Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be added as a cosponsor of S. 5.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her very eloquent statement and for her strong support of hope and health and healing, as encompassed in S. 5.

Mr. President, while I wait the arrival of our next speaker, I want to point out that time and time again I hear those who are opposed to S. 5 use the phrase that they are opposed to funds being used for the destruction of embryos. Earlier today I had corrected one Senator who said that. I said: Show me in the bill where it is. Well, then other Senators--the Senator from Kansas and others--have gotten up and talked about not using money for the destruction of embryos.

I challenge anyone, any Senator to come and take S. 5 and show me anywhere in there where there is one dime used for the destruction of embryos. It is not there. I get the feeling that a misrepresentation repeated and repeated somehow seems to take hold so that people say: Well, there must be money for the destruction of embryos in this bill. There is not. That is covered by the Dickey-Wicker amendment which pertains to appropriations bills, and I am an appropriator, and that is covered there. So none of this money is used for the destruction of an embryo. All it is used for is for the research on stem cells that have been derived, which is what is being done today, by the way--which are derived. Now, those derivations can come from private entities or State sponsored or wherever, maybe some international, maybe foreign countries--wherever. But none of the money here in our bill, S. 5, can be used for the destruction of an embryo, period. If anyone says so, please come and show us where it is in the bill that says that.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Missouri is here. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for a very eloquent and poignant statement. I know the Senator mentioned that recently she came off a campaign in Missouri. I know that, in listening to her statement, she is reflecting the wishes and hopes of so many people in her own State who want to make sure we move ahead and find cures and treatments. I thank her for her eloquence and for her forthright statement on behalf of embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield until 3:45 to the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, we are getting close to the end of the debate, we have some floor time in the next hour or so to go back and forth. I thought I might take a few moments now to talk about why it is so necessary to have NIH do this kind of research, to oversee this research. The Senator from Oklahoma said that a lot of research is going on now on embryonic stem cells. To be sure, it is. It is going on in different States, in private institutions, in England and Australia and France and Japan and Singapore and a few other countries. Why do we want to get the Federal Government involved? First, there is no other area of medical research in which we say the Federal Government should step aside and let the States do it. I know of no other area of medical research.

I always look at the human genome project. What if we had said to the States: We are not going to do it. You do it. They might have sequenced one gene or another or let the private sector do it. They would have been getting patents on it or everything like. Now we have the mapping and sequencing of the entire human gene, and you can go online and get it, free to everybody. Any researcher anywhere can get it. Now they may take that and develop it into drugs and therapies. That is fine. That is that sort of symbiotic relationship we have developed very well between the private pharmaceutical industry and the basic research industry, which is NIH.

Again, our National Institutes of Health should be involved in overseeing this, because if we don't have a coherent Federal policy on stem cells, each State writes its own rules. That means that different States may have different ethical guidelines. One State would be different from another. You would wind up with a patchwork quilt of laws. Then you would wind up with States competing against each other. So California gets to doing stem cell research, and what it does is, it hires researchers away from Missouri. Then Missouri is hiring people away from Iowa and then Ohio. Then New York is trying to bid people away from Ohio. You get this terrible State-versus-State kind of competition in stem cell research.

We don't want that. We ought to be doing it on a national basis, a national effort, and we should not lose the international leadership we have always had in biomedical research. Should we give it up to Singapore or to Korea or England? No. We have always been the leader in the world in biomedical research, and we should continue.

Secondly, the issue of why we have to expand our stem cell policy. Again, I repeat, for the sake of emphasis, of those 78 cell lines that were supposedly available on August 9, 2001, only 21 have been available. A lot of them are sick. They are not propagating properly. They are unhealthy. Right now NIH is only using between four and six of these lines and even they, I have been told, are not very healthy. So the restrictions we have had by the Bush administration, since August 9, 2001, have resulted in a situation where fewer and fewer viable good stem cell lines are available for NIH researchers. However, during that same period of time in other sectors, we have derived over 400 different cell lines. Yet no one who gets NIH funding is able to do any research on these healthy embryonic stem cell lines. That is why we need to develop these. We need to expand it.

That is what S. 5 does. S. 5 takes off the handcuffs. It lets us use, under strict ethical guidelines, those embryos that are slated to be discarded at IVF clinics. With all due respect to my friend from Georgia, S. 30 does not do that. S. 5, if passed, will do everything that S. 30 wants to do. If S. 5 passes, what they want to do in S. 30 can be done by NIH. The problem with S. 30 is, if S. 30 passes and S. 5 doesn't, then S. 30 is very limited. It says you can only use these few embryos that are naturally dead which, by the way, I don't think there is such a scientific term, but it has been bandied about here and it is in the bill. There is no such scientific delineation of what is naturally dead.

So that is the situation we are in. S. 5 will do both. It will open new stem cell lines with ethical guidelines. It will allow them to extract stem cells from these nonviable embryos. S. 30 will not. S. 30 still will not permit us to get the healthy stem cell lines our researchers need. That is why we need to pass S. 5.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I will conclude my 2\1/2\ minutes then by referring to the other chart. Again, we have to keep in mind that the policy now in effect, the policy in effect right now says we could use Federal money to examine and do research on embryonic stem cells that were derived prior to 9 p.m., August 9, 2001. But we can't use Federal money to examine or to do research on stem cells derived after 9 p.m., August 9, 2001. Those are morally unacceptable. Before 9 p.m., August 9, 2001, that is morally OK. After 9 p.m., it is not morally OK. Who decided that 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, was some kind of moral dividing line, that stem cells derived before that, that is OK, but stem cells derived after that, that is not OK? Only one person decided that, and that was President Bush.

The people of this country didn't decide that. Ethicists didn't decide that. Theologians didn't decide that. Scientists didn't decide that. President Bush decided that. It is sheer hypocrisy to say we can fund those before, but we can't fund those after. That is the situation we find ourselves in today.

Let's take off the handcuffs. Let's get rid of that fake moral dividing line that has no substance in reality and let's get on with finding the cures for

people with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries. That is what S. 5 is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, again, let me ask, we have, I guess, 20 minutes; is that right?

Yes. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, my friend from Utah, for a very strong, very powerful, poignant statement. There has been no stronger leader in this Senate on health, life issues than Senator Hatch. I thank him for his support of S. 5.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Smith of Oregon.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I thought I had 12 minutes left, until 5:15. Well, anyway, in closing, first let me thank my colleagues, Senator Isakson, Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback, and others who have participated in this debate. It has been a very informed and a very good debate over the last 2 days. I thank my colleague, Senator Isakson, for his many courtesies. There were a lot of things we agree on and obviously there are things we disagree on, but that is the march of legislation in the Senate. I wish to thank Senator Isakson and others for their speeches and for their insight into this very important issue. I particularly wish to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Smith for their great leadership on this and so many other health issues in the Senate and for their very poignant, very powerful statements they made on the Senate floor.

I started this whole debate yesterday morning by talking about hope, hope for cures for Parkinson's, to repair spinal cord injuries, to end the scourge of juvenile diabetes, to lift the death sentence of those afflicted with Lou Gehrig's disease, or ALS, hope for families with someone lost to Alzheimer's disease. S. 5, the bill before us that will be our first vote, is a bill that provides this hope, not a hope based on dreams or fiction but based on solid scientific foundation. It is why 525 disease-related groups and research institutions and universities all support S. 5, because it has solid scientific foundation. It is why the Director of NIH, Dr. Zerhouni, recently said more embryonic stem cell lines needed to be investigated:

It is clear today that American science would be better

served and the Nation would be better served if we let our

scientists have access to more cell lines.

That is what S. 5 does: provides more cell lines.

It is why the former Director of NIH, Dr. Varmus, a Nobel laureate, supports S. 5, to take the handcuffs off our scientists. I wish to make it again abundantly clear, as there has been a lot of misinformation in the last couple of days on the floor, that S. 5 somehow contains money for the destruction of embryos. That is not true. I challenge anyone to show me in the bill anywhere where it contains any money for the destruction of embryos. It is simply not true. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not being accurate.

There are those who say: Well, the Federal Government shouldn't get involved. We can leave it up to the States and private entities. Well, we can't do that. We need coherence. We need to have the crown jewel of the Federal Government, the National Institutes of Health, to oversee this so we have good, strong ethical guidelines, so we have compatibility, so we have the kind of interplay between scientists that is necessary to advance scientific research. To leave it up to the States means we will have a patchwork quilt of laws all over this country when it should be a national effort--a national effort. Then we will have States bidding against one another for scientists to come to their States to do this research. We don't want that to happen.

Lastly, we cannot afford to lose our global leadership in biomedical research. We, the United States of America, have always been the world's leader in biomedical research. All the great scientific discoveries, whether it is the polio vaccine, smallpox, all these things that have made our lives better; all the new drugs we have for fighting AIDS around the world came from the United States. All the cancer interventions, the reason cancer is now on the decline is because of biomedical research in this country. We can't afford to lose that to other countries. We need to keep it in America.

So what it comes down to in the final analysis is simply this: If you want to promote good science, vote for S. 5. If you want strong ethical standards, S. 5 has the strongest ethical guidelines, stronger than what the Bush administration has right now and stronger than any other bill that has come before the floor of the Senate. If you want to move ahead with more cell lines, as Dr. Zerhouni wants, S. 5 is the bill that will provide those cell lines. If you want to put embryonic stem cell research into overdrive, to make it a national priority to do this research, S. 5 will put it into overdrive. If you want to say to Karli Borcherding right here, age 12, using 120 needles a month to give herself insulin shots because she has juvenile diabetes; if you want to say to Karli Borcherding and all the other kids with juvenile diabetes, if you want to say to them that we are going to give you hope, we are going to give you hope that your diabetes will be cured, hope that you can live a full and normal life; if you want to say to those families who have a loved one suffering from Alzheimer's, we are going to give you hope; if you want to say to those who have a family member suffering from Parkinson's disease or under the death sentence of ALS, we are going to give you hope--hope not based upon fiction, not based upon some will-of-the-wisp thoughts that somebody might have but hope based on solid science that scientists know we can use.

We have already taken embryonic stem cells and made nerve cells, motor neurons, bone cells, heart muscle cells. We know that it can be done. Yet our scientists are handcuffed today because of the policy laid down by President Bush on August 9 of 2001. It is time to lift those restrictions.

Some say the President will veto this bill. We can't decide what we do around here because a President--any President--threatens to veto something. We have to do what is right. We have to do what the people of America want us to do. We have to do what is in the best

interests of this country as we see our duty to do it. I hope the President will sign this bill. I hope he will see we have made our compromises, that we have strong ethical guidelines, that this is the way to give hope to Karli Borcherding.

So I hope we don't fall prey to: Well, we can't pass this because the President will veto it. We have to do what we think is right. The right thing to do is to support S. 5. As Senator Hatch so eloquently said, let those thousands of embryos that are being discarded every year in in vitro fertilization clinics, let them be used to provide life to other people, hope to Karli Borcherding, hope for people suffering from multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries. To me, that is the true ethical course to take. That is the guideline I think we must follow. Let those embryos be used to provide hope to these people.

Mr. President, I see my colleague and a cosponsor of our bill who has been a leader on this issue for so many years, and I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Specter of Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``An Examination of the Availability and Affordability of Property and Casualty Insurance in Gulf Coast and Other Coastal Regions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the property and casualty insurance industry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine efforts to improve airline passenger service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on genocide in Sudan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``An Examination of the Medicare Advantage Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Richard Lugar, United States Senator, R-IN.

Panel II: Debra Ann Livingston to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; Roslynn Renee Mauskopf to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Richard Joseph Sullivan to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Joseph S. Van Bokkelen to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight meeting on the Smithsonian Institution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on veterans' affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, to hold a hearing on the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007.

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on The Constitution be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Responding to The Inspector General's Findings of Improper Use of National Security Letters by the FBI'' in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List: The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Member of Congress, Chairman, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances Atlanta, GA; George Christian, Executive Director, Library Connection, Inc., Windsor, CT; Suzanne E. Spaulding, Principal, Bingham Consulting Group of Counsel, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Washington, DC; and

Peter Swire, C. William O'Neil, Professor of Law at the Ohio State University, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on nuclear nonproliferation programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the Proliferation Security Initiative at the Department of Defense in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet in open and closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 3 p.m. to receive testimony on Ballistic Missile Defense Programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Castillo and Patrick Fields of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Eleanore Edson, a fellow in the office of Senator Clinton, during today's session.

Mr. President, there is an appointment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 103, S. Res. 76.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to; the title amendment be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session; that the Homeland Security Committee be discharged from further consideration of PN-288, the nomination of Claude M. Kicklighter to be Inspector General for the Department of Defense, and that the nomination be placed on the calendar.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 59, James R. Clapper, Jr., of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon conclusion of the vote on passage of S. 30 today and the clearance of any items by unanimous consent, the Senate stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 12; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first 30 minutes controlled by the majority leader or his designee and the last 30 minutes controlled by the Republican leader or his designee; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to S. 372 and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

Madam President, the bill we just passed, S. 5, does everything that S. 30 does. That was already said in the debate the other day. S. 5 has already passed by an overwhelming vote. Everything that S. 5 does is in S. 30. So the next vote really doesn't make any difference one way or the other, because by passing S. 5, we allow to be done what is done in S. 30.

Secondly, I have always taken the position that we should not tell scientists what to do and what not to do within the ethical guidelines we have established. What S. 30 says is: Go ahead and investigate. I don't know if using so-called dead embryos and extracting stem cells will work. I am not a scientist. But I don't want to handcuff the scientists and tell them they can't research it. As far as I am concerned, a vote for S. 30 is saying again what we committed to do in

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remaining time in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 140, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, or today, the debate with respect to the stem cell bills be in alternating segments of 60 minutes as follows:

Sixty minutes under the control of Senator Harkin or his designee; the

next 60 minutes under the control of the Republican leader's designee, Senator Coleman; the next 60 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; and then the next 60 minutes under the control of Senator Brownback; and continuing in that alternating fashion until 9 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. President, I noted as the clerk reported the bill, S. 5, she reported it as an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, and that is what this debate is all about and that is what this vote is going to be about. It is going to be about public health of people in this country and around the world and whether they are going to have hope that they will see a future in which modern medical science can actually overcome and cure things such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, and a host of other illnesses. That is what this debate is about. It is about hope. It is about health. So today begins 20 hours of Senate debate on a bill to lift the administration's restrictions on stem cell research and bring hope to millions of people in this country who are suffering from illnesses such as ALS, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and so many other devastating diseases and conditions.

Most Americans probably find it hard to believe we are still arguing about this issue. They want more stem cell research. They have listened to the scientists. They have watched the House and Senate vote overwhelmingly during the last Congress to expand the administration's policy. Then they went to the polls in November and more often than not elected candidates who support stem cell research. So why are we still debating this? The answer, unfortunately, is simple: President Bush used his first--and so far only--veto of his administration to reject last year's stem cell bill and dash the hopes of millions of Americans. So we are back once again.

I thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked together on this issue, starting, of course, with my colleague Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He chaired the very first hearing in Congress on embryonic stem cells in December of 1998. In all, our Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee has held 20 hearings on this research since then under the chairmanship of Senator Specter. I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell research, including Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Smith, and Senator Feinstein. So counting Senator Specter and me, there are three Republicans and three Democrats on that list, and this has truly been a bipartisan effort all the way. I thank our majority leader Senator Reid for scheduling this debate and making sure it is one of the first issues we vote on in the 110th Congress. I also thank our Republican leader Senator McConnell for working with us to schedule this debate and this vote tomorrow.

Most of all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of families and patients who never gave up, who kept up the pressure to bring this bill to the floor and who were so eager to see S. 5 sent to the President's desk. They have kept the faith and now it is our job to see that they are not disappointed.

There is probably one other entity I should thank and that is the House of Representatives, under the able leadership of Speaker Pelosi, which passed this bill earlier this year and sent it over to the Senate. I will talk a little bit later about how our bill differs from theirs, but nonetheless, the bill they passed is a bill that mirrors the same thing we are doing here, and that is to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Under this unanimous consent agreement we have, for information, we will debate and vote on two bills. Make no mistake, however: The only one that matters is S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The other bill is S. 30. This is the one bill that at long last will unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern times. Think of it this way: S. 5, the bill we will be debating and voting on, will take the handcuffs off of our scientists. It will take the handcuffs off so they can now begin to do the research that will lead to miraculous cures and interventions.

It is a good time to step back and ask: Why is there so much support for S. 5? Well, I have a letter signed by 525 groups endorsing this bill, including patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups. There are 525 groups in all. They all agree Congress should pass S. 5. Why is that? Because it offers hope. I have a series of charts here which I will point to. S. 5 offers hope. I think this chart illustrates many--not all but many--of the ailments which scientists tell us embryonic stem cells could lead to interventions and cures for, including Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy, anemias, severe burns, leukemia, lymphoma, bone marrow disorders, diabetes, immune deficiencies, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries. That is just to name a few. There are many more, but my colleagues get the idea of how all encompassing the approach would be if we were to get into embryonic stem cell research. It is not just focused on one thing; it is broader than that. It encompasses so many illnesses and afflictions. All told, more than 100 million Americans have diseases that one day could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research.

But it is not just Members of Congress saying that. No one should take our word alone. Three weeks ago Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health, appeared before our Appropriations subcommittee. I asked him whether scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the administration's current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said unequivocally: Yes. Now, Dr. Zerhouni is the Federal Government's top scientist in the area of medical research. President Bush appointed him to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health. So it took great courage on his part to say in public we need to change direction on stem cell research, but he did so because it is the truth.

This is his quote. This is what the Director of the National Institutes of Health said before the subcommittee:

It is clear today that American science would be better

served and the Nation would be better served if we let our

scientists have access to more cell lines.

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

The vast majority of the biomedical research community

believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the

source of key discoveries related to many debilitating

diseases.

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

S. 5 represents an important step forward for human

embryonic stem cell research, a new field that offers great

promise for the replacement of damaged cells, the

understanding of the mechanics of disease, and the

development and testing of new drugs. Unfortunately, current

Federal policy has not kept pace with the speed of scientific

discovery and is today of limited value to the scientific

community.

I could go on and on. We have a lot of scientists all over this country and the world who agree we should be pursuing embryonic stem cell research because it offers enormous hope for easing

human suffering. Some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already supports embryonic stem cell research. Well, here we have an interesting situation in terms of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

I have to take my colleagues back in time to August 9 of 2001. In an evening address starting at 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, the President, in an address to the Nation, said we were going to permit Federal funding for embryonic stem cells only if they were derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001. Any that were derived after that we could not fund research on. Well, at this time it was said there were 78 lines, 78 stem cell lines we could use. We know that is less than 21 now and many of these are in bad shape, and every single one of them contaminated on mouse feeder cells, which I will talk about in a moment. I always thought it was kind of interesting and very curious that we had this hypocrisy--I call it stem cell hypocrisy--that before 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, it is morally acceptable to use taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. So if the stem cells were derived before 9 p.m., it is morally acceptable, but if they were derived after 9 p.m. on August 9, it is morally unacceptable. Well, I ask, what is so significant about 9 p.m. on August 9? Why couldn't it have been 8:30 p.m., 9:15 p.m., midnight, or 10 p.m? Well, I think my colleagues get the point. It is totally arbitrary--totally arbitrary. We have to ask ourselves: Why is it that Federal tax dollars can be used on embryonic stem cells derived before 9 p.m.--that is OK--but after 9 p.m., it is not OK? Please, someone tell me why 9 p.m., August 9 is the moral dividing line. It is totally arbitrary.

Even with that, we had hoped the President's policy would work, but it hasn't. Here is why. As I said earlier, on that date, the President said there were 78 stem cell lines available. We now know only 21 are eligible. It is not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity scientists need to develop treatments for everyone in the country. What is more, every single one--every single one of these approved lines--is contaminated by mouse feeder cells. What that means is when you take the stem cells and you propagate them, you get them to grow, you do them in a medium. You grow them in a medium. They were grown on mouse cells, mouse feeder cells, so they are all contaminated. Ask yourself: Would you want to take the possibility that somehow mouse cells are getting into your body because of stem cells? No. Many of the 21 lines are too unhealthy. They have degenerated. They are unhealthy. As a matter of fact, I have been told we are down to about right now only four.

Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the Director of the NIH Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, said only 4 of the 21 federally approved lines are in common use by NIH-funded scientists. Only four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, another NIH Director, was a little more generous. He said there are six lines in common use. Well, four or six, you get the picture. It is not 78, it is only 4 or 6. Again, they are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. So some stem cell research is taking place, but our top scientists are working with one arm tied behind their backs because of these restrictions. It is having a chilling impact on the scientists who are thinking about entering the field.

According to Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the NIH Drug Abuse Institute, the administration's policy is discouraging scientists from applying for NIH funding to conduct stem cell research. In a letter to me last year, she wrote:

Despite general interest and enthusiasm in the scientific

community for embryonic stem cell research, the limited

number of available lines has translated into a general lack

of research proposals.

So the President's policy, which we have had in effect since August 9, 2001, is not a way forward; it is an absolute dead end for research. It only offers false hope to the millions of people across America and the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated through embryonic stem cell research. Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary time of August 9, 2001. The NIH estimates there are about 400 different stem cell lines worldwide. Many of those lines are uncontaminated and healthy, but they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists.

Scientists in many other countries around the world don't face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. We have talked to researchers in England, for example. Our policy makes no sense to them. They cannot understand why stem cell lines derived on one date are fine to use, but if they are derived on another date, they are off limits. I don't understand that, either. I have wrestled with that since August 9, 2001.

If you are going to take the position that this is totally morally unacceptable and there should be no Federal funding, then we should have no Federal funding, and there are four or five lines that are now being examined and studied that should not be allowed, either. But I have not seen any amendment from anyone here that would even overturn that policy. It is a shame that we don't open these stem cell lines. Think about it this way. We don't require astronomers to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. We don't tell our geologists to study the earth with tape measures. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available.

Again, don't take my word for it. Dr. Story Landis runs the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH. In January, she appeared before a joint hearing of the HELP Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, and my subcommittee. Senator Kennedy asked her whether scientists are missing out on possible breakthroughs under the administration's current policy, and this was her answer:

Yes, we are missing out on possible breakthroughs. From a

purely scientific perspective, Federal funding of additional

cell lines is necessary to advance the field.

This is Dr. Landis, head of the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH.

So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers true, meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what this bill, S. 5, would do. Under our bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date a stem cell is derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met.

I believe it is important to emphasize this: We have very strict ethical guidelines. First, stem cells must come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. There are more than 400,000 embryos right now in the United States left over from fertility treatments that are currently sitting frozen in liquid nitrogen. If the contributors of those embryos--the parents, the moms and dads--have had all the children they want and they no longer need the embryos, what happens to them? Under the policy we have now, there are only two things: You can keep them frozen for the next 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 years, or however long, or you can discard them. That is what is happening every day at in vitro fertilization clinics across the country. Embryos are being discarded as hospital waste.

Now, you might be a couple who says: We have had all our children, and we don't want any more. We don't want to keep paying forever and ever to have the embryos frozen. We would like to donate them to stem cell research to maybe help a young person with juvenile diabetes or someone with a spinal cord injury. We would like to contribute those embryos for that research. They cannot do it. It seems to me that at least we ought to be able to allow the couples to donate them if they wish. So the real question is, Do we throw them away or use them to ease suffering? Do we throw them away or allow them to be used with these strict ethical guidelines? I think it is the second choice that is truly moral and respectful of human life.

You might even think about it this way. Embryos will be destroyed, people say. The embryo itself--about which, by the way, I will point out there is a lot of misconception. I didn't listen to it, but I read the debate in the House last year. One of the speakers--I think the former minority leader, Mr. Delay, talked about fetuses and about the protection of fetuses. A lot of people think we are talking about fetuses. We are not. We are talking about embryos. I often put a dot on a piece of paper and I say: Can anybody see what I put there? That is just how big an embryo is, which is a few dozen cells.

Well, you have to get over this idea that somehow it is a fully formed fetus

existing in a womb. That is not it at all. You might say it is alive, it has life--yes, it does--and you should not destroy that life. Well, you might destroy the embryo itself, but in taking the stem cells from it--the cells in the embryo give the embryo life. If you take the cells out and you propagate them and examine them and then maybe use those lines for curing diseases in the future, it seems to me that you are really propagating life, saving lives, and enhancing life by doing that. That is why giving people the choice of voluntarily contributing the cells is truly moral and respectful of human life.

The second ethical requirement is that couples must provide written, informed consent. Now, I might point out that some of the 21 federally approved lines that are now in existence--especially the ones from other countries--don't meet that requirement. So we need to pass S. 5 to tighten the ethical guidelines of stem cell research, so there is no question that the embryos were donated properly. Think of it this way. We have Federal money right now that could be going--and probably is-- for research on some stem cells that were provided without written informed consent. So we need to tighten down on that. S. 5 does that.

I read the debates of last year on the floor of the Senate and in the House. There was a lot of talk about setting up ``embryo farms,'' that there is going to be embryo farming so that women will take their eggs, or create embryos, and there will be embryo farms. I heard that a number of times. Well, S. 5 prohibits women from being paid to donate their embryos. There is no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go through the donation process against their will. Under our bill, couples cannot receive money or other inducements to donate embryos. Under the present guidelines that now exist from the White House, it just says you cannot receive money. Well, there might be other inducements that may be provided to you to get you to donate. We want to cut that off and say it has to be purely voluntary. So you cannot receive money or any other inducements; you must have written, informed consent; it can only come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded; and there are very strict ethical guidelines.

So, again, this year's bill, S. 5, has one significant change from last year's bill that we passed. We passed that overwhelmingly, with 63 votes. But this bill has one difference. It includes the text of last year's Specter-Santorum bill, which passed the Senate unanimously but got tied up in the House and died at the end of the 109th Congress. That bill, which President Bush strongly endorsed, encouraged NIH to pursue alternative ways of deriving stem cells, in addition to our current method.

As I have made clear, going back to December of 1998, I support any ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. I believe we should open every door we can in the pursuit of cures. So what we have done in the new version of S. 5 is combine the two bills the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year but did not become law. That was H.R. 810 and the Specter-Santorum bill. By voting for S. 5, the bill before us now, Senators can show they support all forms of stem cell research. Again, the Specter-Santorum bill says open it up and find out all other forms of stem cell research. That was amniotic, placental stem cells, adult stem cells, whatever. I have no problem with that. I think we ought to pursue all of them. But that is the key difference between S. 5 and S. 30--that is the other bill we will vote on tomorrow night, S. 30. That bill puts all its hopes in theories, alternative ways of deriving stem cells that might or might not work. At this point, nobody knows. We do know how to derive embryonic stem cells and how to propagate them. Some research in other countries and private research has already led to stem cells developing into nerve cells and things like that.

We don't know about what S. 30 does. S. 30 says to scientists--that is the other bill before us--don't use any of the 400 existing stem cell lines already derived. Instead, put all of your effort into figuring out some new way of deriving stem cells that might take 10 or more years to pan out, or maybe not at all. For example, the proponents of S. 30 will talk a lot over today and tomorrow about stem cells that could allegedly be derived from ``dead embryos''--embryos that are not healthy and have stopped growing. I have to tell you, the idea that we can cure juvenile diabetes, ALS, and Parkinson's with something called ``dead embryos'' doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence. Think about it. If you were treating somebody with embryonic stem cells, would you rather use stem cells that came from an embryo that is healthy, vibrant, and growing or would you rather have them coming from a dead embryo? Ask yourself that simple question. The dead embryo died for a reason: there was something wrong with it. Chances are that the stem cells which come from that embryo are not so great, either. So why does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to curing ALS or juvenile diabetes? S. 5, our bill, by contrast, would immediately make those hundreds of new lines eligible for Federal research, again, as long as they were derived under the strict ethical guidelines we have in our bill. So S. 30, the other bill, might not do any harm, but I don't think it does any good, either. Again, that is why we ought to keep our focus on S. 5.

If this year's debate goes like last year's, then we will expect opponents of S. 5 to make a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells. I will listen closely and try to correct those mistakes people might make. There is a lot of stuff out there. Our committee looked at this, and we have had a lot of testimony from scientists at NIH. So there will be a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells.

As I have said for the last several years, I am all for adult stem cell research and use. Adult stem cells are already being used successfully in treating several blood-related diseases, and that is great. I am all for it. Let's continue this area of research. But as we now know, and as scientists tell us, adult stem cells have limits. They can't do everything that embryonic stem cells can do. Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to what Dr. Zerhouni, the Nation's highest ranking medical researcher, has to say about adult stem cells. This is what he said before our committee:

The presentations about adult stem cells having as much or

more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not

hold scientific water. . . . I think they are overstated. . .

. My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research

should be pursued.

That is what S. 5 will allow us to do. Most people could care less what cells are used to develop a cure. They just want a cure. So I say let's examine them all.

By the way, S. 30, the other bill we will be debating that focuses on deriving stem cells from naturally dead embryos, can be done under S. 5 also or under the Specter-Santorum bill. There are no restrictions on that issue. It is just that S. 30 says that is all we will do. S. 5, our bill, says we will open the 400 lines as long as they meet the ethical guidelines we have established. We will open those 400 lines to federally funded research and everything else, too. They can look at stem cells from naturally dead embryos. They can look at them from adult stem cells, placental, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord--whatever. They can look at them all as long as they meet ethical guidelines.

Lastly, we talk all about research, about science, about stem cells, using all the quotes from scientists and others. What it is really about is giving hope to people. It is about helping people who have devastating--devastating--illnesses.

This is a picture of Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. Karli is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. I met Karli for the first time last fall with her mother and her sisters. She just celebrated her 12th birthday. She has type 1 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes. When people have this disease, their body stops making insulin, so they have to inject it either through needles or a pump.

Here is a picture of Karli Borcherding, age 12, from Ankeny, IA, with 1 month's worth of needles. Look at that picture. There are 120 needles, 1 month. Ask yourself: How would you like to give yourself four shots a day at age 12? Imagine that, four times a day. As Karli says, she never gets a vacation from juvenile diabetes. It is with her wherever she goes--at school, at

home, on field trips, on holidays. She told me:

My dream is that one day we will find a cure for juvenile

diabetes, and I can just go back to being just a normal kid.

If adult stem cells could bring Karli a cure, she would gladly take it. But scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years, and they still haven't provided the answer for juvenile diabetes. We can't keep telling people such as Karli that embryonic stem cells might bring them a cure but, sorry, the Federal Government is not interested. Our premier institution of NIH can't be involved.

We can't keep telling the millions of Americans who have Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, or spinal cord injuries: Sorry, we know that embryonic stem cell research might ease your suffering, but we would rather do nothing about it.

Now is our chance to change that situation. I urge Senators to think about Karli Borcherding and all the people in their lives who could benefit from stem cell research and vote yes emphatically on S. 5 tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend, and I say again, the person who started all of our hearings on this issue in December of 1998. Under the chairmanship of Senator Specter, our subcommittee had the first hearing on stem cell research 1 month after they were derived. Under his chairmanship, we have had 20 hearings. I mentioned that earlier. There hasn't been a more stalwart, informed person in either body, or on the Hill, about embryonic stem cell research than Senator Specter.

Yes.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. President, we started a little late, so I will yield back the remainder of my time on this segment.

Iowa.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for the eloquent statement and for her many years of working on this issue and for her support on so many issues dealing with the health of the American people. I thank Senator Feinstein for being a stalwart in trying to break down the barriers we have to embryonic stem cell research.

I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from Delaware, for his very eloquent and personal statement. That is what this is all about, helping people who are suffering bad problems and need help with their health care.

I yield to a leader on all our health care issues for so many years, and I think he is recognized as such by the entire country. He is a great leader in all health care issues, especially on this issue of stem cell research. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side in this round?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I am glad to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her very eloquent statement regarding this bill. The Senator is right on the mark in talking about the ethical--if I can get her attention for a second--part of this issue.

As the Senator knows, in S. 5, we have very strict ethical guidelines. One, the only embryos that can be used are those slated to be discarded anyway from our IVF clinics. Secondly, there has to be written informed consent by the donors. And, third, there cannot be any monetary or other kinds of inducements at all to the donors of these embryos. Those guidelines are actually stricter than what is in law right now. As the Senator knows, we have these strict guidelines.

The other point the Senator brought up, if she has a minute for me to explore this point with her a bit, is that we have in vitro fertilization clinics. My information is that last year about 50,000 babies were born by IVF. I have friends of mine who had children thanks to IVF; otherwise, they would never have had children. Obviously, there are some embryos left over. They would like to be able to donate those for embryonic stem cell research because they are not going to have any more children.

So it seems to me the ethics question is, are we just going to discard them as hospital waste, which is done every day, or would it be more ethical to say let's use those with the strict guidelines we have to save lives, to make life better, to ease suffering and pain?

The Senator from Maine put her finger on it. That, to me, is the ethical way, I would think. What our bill is trying to do is to let those donors of those embryos say, yes, do this. You can do that, and use that for research. I thank the Senator from Maine for her contribution.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. How much time does our side have remaining?

Mr. President, I will take a couple more minutes to expand on this point.

I mentioned this morning, if you are faced with a situation where embryos are going to be discarded and destroyed totally or these embryos could be donated for embryonic stem cell research and propagated and given life and then proceed to give life to others, is that not the better ethical choice? In other words, what I am saying is, when you discard an embryo from an IVF clinic now as hospital waste, that is destroyed. But if you take an embryo and take out of the embryo the 100 or 200 cells in it, extract them, the embryo itself is not an embryo any longer, but the cells are still alive. They are still alive. They propagate, they grow, they become stem cells that we already know--we have already done that--develop into nerve cells, bone cells, heart muscle tissue, motor neurons. They already know that.

On the one hand, you are really destroying the embryos, and on the other hand, you are taking the embryos, you are changing them into something else that propagates life and that actually could be--we don't know, as the Senator said, we don't know the end result but could actually enhance and make life better for many people. It seems to me this is the more ethical way to go.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, do I understand the situation is that now our side has 60 minutes?

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

Mr. President, I am waiting for the arrival of another Senator to speak.

I listened to some of the debate that was just concluded, and I thought I heard--I am almost certain I heard--the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma say S. 5 would provide money for the destruction of human embryos.

Well, I am sorry, I hate to disagree with my friend from Oklahoma, but that is not so. As a matter of fact, we do not provide that kind of Federal money now with the stem cell lines that are being researched-- the few that are being researched now--and we do not under our bill. We still operate under what is called the Dickey-Wicker amendment which prohibits the use of Federal funds being used to destroy embryos. So we do not do that anyway. I think the Senator from Oklahoma ought to read the bill a little bit more carefully and understand we do not provide for the destruction of embryos.

I always find curious, every time someone speaks for the President--a spokesperson for the President--they always say the one line the President will not cross is he will not provide taxpayer money for the destruction of embryos. Well, if that is the case, then he should have no problem with S. 5, the bill we have before us, because it does not provide Federal funding for the destruction of embryos. It provides Federal funding for the research on stem cell lines that are derived by others--private entities, State entities, or whatever. But we do not provide any funding for the destruction of embryos whatsoever. I wanted to clear that up to make certain that did not sit out there.

I also listened earlier to my good friend--and he is a good friend-- Senator Brownback talking about the 72 diseases being treated with adult stem cells. Well, if all of these diseases are being treated so well with adult stem cells, then why do all the patient advocacy groups that are affiliated with those diseases support our bill, S. 5? We have 525 different patient advocacy groups supporting our bill.

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

On behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, I am writing

in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated

or cured several blood cancers, including several leukemias,

lymphomas and multiple myeloma.

As a representative of more than 700,000 patients and their

caregivers in this country who battle blood cancers on a

daily basis, our organizations would like to emphasize, as

the Senate debates S. 5, the Stem Cell Research and

Enhancement Act, that we exist today because we have not

found cures for these devastating diseases.

He says:

Furthermore, the claim that treatment of blood cancers with

cord blood, blood, or marrow stem cells demonstrates the

potential of ``adult stem cell'' research or is a substitute

for embryonic stem cell research is misleading and

disingenuous.

So again, Senator Brownback's list included leukemia and lymphoma, but the various organizations that represent all these people support S. 5. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Brown from Ohio, is here. I yield to him 10 minutes. If he needs more time, I can yield him more.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio for his eloquent statement. This is what it is all about. He got it right when he said this is about hope. It is not hope based upon any kind of false foundation. All the leading scientists, Nobel Prize winners, heads and former heads of NIH, and 525 different advocacy groups, all relying upon good scientific expertise, have said the foundation here is solid, that we can build hope because we know embryonic stem cells develop into all the cells of the human body. We know. We have had embryonic stem cells that have differentiated into nerve tissue, more neurons, heart and muscle tissue, and bones. So we know the possibility is there because it has already been done.

Again, we have a long way to go. No one is saying that absolutely we will do this, this, and this, but that is what scientific research is about. It is about looking and studying and examining and trying to develop these ideas. We know the foundation is there. So the hope we hold out to people with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, and spinal cord injury is one that is real, but it will not happen unless we get about embryonic stem cell research and lift the handcuffs, the shackles off our scientists.

So the Senator from Ohio is right. It is about hope. That is what this bill is all about. It is about hope. Not the false hope of saying: Oh, adult stem cells will take care of it. Adult stem cells have their place, and some of them have proven adequate to do different things but not everything. There is hope with amniotic fluid stem cells, cord blood stem cells. Now, the bill S. 30 talks about that, which is taking it from naturally dead embryos. That raises ethical questions in and of itself. Who decides when something is naturally dead? I would ask my colleagues who are promoting S. 30--and they are my good friends; I know they mean well and they are trying to advance a certain point of view, but are they saying you can take something that is dead and bring it back to life? If so, that is--I have only known where that has happened once in the history of humankind, and we just celebrated Easter Sunday. So they can't be saying they are taking something dead and bringing it back to life. So if it is not dead, what is it? Is it a sick embryo? Is it an embryo that isn't quite propagating as fast? What is it and who decides? Who gets to decide? S. 30 doesn't say that. S. 30 has no ethical guidelines to decide, or who decides what is naturally dead. So that raises all kinds of ethical questions in and of itself. So that is why, even if S. 30 were to become law--I don't think it will be--I don't mind supporting S. 30. The fact is our bill, S. 5, does everything S. 30 wants to do. If they want to do research to take embryonic stem cells from blastocysts that are not developing correctly, that can happen under our bill. Our bill opens the door to all kinds of research.

Here is the difference between S. 5 and S. 30. S. 5, the bill we are supporting, does both things. It opens the door for embryonic stem cell research

from leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, under strict ethical guidelines which I talked about today and laid out. It also would provide for research into naturally dead embryos. Now, S. 30, their bill, the Isakson-Coleman bill, it does one of those. It does research only into stem cells from naturally dead embryos. That is the difference. Our bill allows that to go ahead. Their bill does not allow the more promising embryonic stem cell research to go ahead, and that is from leftover embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics. That is what this is all about. That is what this is all about.

Again, I repeat: It is about what the Senator from Ohio said. It is about hope. Listen, we are not fooling anybody around here, the people watching, the medical community out there, the research scientists, the families of loved ones who are suffering from these illnesses, the kids with juvenile diabetes, they get it. They get it. They know what that is all about. They know there is only one bill on the floor of the Senate now that gives them hope, and that is S. 5. They know it. All this mumbo jumbo we hear, it doesn't mean anything. Only one thing means anything, and that is to pass the bill that takes the shackles off our scientists, that provides for strict ethical guidelines for people who have leftover embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic who say: I don't want them discarded as hospital waste. I want them to be donated to science to cure diseases and illnesses and to help suffering people.

That is what S. 5 is about. S. 30 does not do that. It simply keeps the handcuffs on our scientists, and we want to remove those handcuffs.

Mr. President, I see my good friend from New Jersey is on the floor, so I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for a very eloquent and poignant presentation of his position on embryonic stem cell research. I think what the Senator reflected is, again, the hopes of so many families in America who have a loved one suffering from Alzheimer's or juvenile diabetes, or a young person who has had an accident and is a paraplegic for life with a spinal cord injury. You say: What can we do to help? How can we help? Well, it is one thing to be sympathetic--and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from illnesses or injuries--but if we have it within our grasp, as the Senator from New Jersey said, to open some doors and see what is behind those doors, it seems to me we are compelled to do that.

We don't know where the scientific research may lead. But we do know if we don't do it, it is not going to lead anywhere. We know that. As I said earlier, the foundations are there to give hope to people that embryonic stem cell research will lead to great discoveries and treatments and interventions. I can only say to my friend from New Jersey that, in all of my meetings with scientists over the last dozen years or more--and especially since Gerhardt and Thompson isolated stem cells in 1998--the scientific community's enthusiasm for this is almost boundless because they realize that harnessing the power of embryonic stem cells that can develop into any form of a cell in the body could lead to interventions and cures that are now beyond our grasp.

I listened to the Senator from New Jersey, especially when he talked about opening doors. I have often likened biomedical research, scientific research, to saying if there are 10 doors, and you don't know what is behind any of those doors, if you are only going to open one door, what are your odds of finding the right answer? Well, if you open two doors, the odds get better. If you open five doors, you know it is 50-50. So the more doors we open, the better our chances are of finding these discoveries.

The Senator is right. If we open one door at a time, the odds are always going to be 10 to 1--or I guess it would be 9 to 1. It would be 9 to 1 that you are not going to find the right answer.

If we start opening all these doors and get the scientists talking with one another and looking at things, well, that means the span of time that it would take to find these cures is collapsed.

Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They collaborate. They talk with one another. They read one another's papers. They find out what other scientists are doing. They find out if a scientist has opened a different door and collaborate on that. That is why it is necessary to begin to open these doors.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for talking about that point.

Earlier I was responding to the comments of my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback. He was talking about 72 diseases being treated with adult stem cells. I pointed out his list included several types of leukemia and lymphomas, but I had printed in the Record earlier a letter from George Dahlman of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society saying they support S. 5.

Senator Brownback's list also included testicular cancer. I have a letter from Craig Nichols, M.D., board member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Here is what he says:

As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation Board of

Directors, I am writing in response to assertions that adult

stem cells have treated or cured the disease of testicular

cancer. . . . I feel it is important to set the record

straight on this issue. . . .

There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment

generally available to treat testicular cancer. Rather, adult

stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a

higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease.

We support exploring every avenue of research, including

embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits,

until a cure is found.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your

colleagues pass S. 5, and not accept any substitutes.

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

Mr. President, Senator Brownback's list of 72 diseases includes Parkinson's disease. I have a letter

from six Parkinson's groups: The American Parkinson's Disease Association, the Parkinson's Action Network, the Michael J. Fox Parkinson's Research Foundation, the National Parkinson Foundation, the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, and the Parkinson's Alliance & Unity Walk.

Here is what they say:

Opponents of S. 5 are using as ammunition the assertion

that embryonic stem cell research is not needed in this

country because many diseases, 72 of them, including

Parkinson's, have been treated or cured with adult stem

cells. This assertion is an absolute falsehood. If there were

a therapy to adequately treat the symptoms or halt the

progression of this unrelenting disease, the millions of

Parkinson's patients, caregivers and their physicians would

be pursuing that treatment right now. . . .

The Parkinson's community asks that you and your colleagues

pass S. 5 and not accept any substitutes.

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

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

S. 5 is the only bill that is pro-patient, pro-cure, and

pro-research. Please work to pass S. 5 immediately. Thank you

for bringing this important vote to the Senate floor.

Joyce Nelson, President and CEO of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

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

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

While there are indeed a number of promising avenues now

being investigated that address paralysis and spinal cord

injuries through rehabilitation, cellular therapies and

pharmaceuticals, there simply is no merit to any claim that

adult stem cells have successfully treated or cured spinal

cord injuries. . . .

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation strongly endorses

the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5, and thanks you

for your leadership in bringing this vital legislation to the

Senate floor.

Signed by Peter Wilderotter, President.

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

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

ASH supports S. 5 because our members are interested in

expanding the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell

research to allow scientists to explore the full promise of

this field. The other bill that will be considered by the

Senate will not change current policy in any meaningful way.

. . .

Again, our Society urges your support of S. 5. . . .

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

Mr. President, a report in Science magazine analyzes the list to which Senator Brownback referred. The authors found there are FDA-approved treatments for only nine diseases on Senator Brownback's list and all of those are blood-related diseases such as leukemia.

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

Mr. President, I see that my friend from New Jersey is also in the Chamber. He has been a strong supporter of medical research through all his lifetime. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey. I assure him that if he needs more time, we will yield him some more time. I yield to the distinguished Senator, my good friend, Mr. Lautenberg.

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

Mr. President, I obviously yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. President, I will take about 10 minutes or so, I suppose--maybe 15 at the most. Then I will yield back the remainder of my time for anyone who is interested in what is happening on the floor. I think Senator Isakson will follow up and close off the debate for the remainder of today.

But I want to respond to a couple things that have been said that I was listening to both on the floor and off the floor so people understand that sometimes things are not as clear cut as perhaps they are presented. There are always two sides to every story, as we know.

But I heard my good friend from Kansas talking about the type 1 diabetes research that was conducted in Brazil. Indeed, the JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported today they had some success with this. I just want to read, though, from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation that obviously has been following this issue very closely. They said that today's report underscores the need for continued work across a range of important scientific areas. They said:

For that reason, we continue to strongly support passage of

S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will

allow scientists to more fully explore this critical area of

research.

I will not go into all of the things they are saying about the procedure. It is a risky procedure that happened in Brazil. They do not know at this point whether the people are really cured. Will their symptoms--diabetes symptoms--come back after a few months? No one really knows. But it is promising. Again, I am hopeful that research pans out. But I want to point out, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation says that is fine, but still, let's get S. 5 passed so we can continue on with this needed research in embryonic stem cells.

I also want to talk for a little bit about two or three issues. One is just the broader issue of why embryonic stem cell research has not yet led to human treatments. Well, scientists have been doing research on adult stem cells for over 30 years. There are no--I repeat, no-- arbitrary restrictions on research with adult stem cells. Scientists and private companies do not have to be skittish about doing this research. They do not have to worry about that all of a sudden the Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it.

Now, compare that situation with embryonic stem cells. First of all, scientists did not even know how to extract them until November of 1998. The first Federal grant for these stem cells was not awarded until 2002, and again on a limited number of lines that are available. Even now only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for stem cell research is used for embryonic stem cells. The vast majority still goes for adult stem cells.

Here is a chart I have in the Chamber that shows that. Embryonic research lags far behind adult stem cells. For fiscal year 2006, the National Institutes of Health funding for embryonic stem cells, $38.3 million; for adult stem cells, $200.3 million. So, again, people say: Well, why isn't embryonic stem cells doing more? You can see it is being totally underfunded as compared with adult stem cells.

Again, we have not had the 30 years of research. There has been more than five times as much funding for adult stem cell research as for embryonic stem cells. So, again, scientists are studying embryonic stem cells with one arm tied behind their back.

The fact is, it does not matter what many of the Senators think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. What matters is what scientists think. What is their view, those who know this area, who are studying it, Nobel prize laureates, the head of NIH? Let's look at what the head of NIH--this is a man appointed by President Bush. He heads, as Senator Specter has often said, the crown jewel of the Federal Government; that is, the National Institute of Health. Here is what he said:

The presentations about adult stem cells having as much or

more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not

hold scientific water. . . .I think they are overstated. . .

.My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research

should be pursued.

That was Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the head of NIH.

Breakthroughs are coming, but they take time. To clamp down on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance shows a total lack of understanding about how science works. More importantly, it denies hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, ALS, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and other treatable diseases and conditions.

Secondly, I want to respond to an issue that is presented in the Isakson-Coleman bill, S. 30--this whole idea of the promise of extracting embryonic stem cells from dead embryos. I must say--and I say to my good friend from Georgia--this still kind of mystifies me. As I said earlier, when something is dead, it is dead. I do not know anybody who can extract and bring back to life something that is dead. So we have to get over the idea we are talking about dead embryos. They are not dead; they are alive. They are living. They are living organisms. They are not dead. So again, an embryo dies or gets sick or ill for a reason. There is something wrong with it. Chances are the stem cells that come from that ``dead embryo'' aren't so great either. So why does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to, say, curing juvenile diabetes?

Here is what three top scientists wrote about dead embryos:

There is no proof that dead embryos will work. Beyond the

fact that scientists haven't developed a reliable method for

determining an embryo's ``death,'' there is no scientific

evidence that stem cells derived from these embryos would

have the required properties or be safe for human therapies.

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

I want to read from the bill, S. 30. This is the definition of naturally dead:

The term ``naturally dead'' means having naturally and

irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular

division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic

of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may

be alive in a disorganized state.

Well, I have a hard time understanding that, but then this is not a scientific definition. I submit there is no scientific test to determine when an embryo reaches this state where they can say it won't differentiate or grow. It is an eyeball test. I have been told when people get in vitro fertilization and they produce embryos, the embryologist, if I can use that term, will look at them and some exhibit better signs than others. Some look healthier than others, have more activity than others. These are the ones they will implant. The other ones that look healthy, they freeze. If there are some that don't look very healthy, they are discarded.

I assume these are the ones we are talking about in S. 30; is that right?

No, no. I would ask my friend as we engage in this--and I have obviously been talking to scientists and others about this--we get into another problem, and I will read something from a scientist who wrote me a letter on this. Who decides? Who decides when that embryo is not implantable? How is that decided? I am told there is no scientific dividing line on that. It is sort of an eyeball test. One scientist might say no, another scientist may say yes. Your bill, with all due respect, does not give any clear delineation.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask my friend for further clarification. Is it not true that some of these after 7 days could be implantable?

Let me read, though, from a letter from George Daley, who is one of the foremost researchers on embryonic stem cell research at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute at the Harvard Medical School. Mr. Daley has testified, and I think he testified that day we were there. I wrote him a letter asking him about his views on using embryonic stem cells that have been called ``naturally dead.'' He said:

Though some Senators might be persuaded to vote for

expanded funding for human embryonic stem cells derived from

``naturally dead'' stem cells, this would be a step backwards

for embryonic stem cell research. The definition of a

``naturally dead'' embryo as required in the alternative bill

is highly problematic. S. 5 remains the greatest hope for

advancing embryonic stem cell research in this country. The

concept that human embryonic stem cells might be derived from

a ``naturally dead'' embryo originated in an article authored

by Landry and Zucker in the Journal of Clinical Investigation

2004. The article contained the following passage:

``For a developed human organism, brain death marks the

irreversible loss of the capacity for all ongoing and

integrated organic function . . .''

As we just mentioned.

We propose--

Get this:

We propose that the defining capacity of a 4 or 8 cell

human embryo is continued and integrated cellular division,

growth, and differentiation. We further propose that an

embryo that has irreversibly lost its capacity, even as its

individual cells are alive, is properly considered

organismically dead. Even at its earliest stages, the life of

the developing organism is more than the sum of the lives of

its constituent cells.

So again, they propose this. It is not an accepted scientific principle. The cessation of brain waves is, on the living organism, an accepted scientific fact, but this is only a proposal.

Yes.

Mr. President, this is a good discussion.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Dr. George Daley be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, he pointed out in this letter that sometimes in actual clinical practice even poor quality embryos that might be considered naturally dead can, by in vitro fertilization, give rise to successful pregnancies. He says he also ``cannot envision an ethically acceptable clinical study that would correlate the pregnancy outcomes of enough poor quality embryos to ensure the reliability of criteria for `embryo death.'''

He is saying that the quality for in vitro may be different for in utero. Therefore, it might be a poor quality in vitro, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be poor quality for implantation in utero. He raises this ethical question.

He says:

I am skeptical that we can devise any highly reliable

criteria to define embryo death that will appease the critics

of embryonic stem cell derivation.

What you are talking about is the Gardner principle, which has to do with what embryos they implant. That is what that really has to do with. So therefore, sure, you are going to take the healthiest, most vibrant embryo that you are going to implant, first of all, with the hope that it will develop. I still say to my friend that while you can take the ones that don't develop after a week or so and say we will take the stem cells from them--and some happen that way. That is fine. But it just sort of begs the question, if you really want to derive the best stem cells, why wouldn't you use the healthiest embryos rather than the sickest embryos? I am not a scientist, but to me it seems that if you want the best, most vibrant and healthy stem cells, you go after the most vibrant and healthy embryos that have been frozen in vitro fertilization, as our bill says, that otherwise will be discarded. That is my point.

I will soon yield. But I am not opposed to the Senator's bill. I am not opposed to looking at this kind of stem cell derivation. I don't have a problem. I think there are problems defining exactly when it dies and that kind of stuff. But if you pass S. 5, that takes care of all that, and it covers that whole issue. It would seem to me, again, that you would want to go after the healthiest and use the healthiest ones.

That is true.

That is true.

Right.

Again, it is a good debate. We should have more of these kinds of exchanges on the Senate floor. I respect my friend, and I respect his approach. Again, we have our differences in the way we approach things. I picked up on one word my friend just said--the ``environment'' in which we are operating. I assume he means the environment being the Presidential declaration of August 9, 2001, that only Federal funding could be used for stem cells derived prior to 9 p.m. but none after that. I assume that is the environment we are talking about.

That is what I thought. My proposal is to change the environment. That is what we have to do. I say we have to change the environment. The American people want it changed, the scientific community wants it changed, the head of NIH--former head of NIH and 525 different advocacy groups out there want it changed. Why should one person--the President of the United States--have the say-so of what is moral and what is not moral, depending upon a time?

Sure, but why is 9 p.m. of August 9 the moral dividing line that Federal funds can be used on stem cell lines? Before that it is moral, but after that it is immoral. I cannot understand that.

I appreciate that. We have to do what we can do sometimes here. Certainly, we have been funding adult stem cell research. Senator Specter and I have made certain of that in our Appropriations Committee.

Don't get me started on that because those have all been contaminated on mouse feeder cells. My friend from Oklahoma said that was not true the other day, but it is true. They have been growing on mouse feeder cells, every one of them. Again, we don't know if they will ever be able to be used for any kind of human therapies. Maybe yes, maybe no. We do know that the 400-some stem cell lines derived since then privately, or by State involvement, or whatever, have not been used on mouse feeder cells. We know those, more than likely, will have the capacity of being used in human therapy.

I respect people's morality, but I just don't know that I like it when somebody imposes their self-imposed morality on all of the American people. I respect the President's moral views, I really do. But I have a hard time understanding how the President can say Federal funding should not be used for embryonic stem cell research if they were derived after 9 p.m., August 9, 2001, and before that it is morally OK. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand that.

If it is morally unacceptable to use Federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, then it ought not to be used for these 21 lines either.

Quite frankly, that is why I don't have any problems with this line of research. All I can say to my friend is that all of the scientists who write me letters and who have weighed in on this issue, and the groups that rely upon scientists and Nobel laureates, they all say that this might be an area of interest, but it doesn't substitute for lifting the ban. I am hopeful. I guess I am a hopeful person.

I am hopeful that the President will understand that we are not asking him to cross his moral line. He said repeatedly through his spokespeople, very recently, that the one bright line the President will not cross is using Federal funds to destroy embryos. I wish they would read the bill. S. 5 doesn't provide money for the destruction of embryos. We don't do that now. We have not done it in the past. So, therefore, this bill should be able to be signed because it doesn't provide one single cent of taxpayer dollars for the destruction of embryos. Of course, neither does the bill of the Senator from Georgia; of course not. So that is why I am a hopeful person, thinking that the President or his people will read this and say: You are right. We have stricter ethical guidelines in this bill than exist right now.

So I am hopeful. I am hopeful that we can get this job done.

Anyway, I just wanted to make one other point tonight before I yield the floor.

I wish we could do more of this on the Senate floor. By having respect for one another's opinions and thought processes and sources of information, I think we can get a clearer understanding of where people are coming from. Lots of times we give our speech and leave and nobody is around discussing anything.

Some of the best times I have had on the Senate floor were debating Phil Gramm of Texas. We used to get into some good debates. He was always willing to give and take and talk back and forth in a congenial manner. We need more of that on the floor of the Senate. That is just my opinion.

Mr. President, I want to say one other thing that came up. Again, it has to do with understanding these kinds of moral lines, so to speak. It is true that we all started out as an embryo. I want to remind people what an embryo is. It is a blastocyst that has between 100 and 200 cells. The embryos we are talking about in S. 5 are sitting in in

vitro fertilization clinics and are frozen in liquid nitrogen. They are smaller than a period at the end of a sentence, and they are stored in tiny straws like this.

What I am holding up here is one of the devices used to store embryonic stem cells in liquid nitrogen. They take this top off here, if I can get it off. They have a little tube like this. In this tube, the opening of which is about as big as the end of a period at the end of a sentence, they would put in that little tube an embryo. Then they would put it in this enclosure and put it in liquid nitrogen in a tank and freeze it. Then if the couple who donated the embryos were unsuccessful in having children--I have a couple friends of mine who are now doing that, and their first pregnancy wasn't successful. They were going back for a second. They get one of these frozen embryos, thaw it out, and it is implanted in utero. So that is what these tiny little straws are.

An embryo will never become a human being unless and until it is implanted into a uterus, takes hold, and develops. Sometimes they are implanted and they don't take hold; they are discharged.

So an embryo is what I think we can rightfully call potential life-- potential in that if it is implanted and takes hold, it could become a human being. Therefore, it is potential.

Let's look at another chart.

This is Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. She is 12 years old and has type 1 diabetes. These are all the needles she uses in 1 month, 120. Think: How would you like to give yourself four shots every day? Look at all those needles she goes through every month at 12 years of age. Karli has juvenile diabetes, as I said. She knows what will happen if she is not cured. At some point in her life, she will probably become blind. She will probably lose a foot, a leg, or one or more of her limbs. At some point in her life, diabetes will take her.

This is not potential life. This is real life--a human being living right now.

That embryo stored in liquid nitrogen, is it alive? Of course. It is not dead, it is alive. Is it a human being? No. It is a potential human being. Karli Borcherding is a real human being.

So read S. 5. Under the ethical guidelines of this bill, NIH can fund research only on those embryos which are left over from in vitro fertilization and which would otherwise be discarded. Every day, fertility clinics discard unwanted embryos. Last year, 50,000 babies were born to couples who wanted to have a baby, couldn't, and wanted in vitro fertilization. Out of those 50,000, a lot of embryos are left over. When a couple has had one child, two, three--however many they decide--and they have leftover embryos, what happens to them? The clinic calls them up and says: If you want to keep them, you have to pay us every month. Parents may say: We don't want them anymore, we have had all our children. And if you are not willing to pay to keep them frozen for the next 200, 300, 400, 500, 1,000 years or however long, they are discarded. It happens every day of every week of every year.

What we are saying and what the real question is, as long as we have leftover embryos, is it better to have them discarded and flushed down the drain or used for the kind of scientific research that would one day cure Karli Borcherding?

What we are talking about is potential life, potential life frozen in nitrogen, or we are talking about real life. That is really the difference--potential life that would otherwise be flushed down the drain versus Karli Borcherding and her real life. That is why I think Senator Hatch had it correct. He said the real pro-life position is S. 5. That is the real pro-life position.

As I have said before, once an embryo is discarded in an in vitro fertilization clinic, it is discarded. It is dead. But if that embryo was taken and the stem cells are taken out and those stem cells are propagated, they are alive. They don't die; they are alive. They continue to be alive. They are developed into nerve tissue, bone tissue, heart muscle tissue that some day--or they could be developed into the kinds of cells that would help Karli Borcherding become insulin free. That is what this debate is about.

It seems to me, if this is a moral problem for the President or anybody else, we ought to have legislation that would shut down every IVF clinic in this country. Shut them down and ban the procedure in the United States because there are leftover embryos. If it is immoral to take those embryos, even with the written, informed consent of the donors, with no money changing hands, and if they are going to be discarded anyway, if that is immoral, wouldn't it be immoral to just discard them? But you have to do one or the other.

Senator Brownback talked about adoption. I am all for that. That is fine. If couples want to adopt babies from in vitro fertilization clinics, that is fine. But as I said, we have 400,000 frozen embryos right now; 50,000 babies born every year from IVF. I think we have had, what, 135 adoptions. That is fine. They can be adopted, and there may be a lot of donors who have donated embryos. They have had their children, but they really don't want to have other people having their children. That raises other kinds of ethical questions. They might want to say: We would rather donate that for stem cell research to save Karli Borcherding's life.

We have to come to grips with this issue. Is it OK to have IVF clinics, is it OK to have in vitro fertilization? If that is the case, then we have to take it step by step and confront reality. The reality is in vitro fertilization is legal, it is acceptable. It provides couples with children they otherwise could not have, and the reality is that there are leftover embryos. We have to confront that reality. What do you do with them? They are not all going to be adopted. We have to agree that is an impossibility. So are they going to be discarded or with the consent of the donors be used for embryonic stem cell research? That is really the question.

I think there is really only one answer, and that is what all the scientists--I say all, the vast majority of scientists, Nobel laureates, the head of NIH, the former head of NIH, 525 advocacy groups representing all diseases and injuries in the United States that you can imagine, why they all say that S. 5 is the bill we have to pass, that we have to enact into law to take the handcuffs off our scientists. That is why it is so important we have a good solid vote for this bill tomorrow.

With that, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his patience and his kindness.

I yield back whatever time we have remaining on our side for today's purpose.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the stem cell bills on Wednesday following the opening of the Senate, there be 6\1/2\ hours remaining for debate, with the time controlled 1\1/2\ hours each: majority and Republican leaders or their designees, Senators Harkin and Brownback; with the time until 12:30 divided as follows: 90 minutes under the control of Senator Harkin or his designee and 45 minutes each for Senators Coleman, Isakson, and Brownback; that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conference work periods; that at 2:15 p.m., the time until 5:15 p.m. be allocated in the same manner, with the final 30 minutes equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the final 15 minutes; that at 5:45 p.m., without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of S. 5, to be followed by a vote on the passage of S. 30; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to the second vote with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that the other provisions of the order governing the consideration of these bills remain in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing entitled ``Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and the Future of 911 Services,'' will examine current issues and future challenges related to the provision of enhanced 911 (E911) services, and S. 428, the ``IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007.''