Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2010

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2010 on behalf of Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and myself.

Some 21 days ago, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth, the expenditures made by the National Institutes of Health for embryonic stem cell research under an Executive order issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, was overturned under a declaration that the Executive order violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment enacted by Congress.

Even though on its face it is pretty clear-cut that the embryonic stem cell research was not precluded by that amendment, that has had the effect of tying up very important ongoing research. For example, some $546 million has already been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and some very noteworthy progress has been made. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a clinical trial for patients with spinal cord injury, and human embryonic stem cell research has been successfully used to develop new therapeutic drugs for a number of diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, and those are just a couple of the illustrations.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stayed the lower court's order until September 20, but there is very substantial doubt as what the future will be. Meanwhile, although the district court order has been stayed, there is great uncertainty in the research community as to what will happen. This research is vital for moving against the maladies of our society.

The background on this issue is that in November of 1998, the disclosure was made about the potential for embryonic stem cell research. At the time I chaired the appropriations subcommittee which funded Health and Human Services. It seemed to me that was a tremendous opportunity and I scheduled a hearing within a few days, held on December 2 of 1998. Since that time, there have been some 20 hearings.

As we all know, the funding for the National Institutes of Health has had a tremendous increase. When I joined the committee after my election in 1980, the funding was $3.6 billion. When I became chairman of the committee in the mid-1990s, the funding was $12 billion. With the concurrence of the then-ranking member, Senator Harkin, we took the lead in increasing funding from some $12 billion to $30 billion. Regrettably, with budget constraints, the funding did not keep pace, starting in the year 2003. But in the stimulus package there was an additional $10 billion added which has reawakened a whole generation of research scientists, with that $10 billion providing funding for some 15,000 grants.

The results for health have been really overwhelming. Here are a few illustrations. In the 1950s, cardiovascular disease caused half of the United States deaths. Today, the rate for coronary heart disease is more than 60 percent lower. Over the past 25 years, the 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer has increased from 69 percent to almost 99 percent for diagnosed patients. For childhood cancers, the 5-year survival rate has improved markedly over the past 3 decades, from less than 50 percent before the 1970s to 80 percent today. Those are only illustrative statistics. The opportunities for embryonic stem cell research are overwhelming.

The Specter-Harkin bill was passed by the Senate in 2006 by a vote of 63 to 37, a very healthy margin for an issue which has raised some controversy. The House of Representatives passed the legislation but regrettably President Bush vetoed it in 2006, and the effort to override the veto in the House failed. There was a vote of 235 to 193, short of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. But that shows enormous Congressional support.

Then President Obama issued the Executive order that Federal funds could be used on embryonic stem cell research on lines where the embryo had been donated. This is in line with the policy adopted by President Bush in August of 2001, when he allowed the use of quite a number of stem cell lines where the embryos had been donated. Later it was found there were only 21 lines, and those were insufficient, which has led to the effort for legislation and then led to President Obama's Executive order. The fact is, there are some 400,000 of these embryos which are frozen and which will ultimately be discarded. So it is use them for medical research to save lives or throw them away. Some have contended that we are destroying lives but the reality is they will not be utilized.

In response to the issue as to whether there might be adoption of these embryos, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating substantial funds, which is more than $4 million a year, actually $4.2 million, but relatively few people have come forward for its use on adopting the embryos to turn them into life. If these embryos could be turned into human life I would not under any circumstance advocate scientific research on these embryos--if they could produce life. But they cannot. The facts are plain. The adoption line has been in effect now since 2002. Only a few hundred have been adopted. President Bush invited the ``snowflake'' children to the White House during his tenure, about 150 of them.

Now we have a situation where the court has intervened, even though more than a year and a half had elapsed since President Obama issued the Executive order, a clear indication of congressional intent not to deal with it or not to overturn it. I think it is a fair legal analysis that the order issued by the district court is not a sound order. Some indication of that is found in the fact that the circuit court stayed the order--not conclusive, but when they stay an order it looks as though they are not favorably inclined toward it. But who knows what the circuit court will do? Who knows what the Supreme Court of the United States, with their ideological bent, would do? This has become a theological issue in part, very emotional, with people arguing that it is akin to abortion. Of course it is nowhere near that kind.

It seems to me Congress ought to act. That is why on the first order of business after we convened here this afternoon, our first day back and our first hour in the Senate session, I am introducing this legislation. I have discussed it with sponsors on the House side and I think we are in a position to move rapidly. Certainly the previous vote of 63 to 37 in 2006 shows substantial support in this body, and the 235-to-193 vote to override President Bush's veto shows the same in the House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort so this important scientific research may be continued.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2010 on behalf of Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and myself.

Some 21 days ago, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth, the expenditures made by the National Institutes of Health for embryonic stem cell research under an Executive order issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, was overturned under a declaration that the Executive order violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment enacted by Congress.

Even though on its face it is pretty clear-cut that the embryonic stem cell research was not precluded by that amendment, that has had the effect of tying up very important ongoing research. For example, some $546 million has already been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and some very noteworthy progress has been made. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a clinical trial for patients with spinal cord injury, and human embryonic stem cell research has been successfully used to develop new therapeutic drugs for a number of diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, and those are just a couple of the illustrations.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stayed the lower court's order until September 20, but there is very substantial doubt as what the future will be. Meanwhile, although the district court order has been stayed, there is great uncertainty in the research community as to what will happen. This research is vital for moving against the maladies of our society.

The background on this issue is that in November of 1998, the disclosure was made about the potential for embryonic stem cell research. At the time I chaired the appropriations subcommittee which funded Health and Human Services. It seemed to me that was a tremendous opportunity and I scheduled a hearing within a few days, held on December 2 of 1998. Since that time, there have been some 20 hearings.

As we all know, the funding for the National Institutes of Health has had a tremendous increase. When I joined the committee after my election in 1980, the funding was $3.6 billion. When I became chairman of the committee in the mid-1990s, the funding was $12 billion. With the concurrence of the then-ranking member, Senator Harkin, we took the lead in increasing funding from some $12 billion to $30 billion. Regrettably, with budget constraints, the funding did not keep pace, starting in the year 2003. But in the stimulus package there was an additional $10 billion added which has reawakened a whole generation of research scientists, with that $10 billion providing funding for some 15,000 grants.

The results for health have been really overwhelming. Here are a few illustrations. In the 1950s, cardiovascular disease caused half of the United States deaths. Today, the rate for coronary heart disease is more than 60 percent lower. Over the past 25 years, the 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer has increased from 69 percent to almost 99 percent for diagnosed patients. For childhood cancers, the 5-year survival rate has improved markedly over the past 3 decades, from less than 50 percent before the 1970s to 80 percent today. Those are only illustrative statistics. The opportunities for embryonic stem cell research are overwhelming.

The Specter-Harkin bill was passed by the Senate in 2006 by a vote of 63 to 37, a very healthy margin for an issue which has raised some controversy. The House of Representatives passed the legislation but regrettably President Bush vetoed it in 2006, and the effort to override the veto in the House failed. There was a vote of 235 to 193, short of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. But that shows enormous Congressional support.

Then President Obama issued the Executive order that Federal funds could be used on embryonic stem cell research on lines where the embryo had been donated. This is in line with the policy adopted by President Bush in August of 2001, when he allowed the use of quite a number of stem cell lines where the embryos had been donated. Later it was found there were only 21 lines, and those were insufficient, which has led to the effort for legislation and then led to President Obama's Executive order. The fact is, there are some 400,000 of these embryos which are frozen and which will ultimately be discarded. So it is use them for medical research to save lives or throw them away. Some have contended that we are destroying lives but the reality is they will not be utilized.

In response to the issue as to whether there might be adoption of these embryos, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating substantial funds, which is more than $4 million a year, actually $4.2 million, but relatively few people have come forward for its use on adopting the embryos to turn them into life. If these embryos could be turned into human life I would not under any circumstance advocate scientific research on these embryos--if they could produce life. But they cannot. The facts are plain. The adoption line has been in effect now since 2002. Only a few hundred have been adopted. President Bush invited the ``snowflake'' children to the White House during his tenure, about 150 of them.

Now we have a situation where the court has intervened, even though more than a year and a half had elapsed since President Obama issued the Executive order, a clear indication of congressional intent not to deal with it or not to overturn it. I think it is a fair legal analysis that the order issued by the district court is not a sound order. Some indication of that is found in the fact that the circuit court stayed the order--not conclusive, but when they stay an order it looks as though they are not favorably inclined toward it. But who knows what the circuit court will do? Who knows what the Supreme Court of the United States, with their ideological bent, would do? This has become a theological issue in part, very emotional, with people arguing that it is akin to abortion. Of course it is nowhere near that kind.

It seems to me Congress ought to act. That is why on the first order of business after we convened here this afternoon, our first day back and our first hour in the Senate session, I am introducing this legislation. I have discussed it with sponsors on the House side and I think we are in a position to move rapidly. Certainly the previous vote of 63 to 37 in 2006 shows substantial support in this body, and the 235-to-193 vote to override President Bush's veto shows the same in the House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort so this important scientific research may be continued.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I introduced today with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor. It is S. 3768. When Congress passed and the President signed the education jobs fund bill in August, every State in America had the same requirements and every State in America was treated fairly--or equally, anyway--except for one and that State is Texas. That is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing a bill that would only allow Texas to be equal with every other State in the Federal funding opportunity in this education bill.

The House of Representatives--not the Senate but the House--put in an amendment that singled out Texas in two ways. It said that Texas, unlike every other State in the bill, would have to guarantee 3 years of a commitment for education funding to be level in order to get the funds for 1 year that were allocated in the bill. Every other State in America is required to make such a commitment for 1 year.

Our constitution in Texas, similar to many State constitutions, does not allow one legislature to pass legislation that will require acts of another legislature, so appropriations cannot go over a 3-year period. Our legislature can only appropriate and spend Texas money for itself. It cannot obligate future legislatures. So the House provision would require Texas to violate its Constitution in order to receive the Federal money that every other State has as an allocation.

The second thing that only Texas is required to do under this bill is to distribute the funds under the title I distribution formula. Every other State gives its Governor and its State Department of Education the discretion for the money to be used where it is most needed within its State. After all, education is generally a State and local issue. In this case, you do have Federal funding, and it is provided for every State by giving it to the Governor for the distribution within the State. Only in Texas, however, under the legislation that was passed, would the requirement be that title I provides the formula, not the State of Texas and its appropriations, Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

It is puzzling, to say the least, that Texas was singled out in this way. But I am going to do everything I can to assure that does not continue. The Commissioner of Education asked for the Texas allocation of $830 million in the normal way, met all the Federal requirements and the time guidelines for submitting the grant request for an estimated $830 million. The request was turned down because, of course, the Governor could not certify 3 years of level spending because the legislature cannot obligate future legislatures in our Constitution. So Texas has just been turned down.

If we can pass the legislation Senator Cornyn and I are introducing today or if we can amend the bill that is before us, which we are going to try to do--we perfected the process today by offering this as an amendment on the bill that is before this body, and I am going to try to get this as an amendment on every bill that is going through--that will just create a level playing field.

We are certainly not asking for special favors, but again we are also asking that we not be penalized just because a House Member decided Texas should have a different standard.

We all understand politics in the usual sense. But having an argument between a Member of the House and the Governor is not a reason to penalize every schoolchild in Texas, every school district in Texas, every teacher in Texas, every administrator in Texas. It is not right. I think any person who puts the politics aside would agree that reasonableness would dictate that every State should be treated the same. In the bill that was passed, we are spending Texas tax dollars just like we are spending the tax dollars of every taxpayer in America. Texas would be putting the dollars into the Federal coffers but being penalized from receiving its fair share, as we certainly described happens in the bill.

The Hutchison-Cornyn bill is now going through the processes, and we are going to ask for support from all our colleagues to have that level playing field. Senator Cornyn and I have been working, along with Congressman Michael Burgess on the House side and the Texas delegation in the House. Many in the House delegation are certainly going to want to see this corrected, I hope. I do hope we can get prompt action. We need to do it before the end of this fiscal year in order to qualify in our rightful way.

We are not asking for special favors, most certainly. We expect to meet all the tests any State would meet. We expect to have our grant application looked at and scrutinized and determined if it is eligible in every way. But we do not expect to have a different standard from every other State in America.

Senator Cornyn and I are very hopeful we can get prompt action from the Senate to send this to the House. I hope the House will also see that was not meant to be--at least I am sure every Member voting on this bill did not know Texas was being treated differently. I do not think this is a time for any State to start a war with another State. That is not the way we ought to do business. I do not wish to be starting that kind of precedent even--I wouldn't do it to any other State, and I certainly do not expect it to be done to mine.

Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Hutchison-Cornyn legislation. We hope we can level the playing field. All we ask is that we be judged like every State, that we have the requirement of 1 year of level funding, just as every other State is required to do and which I know our Texas Education Agency will certainly agree to do; then, second, that we be able to distribute according to the State requirements and the State priorities rather than a Federal funding formula done when no one has come to Texas to look at our formula and our needs for this particular bill. If we can correct those two things and put Texas on a level playing field with any other State, then I think it will be the right thing to do.

Sometimes we have little tiffs here, politically, but I don't think anyone can argue that a retribution against one person in Texas by one Member of Congress is a good reason to make a public policy decision that is disastrous for our State--that is hurting, just like every State, in not having enough dollars. We have a deficit right now of about $20 billion facing the next legislature in Texas.

If we can have what has passed, what is going through this Congress and what has been signed by the President, it would help alleviate some of the concerns our educators and education leaders in Texas are now saddled with; that is, a lot more expenses than revenue coming in. I hope we can right this wrong.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Food Safety Accountability Act with Senators Klobuchar and Franken. This common sense bill will hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. It introduces a new criminal provision and increases the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who knowingly violate our food safety laws. If it is passed, those who knowingly contaminate our food supply and endanger Americans could receive up to 10 years in jail.

This summer, a salmonella outbreak causing hundreds of people to fall ill triggered a national egg recall. The cause of the outbreak is still under investigation, but salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable knowing conduct. Just last year, a mother from Vermont, Gabrielle Meunier, testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about her 7-year-old son, Christopher, who became severely ill and was hospitalized for 6 days after he developed salmonella poisoning from peanut crackers. Thankfully, Christopher recovered, and Mrs. Meunier was able to share her story, which highlighted for the Committee and for the Senate improvements that are needed in our food safety system. No parent should have to go through what Mrs. Meunier experienced. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe.

Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our children in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. Indeed, the company responsible for the eggs at the root of the current salmonella crisis has a long history of environmental, immigration, labor and food safety violations. It is clear that civil and criminal fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. The bill I introduce today will add a new criminal provision and increase sentences for people who put profits above safety by knowingly contaminating the food supply.

After hearing Mrs. Meunier's account, I called on the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal investigation into the outbreak of salmonella that made Christopher and many others so sick. The outbreak was traced to the Peanut Corporation of America. The president of that company, Stewart Parnell, came before Congress and invoked his right against self-incrimination, refusing to answer questions about his role in distributing contaminated peanut products. These products were linked to the deaths of nine people and have sickened more than 600 others. It appears that Parnell knew that peanut products from his company had tested positive for deadly salmonella, but rather than immediately disposing of the products, he sought ways to sell them anyway. The evidence suggests that he knowingly put profit above the public's safety. Our laws must be strengthened to ensure this does not happen again. This bill significantly increases the chances that those who commit food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than a slap on the wrist, for their criminal conduct.

I hope Senators of both parties will act quickly to pass this bill. On behalf of Mrs. Meunier and her son, Christopher, as well as the hundreds of individuals sickened by this summer's and last year's salmonella outbreaks, we must repair our broken food safety system. The Justice Department must be given the tools it needs to investigate, prosecute, and truly deter crime involving food safety. If Congress acts to pass it, this bill will be an important step toward making our food supply safer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Hutchison and I have introduced legislation to repeal a House provision in the Education Jobs Bill that discriminates solely against the state of Texas. As a result of the House language, Texas will be denied over $800 million in federal funding.

The Hutchison-Cornyn bill will strip the language requiring Texas to make a commitment for three years of funding in order to be eligible for any of the $10 billion in the Education Jobs Fund. To be in compliance with the provision, the state would have to violate its own constitution. The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine state appropriations--they cannot be dictated by the federal government. Additionally, one legislature cannot bind a future legislature. Moreover, this provision singles out Texas because all other states must only commit to one year of funding in order to receive Education Jobs Program funding.

The House language also stipulates that Texas must distribute funds through Title I funding formula, rather than allowing the governor to determine the funding distribution, as is the case in the other states and territories. In Texas this would preclude 31 districts from receiving any funds, and will result in less funding for 66 percent of the state's school districts.

Unfortunately, on September 9, 2010 the U.S. Department of Education denied an application from Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott for

$830 million from the Education Jobs Fund.

The real impact of the House language, however, is felt in school districts across our state. Recently, for example, I received a letter from the Superintendent of the Hamlin Independent School District informing me that the West Texas school district was forced to cut more than $80,000 from the district's budget to cover rising salary costs. If Texas is prohibited from applying for the Education Jobs Fund, Hamlin ISD stands to lose over $90,000 in federal dollars, an amount that could compensate for the district's current budget cuts.

Our bill would put a stop to Texas Democrats' efforts to play politics with much-needed funding for Texas schools and teachers. Texas taxpayer dollars belong in Texas schools--not in California or New York, as the Doggett Amendment would have it. I urge my colleagues to pass our bill so we can remove this partisan roadblock and move quickly to restore critical Federal funding to Texas schools.