: extraction from embryos that are no longer living; a second proposal was blastomere extraction, which involves a nonlethal and nonharmful extraction of the blastomeres from embryos--and, indeed, several researchers over the course of the last year, since that proposal was initially made, have reported success in that regard--thirdly, extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryolike--this was initially proposed by Bill Hurlbut at Stanford and subsequently demonstrated by Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch and others at MIT--fourthly, the direct reprogramming of adult or somatic cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines.

We are already driving and promoting ethical alternatives such as

adult stem cell research and therapies and cord cell research, both of which have been important to date in the treatment, as well as other types of therapy.

Today, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. At the Multiorgan Transplant Center that I established and directed at Vanderbilt, we did bone marrow transplants, which are commonly done for treatment of many types of cancers now; at that point, for many types of blood disease. We have had bone marrow transplants done in this country for, oh, about 40 years. The first bone marrow transplant was done in 1968.

Stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in treating the myeloproliferative disorders, the leukemias, congenital immune system disorders.

Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to become natural cells, which could lead to treatments for more heart disease and Parkinson's disease. The first cord blood transplant was done about 20 years ago in 1988.

So every day we unlock more of the mysteries of human life, more ways to promote and enhance our health. This compels the profound questions we address, moral questions with which we understandably struggle. Transplantation itself posed a question similar to those we face with stem cell research, a little bit different in that organs were transplanted principally, when I got started, at the end stage of life. People without a heart would be dying 4 to 6 months later. We had to define, as I mentioned earlier, what is brain death. We had ethical considerations about how to allocate a very few number of organs to the many people who waited, which literally meant some people would die waiting for that scarce organ--all ethical considerations.

If we can devise a moral and ethical framework, then it is my belief we will have the chance to save many lives and make many countless other lives more fulfilling. That is why it is imperative we get our stem cell policy right scientifically, morally, and ethically.

A lot of diseases have been mentioned on the floor, and I guess over the next 2 days I will have the opportunity to come back and talk about some of those particular diseases. Adult stem cells, we know, are so powerful. They have effectively treated so many diseases today. I mentioned bone marrow transplantation. But the list will be coming to the floor, and they have come to the floor, about the number of therapies with bone marrow transplantation and other adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, however, do have this unique capacity of self- replication, self-renewal over time, and greater potential to differentiate into other types of tissues. Unlike other stem cells, these embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, where adult stem cells tend to be multipotent. That means the embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become a greater range of types of tissues. They are capable of renewing themselves and replicating themselves over and over again indefinitely.

A number of people have brought up what the current administration policy is. As we all know, on August 9, 2001, President Bush laid out his principles and put in place a policy, which I supported, that for the first time allowed Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The President's policy was consistent with my initial principles--my seventh principle: to limit the number of stem cell lines. In order to accomplish that limiting the number of lines, the President used a date: August 9, 2001.

The President's policy also says: Let's support stem cell lines that have been derived from blastocysts that were going to be thrown away or discarded. His policy is the same in that regard. The cell lines we federally support today all came from blastocysts that were left over by in vitro fertilization that were going to be discarded. The President basically said it was OK to do that before August 9, but after August 9 that will not be allowed anymore, and we will only fund those cell lines.

I thought it was very important that Congress continue oversight. Remember, 5 years ago or 6 years ago, I said we are going to be coming back to this again and again and again. I think that oversight absolutely is critical.

This third bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which is the House-passed bill, the Specter-Hatch, the Castle-DeGette bill, is the bill most people will be spending most of their time on over the next day and a half.

Over the last 5 years--while it was widely believed when the President put forth his policy that there would be 78 embryonic stem cell lines available for Federal funding--we have learned, through science, that has not been the case. In fact, of the initial anticipated 78 lines, there are, right now, about 22 lines that are eligible. There is some concern that these lines are becoming less and less stable and less replicative than initially thought.

While we know that this embryonic stem cell research is at a very early stage--remember, these embryonic stem cells were discovered, first, just in 1998; unlike adult stem cells, where we have 40 years of research history--we do know that the embryonic stem cell research is moving fast and moving quickly.

The question is: Are there a sufficient number of cell lines to keep that research going? I believe right now that the current policy unduly restricts the number of cell lines. As I have said, I am going to be supporting and voting for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I do not think it is an ideal piece of legislation. It has a few essential shortcomings as written. It restricts funding to blastocysts left over after IVF that would otherwise be discarded. And that is consistent with my fifth principle. But the shortcomings do have to be addressed somewhere.

First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism. Second, the bill does not prohibit financial or other incentives between scientists and fertility clinics. Third, the bill does not specify whether the patients or clinic staff or anyone else has the final say about whether an embryo will be implanted or will be discarded.

And were circumstances different and had the House not acted so quickly and sent the bill over--I think we should have had the opportunity to have a thorough examination and rewrite of that bill. However, even with those reservations, I do support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As I said, it is completely consistent with my principles from 5 years ago.

Many of my colleagues, such as I, have spent countless hours grappling with this issue--the future of stem cell research. How do we balance pro-life positions with the potential for new life and health offered by stem cell research? There is, perhaps, an inclination to avoid such difficult issues, to ignore them and let others debate. But I believe and feel strongly that we must participate in defining research surrounding the culture of life.

If we don't do that, it will define us. Finally, I thank all of my colleagues. I know we will have a good debate over the next day. We will have those votes at 2:45 tomorrow. I hope those votes will show there are areas of consensus among us and that where differences exist we can respectfully articulate and vote our conscience.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.