SAFE-ID Act

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of stem cell research.

I plan to vote in favor of each of the three bills that we will be considering today. I call upon my colleagues to pass all three of these bills. I call upon the President to sign all of them into law.

Make no mistake about it. This is an important debate. We will cast important votes today.

Even with all the events taking place the world today, including the developments in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, it is my hope--and the hope of many others--that when the history of our time is written, the ultimate outcome of today's debate over stem cell research will have been a major breakthrough in our understanding of, and ability to promote, human health and prevent and treat disease.

I admire and respect President Bush tremendously for being the first President to dedicate Federal funds for stem cell research. As many may recall, in August 2001, the President announced that Federal funds would be used for research on 60 stem cell lines that were created from embryos that have already been destroyed. Unfortunately, many of these stem lines became contaminated so the cells could never be used for scientific research. I believe that H.R. 810 must be signed into law in order to make the President's policy work because in my view, the President already made the decision to use the cells. H.R. 810 just changes the guidelines for stem cell research by allowing embryos that would otherwise be discarded to be made available for research. I believe that by using these embryos for medical research, we are, in fact, promoting life.

One of the reasons why so many are so interested in this debate is that literally everyone either has, or knows, a loved one who has, one of the diseases or conditions that may one day benefit from stem cell research.

One reason why I support stem cell research so strongly is because I have heard from so many of my fellow citizens of Utah and fellow Americans about how important this issue is to them and their families.

That is the reason why Nancy Reagan wrote me the following letter about stem cell research:

May 1, 2006

Dear Orrin: Thank you for your continued commitment to

helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating

and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope

to so many.

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

Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that

would open the research so we could fully unleash its

promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific

progress to help their loved ones, the wait for United States

Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.

I understand that the United States Senate is now

considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research

Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can

count on friends like you to help make sure this happens.

There is just no more time to wait.

Sincerely,

Nancy.

I want to make it clear that there is broad consensus among leading scientists that among the three bills we will vote upon today--the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 810; the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754; and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006--it is H.R. 810 that can most immediately advance science.

The vote on H.R. 810 is the one that really counts.

Some in this debate suggest that passage of the Specter-Santorum alternatives bill would obviate the need for H.R. 810. Neither Senator Specter nor I believe that. Nor do the leading scientists in America believe that. Nor should you believe that.

To put a point on it, the other two bills, S. 2754 and S. 3504, are most emphatically not a substitute for H.R. 810. These bills complement H.R. 810. In no way can, or do, they replace H.R. 810.

I support the alternatives bill, S. 2754, for a lot of the same reasons why I coauthored the cord blood stem cell research bill that President Bush signed into law last year. I believe that all scientifically credible and ethically sound avenues of stem cell research ought to be pursued. I might add that when we passed the cord blood legislation, that form of research had already yielded tangible results for several types of diseases, such as some forms of bone marrow cancer.

In sharp contrast, whatever benefits the alternatives bill may yield, experts tell us that they are largely unrealized today and, as often the case with cutting edge science, uncertain in the future. But that is the way science works. Advance in science often progresses in fits and starts. Sometimes, actually most of the time, particular avenues of research are found to be blind alleys and advances do not come. Many seeds of discovery have to be planted for the flower of progress to bloom.

Today's votes give us an opportunity to move forward on several fronts.

Let us be clear that the centerpiece of today's debate is H.R. 810. This is the bill that will help provide the long overdue expansion of the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally funded biomedical research. This is what our leading scientists have told us they want and need to move the field of stem cell research forward.

I have worked with leading scientists throughout my 30-year career in the Senate. Few, if any, issues have created the genuine sense of excitement among the scientific community as have the current opportunities in stem cell research.

Listen to what Dr. Harold Varmus has said about the promise of stem cell research. Dr. Varmus is a Nobel Laureate. He is the former Director of the National Institutes of Health. He currently runs the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. By all accounts, he is one of the leading scientists in the world. I met with Dr. Varmus on several occasions to learn what scientists think about stem cell research.

Here is Dr. Varmus' assessment:

(t)he development of a cell that may produce almost every

tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific

breakthrough. It is not too unrealistic to say that this

practice has the potential to revolutionize the practice of

medicine.

More than 40 other Nobel prize-winners and as well most of our Nation's leading scientists, disease advocacy organizations, and many other interested citizens and organizations share this view.

For example, here is what Dr. Edward Clark of the University of Utah Department of Pediatrics has told me about stem cell research:

. . . I can assure you that the scientific progress of

stem cell research is extraordinary.

. . . In pediatrics, stem cell research offers therapy,

and indeed possibly a cure, for a wide variety of childhood

diseases, including neurologic disease, spinal cord injuries,

and heart disease . . .

I can think of nothing that will provide as much meaningful

therapy for children and children's problems than the promise

offered by stem cell research.

It is not hard to understand why the additional stem cell lines that can and will be used by federally funded scientists if H.R. 810 becomes law is so exciting for scientists and important for the American public.

The stakes of today's debate are high. As a report of the influential National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine has stated:

(S)tem cell research has the potential to affect the lives

of millions of people in the United States and around the

world.

This Institute of Medicine Report goes on to cite the following high prevalence diseases as likely candidates for stem cell research: Cardiovascular Disease--58 million U.S. patients; Autoimmune Diseases-- 30 million U.S. patients; Diabetes--16 million U.S. patients; Osteoporosis--10 million U.S. patients; Cancer--10 million U.S. patients; Alzheimer's Disease--5.5 million U.S. patients; Parkinson's Disease--1.5 million U.S. patients.

What family in America does not include someone afflicted with a disease on this list? And a complete list includes many other diseases and conditions such as spinal cord injuries, burns, and many birth defects. Experts believe that upward of 100 million Americans--and hundreds of millions of others around the world--may one day benefit from stem cell research.

For example, let us consider spinal cord injuries. Who does not know, or know of, someone whose life has been devastated by a spinal cord injury?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I received just last month from Michael Armstrong, Chairman of the Board of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Mr. President, this letter describes groundbreaking research conducted by a Johns Hopkins scientist, Dr. Douglas Kerr, on how mouse embryonic stem cells have been able to regenerate damaged nerve tissue in paralyzed rats. According to the letter from Johns Hopkins University, one of the world's most respected biomedical research institutions in the world, Dr. Kerr's ``breakthrough represents the first time that scientists have actually re-grown damaged components of a nervous system, and it could lead to human therapies that seemed previously to be beyond our reach. Treatments not only for paralysis, but for ALS, multiple sclerosis, and similar diseases of the brain now seem possible.''

The current Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, has said that this research is ``a remarkable advance that can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great promise.''

However, unless H.R. 810 becomes law and the number of stem cells lines eligible for Federal funding is expanded, this promising research could die on the vine.

As Mr. Armstrong explains in his letter:

The level of funding that will that will ultimately be

required to advance this field of science to human clinical

trials, however, suggests that federal funding will be

necessary. Yet, under current federal policy, the only stem

cell lines eligible for federal funding were created using

mouse feeder cells and could never be used in clinical trials

with humans. It is therefore crucial that current stem cell

policy be revised.

The precise type of revision that the scientists at Johns Hopkins tell us is needed is precisely the change in Federal policy that H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette bill, will bring about.

And the scientists at Johns Hopkins are hardly alone.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Dr. Darrel Kirch, President of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

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

The therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cells is

remarkable and could well prove to be one of the important

paradigm-shifting advances in the history of medical science.

Support for H.R. 810 is not confined solely to academicians. Last year, when the House took up and passed H.R. 810 on a bipartisan basis, over 200 organizations gave their wholehearted support for this legislation. This includes many leading patient advocacy organizations such as the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the American Association for Cancer Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research, to name a few.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of organizations that support the passage of H.R. 810.

Mr. President, support for the passage of H.R. 810 is not limited to the not-for-profit sector. While it is sometimes typical for the private sector to keep out of some controversial issues, this is not the case with stem cell research.

Last week, I received a letter of support for H.R. 810 from the Biotechnology Industry Organization. BIO represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, state biotechnology centers, and academic institutions. The BIO letter notes:

Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also

go a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed to

develop drugs because new chemical or biological compounds

meant to treat diseases could be tested in specific human

cells prior to their use in live human beings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the July 12, 2006, letter from BIO calling for passage of H.R. 810.

Mr. President, some aspects of this issue involve complicated scientific facts and complex moral questions. Elected officials and the American public alike have had much to learn and consider since this issue first arose on the scene in 1998.

The more the American public thinks about this issue, the more it coalesces around the policy embraced by H.R. 810 which will significantly improve and expand taxpayer supported stem cell research.

Public opinion polls show that U.S. citizens are squarely behind stem cell research and H.R. 810.

For example, a poll commissioned by the Coalition for the Advancement of Stem Cell Research and taken in May of this year found that 72 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research and 70 percent favor the Senate adopting H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This finding of broad public support is consistent with other previously conducted polls. For example, a Harris poll taken in August 2004 found that 73 percent of Americans think stem cell research should be allowed and a June 2004 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll placed public support for this research at 71 percent.

Some may try to quibble about how particular poll questions were phrased in particular surveys, but few would question the fact that for some time most Americans have wanted the type of research that H.R. 810 will help enable to go forward.

I can tell you this. The poll results I have just cited are consistent with what I hear from my neighbors and constituents in Utah. I come from a conservative State. But whenever the issue of stem cell research comes up at one of my meetings in Salt Lake City or other places in my State, somebody will come up to me to tell me their personal story with the diseases of a loved one and tell me that I am doing the right thing on stem cell research.

One of the reasons why I got involved with the issue of stem cell research in the first place was because of a little boy named Cody Anderson, whose family used to live in West Jordan, UT.

Cody and his family came to visit me in Washington in 2001 to tell me their tragic family struggle with diabetes. Cody's grandfather succumbed to diabetes at age 47 after a series of painful amputation operations. Cody, his grandfather's namesake, never got the chance to meet or know his grandfather because of diabetes.

Let me read you part of a letter that Cody and his family wrote me:

I don't want other small children like me to have to go

through the things that I have already had to go through. I

do not want to suffer the effects that my grandfather did

throughout his life because of this disease. I want to grow

old and not have to worry about all the bad things that could

happen to me because of diabetes. We have seen what diabetes

can do to an innocent life. Please don't let this happen to

me in my life now. I hope you will take it in your hearts to

listen to us, the people who live with this disease for every

minute of every day for now and the rest of our lives.

In a few hours we can pass a bill that can only help Cody and thousands of others suffering from diabetes and millions of others who suffer from other diseases and conditions that may benefit from stem cell research.

How do you think young Cody's parents felt when they learned of their son having the same diagnosis as his grandfather?

How would you feel if you were told that your child would lead a life revolving around multiple daily blood tests, insulin injections, and a tightly regulated diet and constricted activity schedule that no child would relish?

The answer of any parent is that you would want your government to leave no stone unturned in finding a cure for that disease. And you would want the cure found as soon as possible.

Let me say a few sobering words about the immediacy of the promise of stem cell research. Cures are not around the corner. While stem cell research may prove in time to be a revolutionary advance in science such progress does not come quickly or on the cheap.

If we start a vigorous program of federally funded stem cell research program progress will not likely be measured in hours and days. It will take years, perhaps 10 or 20 years, before American patients are administered a new class of products and treatments derived from stem cell research.

In this regard I am reminded of an instance in which, when advised that a certain type of rare plant took years and years to bloom if placed in a certain hostile environment, a great French General simply said, ``Then we must not delay, we must plant today.''

We have to proceed with stem cell research with a passion and urgency today precisely because we do not know how long it will take to find tomorrow's cure. But we do know that the sooner we start, the faster we will get there.

Nor will this research be inexpensive. No doubt one reason why the biotechnology industry is supporting H.R. 810 is because since the end of World War II basic biomedical research in this country has primarily been funded by taxpayers through the programs conducted or supported by the National Institutes of Health. Today, about 80 percent of the $28 billion NIH budget is invested in highly-competitive, peer-reviewed research that is undertaken by universities and research hospitals.

There has been a continuum of effort between the public sector basic research and private sector applied research that attempts to translate the new basic knowledge gleamed from federally supported NIH research into tangible FDA-approved products or other treatments before they can reach even the first patient's bedside. Americans should take pride in the fact that virtually every major advance in the biological sciences in the last 50 years emanated in some way from our investment in the

Mr. President, although at one time it appeared that as many as 78 stem cell lines might qualify under the President's policy, as many had feared, the number of lines that might be practically accessed today is no more than around a dozen at best. Moreover, all of these cell lines were

grown with so-called mouse feeder cells so could never pass muster with the FDA for use to make products for humans. Thus for the President's initial goals to be accomplished, new embryonic stem cell lines must be made available.

It has been over a year since he House has taken its historic action of passing H.R. 810 by a bipartisan 235-to-189 vote. I commend the leadership of Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette for moving the bill through the House.

I must pay special respects to Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin for their dogged determination in conducting a series of some 15 oversight hearings on the issue of stem cell research since this breakthrough science was first reported in 1998. In fact, it was the work of the Specter-Harkin Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that developed the factual basis and legal analysis that resulted in the legislation that became H.R. 810.

At long last, today the Senate will finally vote on this important legislation.

I hope that it will pass and if it does, I will strenuously urge President to reconsider his position and sign this bill into law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his long leadership on this and other issues of importance to research and to people with disabilities.

For each of us, and for millions of Americans, this is a very personal issue. It is impossible to separate it from our own experiences. I have heard colleagues on the floor talking about grandparents and other members of their family and the experiences they have had. I will never forget, personally, almost 2 years ago standing in an amphitheater in Denver, talking to many people--many of them in wheelchairs, many who had lost loved ones to disease, many who knew a cure would never come in time for them--who held out hope, nevertheless, that stem cell research might save a loved one, might save someone else in similar circumstances.

What they wanted, above all, was leadership. They wanted someone back in Washington to fight for them. I promised them that I would do all that I could, and I will never forget the look of yearning and hope in their eyes, the pleading, if you will, that people would come to a place of common sense. They placed enormous hope in all of us in the Congress.

When I think about them and I think about people all over the country who are so personally invested in this issue, I am deeply troubled to see that today we find ourselves in a place of division, where we could have been united. We are divided principally by the promise of President Bush to veto a bipartisan bill that funds stem cell research.

In more than 5 years, President Bush has not vetoed a single bill-- not one. He signed 1,129 bills into law, without raising his pen to veto one--not a bill that overspent, not a bill that moved in any other direction that he disagreed with. Now he wants to use the first veto of his Presidency to stomp on the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from devastating illnesses.

A veto now would send a profound message to all Americans that, on crucial issues, our differences are greater than our shared convictions. It would also tell the world that America no longer wants to be the country that leads the world in scientific knowledge and discovery.

The bipartisan legislation before Congress shows that Congress has found a way to take the politics out of the debate on stem cell research. It is time that the White House does the same.

Our current policy is eroding America's national advantage on stem cell research. We are tying our scientists' hands. We are holding back our doctors. We need a policy that is not driven by a narrow view but, rather a broader, consensus-driven approach to life and to science itself. We need a Federal policy that builds on the advances being made in our States, in our universities, in our private foundations, and research centers. I believe that Senate passage of H.R. 810, with vetoproof majorities, can put us on that path.

What a tragedy it would be if the first veto of the Bush Presidency were used as a political wedge. This is something that Washington and the rest of America overwhelmingly supports, regardless of political party. It is a promise that offers hope to millions and could put America on the path to leading the world in the discovery of cures. This is not a wedge issue. This is about common sense and about people's lives.

For all of us, the issue of stem cell research is personal, as I mentioned. Yes, it does raise profound moral questions and nobody should skip by those questions. I am not seeking to. But I do believe that any legitimate examination of conscience and any legitimate examination of the moral questions about life that are at stake can be resolved in a way that respects life and that properly puts morality on the side of the decision we are making.

When it comes to stem cell research--and all scientific research--we ought to demand no less than that kind of effort. I acknowledge, yes, there are those moral and ethical issues. But I believe the legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support does provide strong ethical guidelines, strong ethical safeguards, and it limits what this research would do in a way that does respect those moral questions that are at issue.

First of all, federally funded research with respect to embryos would only go to, or be limited to, those that are donated by in vitro fertilization clinics, so you don't create some new business or create some disrespectful effort that is outside the effort of reproduction and of life itself.

Second, they would only be permissible when created specifically for fertility treatment--which is going to occur anyway, which does occur anyway--and which is in keeping with our efforts to respect life.

In addition, we live in a situation today where those embryos that are created in the context of in vitro fertilization are either going to be used for the purpose of creating life or those numbers that are in excess are going to be discarded. That is the fact. That is what is going to happen. So this legislation limits the use of those embryos only that are donated by treatment-seeking individuals who provided written and informed consent and who were not offered financial inducements in order to do so.

As the Los Angeles Times editorialized 2 years ago:

The moral decision is between putting those few so-called

embryos in the trash or using them to possibly bring back

lost memory, keep people out of wheelchairs or free them from

the life of insulin injections. It is not a simple decision,

but it is also not a close call.

Growing numbers of conservatives, from John McCain, Bill Frist, and Orrin Hatch to Nancy Reagan, have looked carefully at the scientific facts and searched their own consciences and arrived at the same conclusion: Opposing stem cell research, with the restrictions and the appropriate ethical guidelines that have been put in place, is the opposite of a pro-life policy. In the Senate and across the country, Americans are approaching an ethical consensus that bans human cloning while protecting stem cell research.

The stakes could not be higher. More than 100 million Americans suffer from illnesses that one day might be cured with stem cell therapy. Stem cells could replace damaged heart cells or cells destroyed by cancer. They could offer a new lease on life to those with a diagnosis that once came as a death sentence. Research has the potential to slow the loss of a grandmother's memory, calm the hand of an uncle with Parkinson's, save a child from a lifetime of daily insulin shots or permanently lift a best friend or a colleague from a wheelchair.

There is a young woman on the floor of the Senate who shares this hope. Her name is Beth Kolbe. She is a summer intern in my office, and she has followed the stem cell research debate very closely over the years and especially this week. Beth has spent the last 2 days watching the debate on the Senate floor, and her presence now is a silent, powerful reminder of what is at stake.

At the age of 14, Beth was in a car accident and suffered a terrible spinal cord injury. In that instant, she was paralyzed from the chest down. After two neck surgeries, 2 weeks in intensive care, 2 months as an inpatient in a rehab hospital and 2 years as an outpatient in physical therapy, she is now living a very full life. She just told me that she is in the Paralympics as a swimmer, and she lives her life and loves her life as a junior at Harvard, studying biology and health care, navigating the campus in her wheelchair. But she told me also that it would be a lie to say that there are not challenges that she would like to have overcome.

She wants more, not just for her but for others. Here is what she said:

Since that day 6 years ago, my family and I have been

following stem cell research because it can help so many

people. I'm just one of the millions who can be helped. As a

person in the disability community, I've met so many people

whose main goal is just to get better, and stem cell research

is their one opportunity to find a cure. I hope to be

a face that the Senators can see, so that they can see what

they are voting for.

Beth is here because she wants to see the Senate vote for hope. Some of the most pioneering treatments and miraculous cures could be at our fingertips, right around the next corner, but because of politics they could remain beyond reach. Every day we wait, more than 3,000 Americans die from diseases that might someday be treatable because of the discoveries made through stem cell research.

Americans have been presented with a false choice between the sanctity of human life and the scientific knowledge that can save it.

The President's veto rests on the false assumption that we have to choose between our dreams and our principles. I believe we can have both and we can protect both.

We can support our scientists, help the sick, and ensure that our legal and ethical boundaries continue to reflect our unshakable sense of human dignity and the value of human life.

If we get votes from 72 out of 100 Senators--then we can send the President a vetoproof message. Stop tying our scientists' hands, put down your veto pen, stop being part of the problem and become a part of the solution.

The American people believe in stem cell research for many of the same reasons as a remarkable woman I met at a town hall meeting on stem cell research.

She stood up in the back of the room. I will never forget it. Her body was shaking. She was petrified, but her body was also shaking because of the disease she had. She pleaded, with tears, for her government to embrace stem cell research.

It was the moral clarity of her message that will stay with me forever. Many Americans know a woman like her--maybe it's a grandparent with Alzheimer's or a friend in a wheelchair. ``It's too late for me,'' she said, ``but we need to do this for those who still have hope.''

It's too late for my and Tom Harkin's friend, Christopher Reeve, who passed away in 2004. But it's not too late for this President to change his mind before tying the hands of doctors, scientists, and ethicists with a preemptive veto. Chris would agree that it's not too late to give millions of Americans what they want most of all, which is hope.

And in closing, I want to share one more story. It's from Lauren Stanford of Plymouth, MA. She is 14 years old and has suffered from juvenile diabetes for 9 years. She and her mother, Moira McCarthy, came down to Washington, DC each year as citizen lobbyists in support of stem cell research and finding a cure for diabetes.

I want to read you a few passages from an essay she wrote as follows:

For as long as I can remember, I've had to take a lot of

leaps if faith. I've had to believe my parents when they told

me taking four or five shots a day and pricking my finger

eight or more times a day was just ``a new kind of normal.''

I've had to smile at the world and say I really don't mind

wearing the insulin pump that's now connected to my body 24

hours a day, seven days a week.

Yes, in my nine years of life with Type 1 diabetes, I've

learned to accept a lot of it is and the way it things as

``just the way it is and the way it has to be.''

But when I watched, with my parents, President Bush's

decision on Stem Cell research in the summer of 2001--and his

vows now to veto the bill--I just could not accept it.

You see the one thing that has helped me accept all I've

had to accept these years is the presence of hope.

When I feel like I might just scream if I have to live

another day fighting this endless disease, I think about all

the researchers out there working to help me be cured. Now,

it might seem corny to think of a teenage girl dreaming about

researchers in labs, but that's what kids who have incurable

diseases do.

Stem cell research could mean I can go to college without a

machine attached to my belly keeping me alive. It could mean

I can have children just like anyone else; not with teams of

doctors working with me daily just to make it happen. . . .

It might mean my children won't even know what diabetes was.

President Bush talks about protecting the innocent. I

wonder, what about me? I am truly innocent in this situation.

I did nothing to bring my diabetes on. . . . How, I ask my

parents, is it more important to throw discarded embryos into

the trash than it is to let them be used to hopefully save my

life--and to give me back a life where I don't have to accept

a constant, almost insane level of hourly medical

intervention as ``normal?'' How could my nation do this to

me?

Her hopes are here today, and I hope the Senate will do the right thing.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the majority yields 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from Kansas will follow him.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am very grateful the Senate is considering the issue of stem cell research today. This debate marks the culmination of years of work by many of my colleagues and certainly by myself, and a host of dedicated advocates.

I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this issue, as well as Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Kennedy. The work the six of us have done since the House considered embryonic stem cell research last May has helped keep the issue alive in the Senate.

I also would also like to recognize Senator Frist, who helped negotiate the package of bills before us. His willingness to take up this important, yet divisive issue is very much appreciated.

While all three bills are important to the advancement of ethical stem cell research, there is one that stands apart from the others. That is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act Simply, this bill would allow federal dollars to support research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

The tension surrounding this issue, I believe, pits the benefits that all can see and the potential that may be derived against the ethical uncertainties or the religious convictions our colleagues have. I think it is very important to respect both perspectives--and I certainly do. But I believe their reservations are misplaced when a full understanding is made of this very important area of research.

I think it is also important to point out as a show of respect for the differences of opinion that everyone in the Senate supports the bill's intent of furthering medical research--research that could possibly lead to a cure for a number of chronic diseases and debilitating health conditions.

The promise of embryonic stem cell research is very real. But I think we must emphasis and admit it is but a promise. It has yet to be fully realized because of the current restrictions which we have placed on it. While I appreciate the President allowing research to move forward on existing stem cell lines, over time these lines have become degraded and we are in desperate need of new, uncontaminated lines.

Stem cell science has the potential to cure dreadful illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many cancers. But we can't expect scientists to make progress in developing treatments if we limit them to yesterday's science.

I believe the Federal Government has a vital but a moral role to play in the development of stem cell science to ensure that the appropriate ethical guidelines are followed. To leave this to the private sector, with insufficient funding and no moral boundaries--we don't know where we will windup. But I do know the Federal Government can guide it in the right direction. I believe we will run into very serious problems if we do not as a Federal Government show up to work on this issue.

The real issue that is troubling to so many of us in this Chamber is questions of morality. I am pro life and throughout my political career I have supported policies that respect the sanctity of all human beings. I realize that many pro-life advocates oppose embryonic stem cell research on the ground that it destroys a human life. But as I have consulted with scientists and reflected upon my own conscience, I have come to a different conclusion. I feel that embryonic stem cell research is a pro-life policy. The key question that looms over this debate is, When does life begin? For me it begins with mother, with the implantation of an embryo. I believe the Scriptures provide ample support showing that flesh and spirit become one with the mother. This is one of womankind's supernal gifts. I find these verses in the Old and the New Testaments--in Jeremiah, the Psalmist, Job, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and in the letters of Paul. All of these things lead me to feel comfortable with an ethical conclusion that life begins when flesh and spirit are united and not before.

The embryos created as part of the in vitro fertilization process were intended to provide infertile couples the

gift of life. Those embryos that go unused in fertility treatments should still have the opportunity to give the gift of life either by later implantation or to those living with debilitating diseases through this dramatic medical research.

Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF embryo is a group of cells growing in a petri dish. But if those cells are left there for thousands of years, they have no possibility of developing into anything. They remain a group of cells, the dust of the Earth, one of the building blocks leading to life. It is the act of implantation within the mother that gives them life. So instead of storing or discarding unused embryos, we have the opportunity to allow them to be used to derive stem cell lines to advance much needed medical research.

I believe it would be a tremendous loss to science and to all humanity if we choose to hold back the key to unlocking the mysteries that have long puzzled scientists and physicians. That is why it is so important that my colleagues cast a vote in favor of H.R. 810, a very pro-life vote.

Some of the bill's opponents may claim that you can equally support stem cell research by voting for Senator Santorum's bill which authorizes a number of research alternatives. I support Senator Santorum's bill and plan to vote for it today, but it is by no means a substitute for H.R. 810.

Alternative forms of stem cell research are in their very early stages--just like embryonic stem cell research. Considering the enormous medical benefits that may come from these emerging fields of science, we cannot afford to promote some methods while restricting others.

After years of reflecting on this issue, it has become increasingly clear to me that being pro life requires protecting both the sanctity and the quality of life. By allowing research on stem cell lines derived from unused IVF embryos, we could forge a path that would one day lead to cures of some of mankind's most dreadful medical maladies.

If only one life-improving application of stem cell science comes from this vote--from my vote--then I believe I have done my job and done it correctly, for on this issue I choose to err on the side of hope, healing, and health.

I encourage all of my colleagues--even those who have some ethical reservations or religious feelings on this issue--to do the same.

I heard on the radio last night a radio commentator describing embryonic stem cell research as a conflict between science and religion. I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict on this issue. I believe one of the great gifts of the United States--the best example of the United States to the world--is our pluralism, religious pluralism. It is something we see an absence of, tragically, in too many places of the world. You see blood running in the gutters of the Middle East as we speak because of sectarian views which are held to the point of murdering those with divergent views. Therefore, I do not believe we serve the public well by taking the narrowest theological position and trying to impose it on public policy. We should be open enough to include other considerations of ethical ideas, scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope.

For me, as I consider issues of life and death, I often turn to the Good Book to try to discern wisdom that I do not have myself. What I find in the earliest pages of the Torah--or the Old Testament--is this statement. And I quote:

The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and

breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became

a living soul.

I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. But as I use my agency to interpret this early description of the sanctity of mankind's life, what I read is that we are made of dust. We ourselves are dust. Unto dust we will return.

Then you come to the conjunction in this verse, the conjunction ``and.'' ``And breathed with his nostrils the breath of life.'' Then you come to another conjunction, ``and man became a living soul.''

I believe that pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks of life. Clearly they are. Even if you leave them in a petri dish for an eternity, they will remain cells, the dust of the Earth. I believe we are missing the understanding of the importance of the spirit, the breath of life--the spirit of mankind--as the essential ingredient as to when life begins.

I do not find that religion and science are in conflict in the Senate today. I believe they are in harmony. I believe we should have a broad enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism.

I urge President Bush not to veto H.R. 810. I believe it offers hope. It offers promise. We can't overpromise. But it opens the key to the future, to unlocking mysteries of science, to improve the quality of life now. What could be more pro life than that?

Finally, my position is formed by my family history. My mother's name was Jessica Udall. I watched my grandmother, Lela Lee Udall, die of Parkinson's. I watched my uncle, Addison Udall, die of Parkinson's. I watched my cousin, former Democratic Presidential candidate and Arizona Congressman Morris K. Udall, die of Parkinson's. To watch people die of such a malady is to instill in one's heart a desire to err on the side of health, hope, and healing, to find the cure if a cure can be found. We will all die but no one should have to die as they died.

I appeal to my friend President Bush in the memory of my Udall ancestry, please, do not veto this bill. Do not deny them, people such as the Udalls, the hope that can come from this research. I believe this is an important debate. If this bill is vetoed, another election will occur, another chapter of American democracy will be opened, and ultimately the will of the American people will be reflected in our policy. I believe the sooner, the better. So, to my pro-life friend, President Bush, I urge in the name of life to let this bill become law.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the remainder of that time.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 2 minutes left. I want to start with a picture of Dennis Turner because this is a real-life case of Parkinson's disease. The prior speaker, Senator Vitter, talked about his dad dying of Parkinson's disease; it is a terrible disease. It is incredibly debilitating. I met with a friend of mine last week who has something similar. It is not Parkinson's, but it is also debilitating.

Dennis Turner testified at a hearing we had in the Senate Commerce Committee. He had been cured of his symptoms for 5 years. We had difficulty getting him in because he was out doing fun things such as safaris. After a period of 5 years, the symptoms started to return. He had received an adult stem cell therapy, not embryonic stem cell therapy. His symptoms went away for 5 years, and then they started coming back. He needed to have another treatment; he could not get it. International doctors--to try to get their help and support, we need to fund that type of work, which is working, for people like Dennis Turner.

My colleagues say we need to do this with embryonic stem cell research, that that is going to cure Dennis, Dennis Turner will be cured that way. I want to remind some of my colleagues that they said this about fetal tissue research about 10 years ago in this debate. In 1993, this was a typical statement debate at that time:

There is substantial evidence that fetal tissue research--

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

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

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

and a tremendous economic and social cost-saving to the

country.

So we funded fetal tissue research for a long period of time, like we are funding embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of half a billion dollars over the last 5 years in human and animal models.

We funded fetal tissue research. Now, this is tissue and cells that are further developed than embryonic cells. They are further differentiated and they are more stabilized, so they go off in fewer tangents. So if they are put in some particular area of the body, like they come from the brain, from the fetal tissue, and you put them back in the brain, they are more stable. We did this research. We funded this. We even tried it in humans, to disastrous results--disastrous results.

This is Parkinson's research set back by failure of fetal cell implants. Disastrous side effects are the quotes from the people who did the testing. Absolutely devastating. It was tragic, catastrophic. It is a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off. My goodness, this is strong wording that is taking place, to be catastrophic for fetal cell implants. Catastrophic? What happened? These cells, the fetal cells, formed tumors, and in some cases these tumors, they were implanted in the brain, the fetal cells implanted in the brain, and these tumors ended up being fingernail or hair that was in the brain, and we can't selectively turn it off.

Think about this just for a minute, if we could. Everybody is saying we want to cure people. I want to cure people. If we have a route that is working in 72 different disease areas with the adult

cord blood--and here is real research we funded. We tried it in humans even, with fetal cells. These are further developed cells than embryonic. They formed tumors, to disastrous results in Parkinson's patients.

Yesterday, I entered into the Record a series of six one-page--this is the front-page summary of peer-reviewed articles on the formation of tumors using embryonic stem cells, and these were all articles saying: OK, we use embryonic stem cells; they formed tumors.

Now, I am not a scientist, but it seems that if you got it in fetal tissue, which was further developed cells, and you found out that these are wild and they grow too fast and they form in other areas, and you back it up to embryonic stem cells and they are even younger, more malleable, and less formed, and we now have research saying they are forming tumors, you would look at that and say: Well, I don't think this is working particularly well.

Now, it is interesting science. We may learn something of how the cell works in this process. I don't deny that at all. But if I am looking for a cure for Dennis, and I have--I want a cure for Dennis. I want something that works for him, and he has had a treatment that has worked for 5 years in him, in the adult field, and I have research that says, in the embryonic field, it is going to form tumors, and I have research earlier in fetal tissue that says it did form tumors in humans, how am I going to cure Dennis in this case by putting more into embryonic stem cell lines, taking precious dollars from adult stem cell work and cord blood and putting it into a speculative field, the embryonic field, which is producing no results and, in fact, the results it is producing are producing tumors? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me as far as how we would invest these sorts of dollars.

People are talking about spinal cord injuries, and I think we should because we are going to deal with this area. I hope that in the next 10 years we are going to see for people, once they get a spinal cord injury, there is an immediate therapy they have and it starts to knit that spinal cord back together, so they are not waiting years and letting it further atrophy but immediately there is a therapy.

The therapy you see right here in Jacki Rabon--I have had her in to speak at a press conference. This was a spinal cord injury accident-- paraplegic from the hips down. Now she has feeling in her spinal cord. She had to go overseas to get this treatment. It should have been done in America. It wasn't. Adult stem cells from the base of the nose-- olfactory--taken, harvested, and put in. She is getting feeling. My guess is she is going to need several treatments.

Now, one of the greatest dismays we have is that a number of people are citing a rat model that has been shown on television of embryonic stem cells helping a rat to walk again. And that is fine. I am glad people are showing it. But a lot more people know about this rat model than know about Jacki Rabon. It seems as if there has been a media blackout on the adult stem cell successes and treatments and cord blood, and this rat has gotten all the publicity, even though we know that if you do this in humans, you are going to form tumors. Why? Why wouldn't we embrace what is working and has no ethical problem?

I wish to close this section with a letter from a child. This is the first snowflake baby. This was a frozen embryo that was adopted-- Hannah. She wrote this last year. It is her letter. She is a pioneer. She says: ``We're kids. I love you.'' X's and O's--hugs and kisses. I love these letters. When my youngest daughter Jenna does them, they are absolutely precious. Then she draws three faces. This is her face as an embryo. She is happy. She got adopted. She is no longer frozen. Here is a sad face as an embryo that is still frozen, and her explanation of this letter is he is sitting there frozen, hoping somebody adopts him. Here is a third face with a straight line, and her explanation is this is a young embryo saying: What, you are going to kill me?

This is a child's explanation of a frozen embryo. A frozen embryo that is life, that is human life. If you destroy Hannah at this stage, you don't get any sweet letters from Hannah to her parents. And we have a lot of frozen embryos.

We are saying: Well, let's make some utility out of them. Isn't that against human dignity, to say, We will just research on this, when this could be this child? This is this child? We don't need to do it. Even the research we are funding in this area isn't working.

I ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. First of all, I join with everyone in the Senate--in fact, everybody around the country--in saying that, of course, we want to further research and opportunity for the cure and the treatment of very serious illnesses. Of course, we want to do everything possible, within a strong ethical framework, to push for that scientific research and that progress. But at least I want to do that in a clear, certain, ethical framework. That is why I must oppose the details of the provisions of H.R. 810.

Mr. President, I oppose it on two significant grounds. First of all, because one of my solemn duties in the Senate, I believe, is to protect and defend all human life--every case of human life, the beauty, the sanctity, and the importance of the individual which God has created.

Secondly, I do this in particular focusing on the fact that we are talking about the use of taxpayer dollars. We are not merely talking about what is allowed and disallowed. We are talking about the use of taxpayer dollars for specific purposes, when some of these types of research are so utterly controversial in terms of the impact on individual human lives.

Mr. President, a human embryo is a human life. I believe that to the core of my being. It is at the initial stages of life and development, of course; but an embryo is a human life. Each and every one of us began as an embryo. Therefore, I firmly believe neither Congress nor independent researchers, nor any human being, for that matter, should be allowed to, in effect, play God by determining that one life is inherently more valuable than another, determining that one life should essentially be sacrificed for some other purpose, to advance the welfare of other separate human lives.

Of course, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this research only kills embryos that would be discarded anyway. But there are many cases that prove otherwise, where embryos have been adopted while still embryos or donated to infertile couples by their parents.

We know that as many as 99 families have adopted and given birth to children from those very same frozen embryos. These kids are often referred to

as ``snowflake babies.'' They are beautiful, they are miracles. They remind us that, of course, we are talking about human life. How can we justify killing these tiny humans by saying that these embryos would be discarded anyway, when there is proof that, in some cases, they are not discarded, they are adopted. They grow up to be full, mature, healthy children, human beings.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this research is essential to curing many diseases and federally funding it is our only hope for curing diseases. I point out that there are many other alternatives. In fact, those alternatives are more promising, in many ways, than the type of research we are debating today. The facts show that adult stem cells have been used to perform at least 69 successful treatments for human patients. So we have 69 treatments in human patients using adult stem cells which do not require the taking of human life. These were clinical applications, successful applications.

What is the experience in terms of embryonic stem cells? Zero successful treatments in human patients, zero direct clinical applications.

There have been 25 years of this research, and there are still no successful direct human clinical trials, and there have been many stops and starts and complications with regard to other research.

The following are some disorders and diseases with treatments from adult stem cell research that are worth noting: brain cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, acute heart damage, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, spinal cord injury, stroke damage, Parkinson's disease, chronic liver failure, sickle cell anemia, end-stage bladder disease. Again, these were not just promising but successful in many cases--human clinical trials that directly focus on these very serious diseases.

So if one weighs all of these factors in the balance, I truly believe that the thing to do is to respect all human life, to respect the very heartfelt feelings of millions upon millions, tens of millions of Americans who have fundamental problems with this sort of research. Again, it is worth underscoring that we are not debating whether this research can happen. We are debating if we are going to use taxpayer dollars to fund it, if we are going to forcibly take money from those Americans who, like me, have fundamental moral reservations with the research and spend it on that very research.

I am happy to say that there is other legislation that we are considering today. I strongly support those two other bills. First of all, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, which prohibits the creation and gestation of human beings for the purpose of harvesting spare organs, body parts, and tissue. Many people think fetus farming sounds akin to something out of a science fiction movie, and it does. But it is already being explored in animals. This is something that is advancing scientifically. Congress must prevent science from subjecting human beings to organ, body part, and tissue harvesting before it is too late.

The second bill which I proudly support today is the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754. It requires that the NIH support research into alternative methods, other than destroying human embryos, of creating pluripotent stem cells. These pluripotent stem cells are valuable for treating diseases because they are capable of forming most or all of the tissues of the adult body.

So, again, this would forge a new path to make sure we explore other avenues to create these stem cells that do not involve the destruction of precious embryos, human beings, human life. I believe this alternative path is far more productive. I believe it is far more in keeping with upholding the values of our society, the very strongly held belief of tens of millions of Americans who, like myself, have fundamental moral reservations with the destruction of individual human life for these other purposes.

So I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join me and others in supporting those two bills about ethical alternatives but in opposing this underlying bill, H.R. 810, because it would involve the destruction of individual, precious embryos, human life.

Mr. President, I don't come to this conclusion quickly or easily or rashly. Similar to virtually every American family, mine has been touched by very serious diseases to which this research pertains. My dad had Parkinson's disease. He suffered with it for about 8 years. It was very debilitating and, of course, eventually, similar to most folks with Parkinson's disease, he passed from that and complications of it. With that personal history, of course, I want to advance research in every ethical way possible. But we must do it, again, in a strong, moral framework. We must do it within clear, reasonable bounds, particularly when we are talking about taxpayer funding of research.

I believe that defeating H.R. 810--but also passing the two bills that set up alternative paths toward promising research--is the correct way to proceed. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in adopting that path.

With that, I yield back my time.