Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 110, sponsored by my friend, the senior Senator from Ohio, which honors an American hero, Iowa's own Bob Feller.

Robert William Andrew Feller, better known to baseball fans as ``Bullet Bob'' or ``Rapid Robert,'' will forever be recognized for his talent, courage, and heart. Throughout his life, Feller has achieved tremendous success. Born on a farm in Van Meter, Iowa, in 1918, Feller began his baseball career playing American Legion, amateur and semi-pro baseball on fields across the State.

He signed a contract to pitch for the Cleveland Indians in 1935 at the age 16. In his first major league start in 1936 he struck out 15 batters, showing the entire league that he was not just a kid but a true talent that could play with the big names. As anticipated by fellow coaches, players, and fans, Feller only progressed. He was the first pitcher to win 20 or more games by the age of 21 and pitched the only opening day no-hitter in major league baseball history. At the height of his astounding career, Feller put his loyalty to his country above all and enlisted in the U.S. Navy 2 days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. While putting his big-time baseball career on hold and valiantly serving in the Armed Forces for nearly 4 years, Feller earned eight battle stars working primarily aboard the USS Alabama in the gunnery department.

After being discharged, Feller was ready to go back to the game he loved. Having not played for 4 years, there was much speculation that he would not be the recordbreaking pitcher he once was. That year, he proved they were wrong. His 1946 season was the most successful of Feller's career. Throwing pitches clocked as fast as 109 miles per hour, Feller completed 36 of the 42 games he started while compiling a 2.18 earned run average. He also pitched his second career no-hitter against the New York Yankees, pitched a shutout victory for the American League in the All Star Game, and, for good measure, saved four out of six games in relief for the Indians. Feller overwhelmingly led the American League that year in wins, shutouts, strikeouts, games pitched, and innings. In 1962, 6 years after his last season, Bob Feller was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in recognition for his extraordinary abilities, on and off the field.

It is my honor today to stand in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 110, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1946 season of Iowa's native son, Bob Feller and his heroic military service to the United States.

Mr. President, today, July 26, marks the 16th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On this 16th anniversary, we celebrate one of the great, landmark civil rights laws of the 20th century--a long-overdue emancipation proclamation for people with disabilities.

We also celebrate the men and women, from all across America, whose daily acts of protest and persistence and courage moved this law forward to passage 16 years ago.

We celebrate some 50 million Americans with disabilities, who now begin each day with the right to equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

That is the triumph we celebrate today.

That is the spirit that made the Americans with Disabilities Act possible.

And that is the promise that will continue to move this country and the disability community forward.

Our society is so dynamic and so rapidly changing, we are often oblivious to quiet revolutions taking place in our midst. One such a revolution has been unfolding since the Americans with Disabilities Act became law 16 years ago.

How soon we forget that, prior to the ADA, Americans with disabilities routinely faced prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion-- not to mention physical barriers to movement and access in their everyday lives. People with disabilities faced blatant discrimination in the workplace. They were often denied employment, no matter how well qualified they were. People in wheelchairs faced a nearly impossible obstacle course of curbs, stairs, and narrow doors.

One of those courageous people who fought for passage of the ADA was a young Iowan with severe cerebral palsy named Danette Crawford. I remember vividly when I first met Danette in 1990, when I was making the final push to get ADA through Congress. She was just 14 and one of the brightest persons I had ever met. I talked to her about what ADA would mean to her in terms of educational and job opportunities-- ensuring that she would not be discriminated against in the workplace.

She listened to all this, and in her wonderful way, she said: ``That's very nice, very important, Senator. But, you know, all I really want to do is just be able to go out and buy a pair of shoes just like anybody else.'' And, of course, she was right. That is exactly what the ADA is all about.

The reach--the triumph--of the ADA revolution is all around us. It has become part of America. In May, I attended a convention in downtown Washington of several hundred disability rights advocates, many with severe impairments. They arrived on trains and airplanes built to accommodate people in wheelchairs. They came to the hotel on Metro and in regular busses, all seamlessly accessible by wheelchair. They navigated city streets equipped with curb cuts and ramps. The hotel where the convention took place was equipped in countless ways to accommodate people with disabilities. A woman on the dais translated the speeches into sign language so that people with hearing disabilities could be full participants.

For those of us who are able-bodied, these many changes are all but invisible. For a person who uses a wheelchair, they are transforming and liberating. So are provisions in the ADA outlawing discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the workplace and requiring employers to provide ``reasonable accommodations.''

Just as important, the ADA has changed attitudes. It used to be perfectly acceptable to treat people with disabilities as second-class citizens, to exclude and marginalize them. I remember my brother, Frank, who was deaf. Frank was the real inspiration behind all of my work in the Senate on the Americans with Disabilities Act. He passed away 6 years ago, a month before the 10th anniversary of ADA. He always said that he was sorry that the ADA was not there for him when he was growing up but that he was very happy that the ADA is here now for young people so they can have a better future.

Frank lost his hearing at an early age. Then he was taken from his home, his family and his community and sent across the State to the Iowa State School for the Deaf. People often referred to it as the school for the ``deaf and dumb.'' Yes, that is the insensitive way that people used to talk. I remember my brother telling me, ``I may be deaf, but I am not dumb.''

While at school, Frank was told he could be one of three things: a cobbler, a printer's assistant, or a baker. He said he didn't want to be any one of those things. They said: OK, you are going to be a baker. So after he got out of school, Frank became a baker. But that is not what he wanted to do. Frank stubbornly refused to accept the biases and stereotypes that society tried to impose on him. He fought for--and won--a life of dignity.

But I remember how difficult everyday tasks were for him. For example, I remember, as a young boy, going with my older brother Frank to a store. The salesperson, when she found out that Frank was deaf, looked through him like he was invisible and turned to me to ask me what he wanted. I remember when he wanted to get a driver's license, he was told that ``deaf people don't drive.'' So the deck was stacked against Frank in a thousand ways, strictly because he was a person with a disability.

I remember when my brother finally found a job to his liking. He got a job at a manufacturing plant in Des Moines--a good job at Delavan Corporation. Mr. Delavan decided he wanted to hire people with disabilities, and so my brother went to work there. It was a great job. He became a drill press operator making nozzles for jet engines. He took enormous pride in his work.

Later on, when I was in the Navy, I remember coming home on leave for Christmas. I was unmarried at the time, as was Frank. So I went with him to the company where he worked, which was putting on a Christmas dinner. I didn't expect anything special. But it turned out that they were honoring Frank that night because in 10 years at Delevan, he had not missed a single day of work and hadn't been late once.

That is characteristic of how hard-working and dedicated people with disabilities are when they are given a

chance in the workplace. Frank worked at that plant for 23 years and missed just 3 days of work, and that was because of a blizzard.

Today the brazen discrimination and prejudice that Frank faced are part of what seems like a medieval past. We have overcome the false dichotomy between ``disabled'' and ``able.'' We recognize that people with disabilities--like all people--have unique abilities, talents, and aptitudes and that America is better, fairer, and richer when we make full use of those gifts.

We have made amazing progress in just 16 years. For millions of Americans with disabilities, it truly is a revolution. It has been a quiet revolution, but it has also been a profound revolution.

The day that the ADA passed was the proudest day of my legislative career. But every Senator who voted ``aye'' can look back, 16 years later, with enormous pride in this achievement. We were present at the creation. But our creation now has a robust life of its own. The ADA has been integrated into the fabric of American life. It has changed lives--and changed our Nation. It has made the American Dream possible for tens of millions of people who used to be trapped in a nightmare of prejudice and exclusion. This truly is a triumph.

I am reluctant, in any way, to take away from the celebration of this anniversary, but I am obliged to point out that the ADA revolution is not yet complete.

When we passed the ADA, we set four great national goals for Americans with disabilities: equal opportunity, independent living, full participation, and economic self-sufficiency. There is more work that needs to be done to reach the full promise of these goals.

Right now, 16 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is a shocking fact that more than 60 percent of people with disabilities are not employed. We need to do a better job of ensuring that people with disabilities have job opportunities--and not just any job but one that is equal to their interests and talents and pays accordingly.

We need to make sure that people with disabilities have access to health care, with accessible medical equipment and properly trained medical professionals. We also need to make sure that they have access to health and wellness programs that focus on their unique needs. Just this week, I introduced a bill--S. 3717--that will go a long way toward accomplishing these goals.

At the same time, we need to continue our progress in reversing the institutional bias in Medicaid. We need to move away from the days when two-thirds of Medicaid long-term-care dollars are spent on institutional services, with only one-third going to community-based care.

My bill, S. 401, also known as MiCASSA--which is short for the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act--would level the playing field by requiring States to cover community services under their Medicaid Programs.

With appropriate community-based services and supports, we can transform the lives of people with disabilities. They can live with family and friends, not strangers. They can be the neighbor down the street, not the person warehoused down the hall. This is not asking too much. This is the bare minimum that we should demand for every human being.

The ADA is to people with disabilities what the Emancipation Proclamation was to African-Americans. But one of the great shames of American history is that it took a full century from the Emancipation Proclamation until the Civil Rights Act actually made good on Lincoln's promise.

I say to my colleagues, we cannot allow history to repeat itself. We cannot wait a century for people with disabilities to be fully integrated into our society and our workforce. We need to fulfill the full promise of the ADA now.

Yes, it takes money to pay for personal attendant services. But I think of my nephew, Kelly, who became a paraplegic while serving in the military. The Veterans Administration pays for his attendant services. This allows Kelly to get up in the morning, go to work, operate his small business, pay his taxes, and be a fully contributing member of our society.

That is what every person with a disability wants. The costs of MiCASSA would be largely offset by the benefit of having people with disabilities who are employed, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy.

It is a disgrace that, as I said, more than 60 percent of people with disabilities do not have jobs. Right now, they are unemployed and dependent. We want them employed and independent. This would be a boon for them. It would be a boon for the economy. And it would be a boon for the budget.

So I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the 16th anniversary of the ADA than by rededicating ourselves to completing the ADA revolution. This means passing MiCASSA. This means passing the Promoting Wellness for Individuals with Disabilities Act. It means giving people with disabilities not just the right to be independent and have a job but the wherewithal to be independent and hold a job.

Mr. President, one final thought: In sign language, there is a wonderful sign for the word ``America.'' It is this: all the fingers in one hand joined tightly together, with the other hand tracing a circle around the joined fingers. This describes an America for all, where we are not separate, where no one is left out, and we are all embraced by a circle, the circle of the American family.

For centuries, Americans with disabilities were tragically left out of that circle. Our American family was not yet whole, not yet fully inclusive. The passage of the ADA 16 years ago rectified that. It brought everyone, including people with disabilities, into the circle. It made our American family--at last--complete.

That is the historic achievement we celebrate today. That is the historic achievement that we must safeguard for generations to come. One America. One inclusive American family that respects the dignity, the value, and the civil rights of all, including Americans with disabilities.

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

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are finally going to conclude the Water Resources Development Act. My hope is that the conference with the House can be completed before the Congress recesses in early October. This is a good bill, providing for flood control, improvements to navigation, and considerable improvements to the environment. The bill also provides some real improvements to the way the Corps works.

I am very pleased that the bill includes improvements for navigation and environmental improvements for the Upper Mississippi River. It includes five expanded locks, a number of long-overdue efficiency improvements, and a major boost to the Corps of Engineers' environmental programs. I was pleased to work with Senator Bond to develop this important and very balanced proposal. The unfortunate thing is that our Upper Mississippi lock and dam measure was first introduced in 2004 and then made a part of the Senate WRDA bill that year. But we are only now getting a chance to move it to the Senate floor.

I have been deeply involved with navigation because of its importance to farmers in Iowa and across the upper Midwest. River transportation is critical to keeping commodity costs low enough to remain competitive.

When shipping on the river is constrained, costs rise. When that happens, prices for moving bulk farm commodities by alternative means, mainly rail, go up as well. These price differentials seem relatively small compared to the total price, but they make a huge difference in farm income.

Clearly, river traffic on the Mississippi is incredibly important to producers in my State and elsewhere in the upper Midwest. As a result of traffic congestion on the Mississippi, producers face longer shipping times, which are very costly. Clearly, traffic management and helper boats to push long barges through crowded locks will be very helpful, and this bill will help that happen. In the long run, though, that won't be enough. It is incredibly important that we address ways to modernize a number of the locks on the upper Mississippi.

And we face substantial improvements from our competitors in their transportation capabilities, particularly in Brazil. I visited there a few years ago and saw firsthand how Brazil was rapidly moving to improve its Amazon River facilities. In contrast, we are sitting with 60-year-old locks that raise our costs.

I would also note that moving goods like corn down to the Gulf by river instead of by rail, and building material up from the Gulf in the same manner means considerable saving in fuel both lowering costs and air pollution.

Existing law requires exhaustive analysis of future river use levels decades into the future. The studies required for such predictions are, by their nature, highly speculative at best. While many have been critical of the methods of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Corps is essential to our ability to compete, to ensure that we keep the arteries and veins of America's river transportation system in smooth running order. We must remain competitive. We cannot wait any longer to authorize construction for 1,200-foot locks so barge tows can move through the upper Mississippi and Illinois without being split.

Of course, navigation needs cannot be our sole concern. Over the years, I have heard time and time again from constituents and national leaders concerned about the environment, about the need to maintain a balance among navigation, flood control and the environment. Habitat for many species--indeed, the Mississippi River ecosystem as a whole-- has deteriorated since the construction of the original lock system in the 1930's.

The Mississippi River is home to a wide variety of fish and birds, as well as other wildlife. These animals and abundant plant life are important to the character and life of the Mississippi River. Approximately, 40 percent of North America's waterfowl and shorebirds use the Mississippi Flyway.

Parts of the Upper Mississippi River may serve as the most important area for migrating diving ducks in the United States. And the Mississippi River serves as habitat for breeding and wintering birds, including the bald eagle.

We are all aware of the problems that have plagued the Corps' actions on the Mississippi River. However, the Corps has pledged and is putting a much stronger emphasis on environmental protection. We need to work with the Corps to ensure that all updates and renovations of the locks and dams are done with the utmost care for the environment and the wildlife that depends on the Mississippi River habitat.

In addition to that mitigation, we need to give the Corps the authorization and the funding it needs to accomplish real ecosystem restoration, and not just make up for the lost habitat of specific identified species. The legislation we are proposing does just that.

This is going to be a challenge in these difficult budget times, but not to do so would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. We need to be thinking both of the long-term economic health of our agricultural producers and shippers, in tandem with the long-term health of the diverse ecosystems on the river.

I would like to note that I am pleased that bill authorizes improvements to the Des Moines flood control system. Des Moines suffered major flooding in 1993 and clearly needs the improvements to reduce the chance of flooding in the future.

I believe the legislation we are proposing strikes the correct balance. I urge our colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, I just watched the President of the United States veto the bill that passed here yesterday by 63 votes, the bill to provide that our scientists in this country, under the guidance of the National Institutes of Health, could conduct lifesaving research on embryonic stem cells, with strong ethical guidelines.

I will mince no words about the President's action and the words he used. I think this veto is a shameful display of cruelty and hypocrisy and ignorance. It is cruel because it denies hope to millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

The best scientists in the world, overwhelmingly--including dozens of Nobel Prize winners, every director at the National Institutes of Health--say that embryonic stem cell research offers enormous potential to ease human suffering.

I think this veto displays some hypocrisy. The President describes it as immoral, yet himself provided funding for it in 2001. How is it that for those stem cells derived before 9 p.m. August 9, 2001, it is moral to do research on them, but it is immoral to do research on any stem cells after that? Please, explain that, Mr. President.

Quite frankly, I think this is a shameful display of ignorance about what stem cell research is. His spokesman today, Mr. Snow, said we are not going to kill these embryos to provide life to someone else. What a shameful display of ignorance. These cells are not killed. They are kept alive. These stem cells are kept alive to grow tissue and heart muscle, nerve muscle, reconnect spinal cords. If you kill them, they cannot do that. What sheer ignorance was on display by Mr. Snow this morning when he said that.

So, Mr. President, I will have more to say about this later. I only have a few minutes now. But I think what the President did is to condemn millions of Americans to suffering--needless suffering--and to take away the hope so many people have that this research could ease their suffering. I think it was a shameful display.

I congratulate the Senate which, in a bipartisan effort--63 votes-- passed H.R. 810 yesterday. Now the President has vetoed it. We cannot bring it up again this year. But I can assure you that this Senate will take it up next January. We will be back, Mr. President. We will be back, and we will have more Senators next year willing to stand up-- willing to stand up--against ignorance and hypocrisy and cruelty, more Senators who will stand up for embryonic stem cell research and help those who are suffering in our society. We will be back next January, and we will pass it again. And if this President vetoes it again, we will override it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a few hours ago, the President used his first ever veto in his 6 years of being in office to kill H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill that is supported by over 70 percent of the American public, a bill that was supported by a bipartisan majority of the House, a bill that was supported by a bipartisan, big majority in the Senate--63 Members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, voted for it yesterday--and is supported by 591 different patient advocacy groups, research institutions, universities, scientific organizations, biomedical research institutions--everything from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's to cancer, spinal cord injuries, you name it. This bill has almost been universally supported. Over 80 Nobel laureates support this bill. Virtually every reputable scientist in America supports this bill.

I will mince no words about the President's action today. The veto he cast is a shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy, and contempt for science. It is cruel because it denies hope to millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, who have already received the death sentence of Lou Gehrig's disease, kids suffering from juvenile diabetes all over America, those suffering from cancer and spinal cord injuries, and many other diseases and injuries.

The best scientists in the world, as I said, including many dozens of Nobel Prize winners and every Director at the National Institutes of Health say that embryonic stem cell research offers enormous potential to cure these illnesses, to ease suffering, to make the lame walk again.

H.R. 810 would have expanded Federal funding to pursue this research. But with the stroke of his pen today, the President vetoed this bill and dashed the hopes of millions of Americans.

This veto displays hypocrisy because the President describes the research as immoral. He himself provided Federal funding for it. His press Secretary, Tony Snow, claimed yesterday that using leftover embryos, even those already slated to be discarded, is tantamount to murder. That is the word he used. Here is his own words. Mr. Snow said:

The President believes strongly that for the purpose of

research, it is inappropriate for the Federal Government to

finance something that many people consider murder.

Mr. Snow went on to say that the President is one of those people who consider the practice to be murder.

This is a very bizarre statement. First, H.R. 810 would not allow Federal funding to be used to derive human embryos. That is already prohibited by existing law. And I couldn't believe my ears today when I heard the President say that H.R. 810--which passed with 63 Senate votes, and passed with the majority of the House--would overturn over 10 years of Federal prohibitions against deriving embryos.

I couldn't believe the President said that. The bill expressly does not do that. How could he say that? Either A, he did not read the bill; B, his assistants didn't read the bill; or C, he is purposely misleading the American public.

We do not overturn what is called the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment that prohibits Federal funds from deriving stem cells. That is existing law. Federal funding can only be used to conduct research on stem cell lines, not to derive them. That derivation has to be funded privately. The President himself has already supported that.

What is even stranger and more bizarre and more hypocritical is that the President has already endorsed embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy that he announced 5 years ago, on August 9, 2001--I remember it well. I was in Iowa. I was listening to the radio, listening to his speech because this was an area of interest to me. Senator Specter and I had the first hearings in 1998, right after Doctors Gearhart and Thomson had derived the first human embryonic stem cells at the University of Wisconsin. That was in November of 1998. We commenced hearings after that, and when I was

chairman I continued the hearings. So I was chairman of the committee at the time--and of the subcommittee--that funded these programs at the time, so I was listening to the President's speech.

Under the policy that he announced nearly 5 years ago, he allowed Federal funding--get this--he allowed Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived before 9 p.m, August 9, 2001, but no Federal funding for any research on any lines derived after that date and time.

So let's look at this. Here is the stem cell hypocrisy. The President of the United States--President Bush--said that all the stem cell lines derived before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m.--is morally acceptable. If they are derived after 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, they are morally unacceptable. Who drew this line, I ask? What right does the President of the United States have to say that something is moral before 9 p.m. and immoral afterward? I mean, what about the lines that were derived at 9:05 p.m. or 9:30 p.m? Why is that line there? It is because the President arbitrarily drew it.

So I ask, if using discarded embryos to extract stem cells is murder, isn't it then immoral to allow Federal research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells, as the current administration policy permits? Murder is murder, Mr. President. So if you, Mr. President, are saying that it is all right for Federal funds to be used for research on stem cell lines derived before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m., why is that any different from afterward? Why isn't it here murder and here it is not? And isn't it immoral to allow privately funded embryonic stem cell research to continue?

Now, again, as we heard many times on the Senate floor over the last couple of days of debate, privately funded embryonic stem cell research goes on in the United States, but according to the President, this is murder. And if it is really murder to take left over human embryos and cause them to cease to be embryos, but to take the stem cells out, why isn't the President using his authority, his moral authority to shut down all the in vitro fertilization clinics in America?

By his definition of murder, these clinics are institutions of mass murder because they routinely dispose of countless unwanted embryos. Virtually every time a couple goes to a fertility clinic, left over embryos are created. That is how the IVF--in vitro fertilization-- process, works. Eventually, after moms and dads have had their children, when they have had all the children they want, they either call the clinic or the clinic calls them--someone has to pay to keep these frozen, so the clinic may call and say: Well, we have all these embryos left over. Do you want to continue to pay to have them frozen?

No, we don't want them anymore. You have our consent to discard them.

Every day this happens. If that is murder, then how can the President permit it to continue? Where is his outrage? Where is his outrage at the IVF clinics in this country? Why isn't he here proposing legislation to shut down in vitro fertilization in this country, make it a crime, a Federal crime to conduct in vitro fertilization?

In the President's narrow moral universe, it seems to be fine to destroy embryos--to throw them away as the byproduct of producing babies through IVF, but it is murder to use the embryos to conduct lifesaving research. Someone please explain the logic of that to me.

One more time: In the President's narrow moral universe, to take these unwanted embryos that are left over from in vitro fertilization clinics, throw them away, flush them down the drain, that is OK. To take the same embryos, extract the stem cells, keep them alive, keep them growing, to perhaps discover something that will save someone's life, that is murder.

I don't get it. Who gave the President the authority to draw that line? He may be the President of the United States, but he is not the moral authority for all Americans. I say, Mr. President, you are not our moral Ayatollah. You don't have that right, and you don't have that power. Oh, you can veto legislation. You can veto it. But you notice, when the President vetoed the bill today, he didn't veto it on the grounds it was unconstitutional. He did not veto it on the grounds it spent too much money. He did not veto it on any grounds that Congress exceeded its authority, none of the usual reasons that a President gives for vetoing a bill. He vetoed it because he said it is immoral, tantamount to murder.

No. I am sorry. It is hypocrisy at the extreme for the President to take that position. As I said, if you take the lines before August 9 at 9 p.m., it is OK; after August 9 at 9 p.m., it is not OK. No, you are not our moral Ayatollah, Mr. President. You may be our President, and I respect you for being the President of the United States. I respect the office. But I don't pay any respect to someone trying to dictate to me the moral authority of the President of the United States; that somehow you can define what is moral and what is immoral. Leave that to our religious leaders. Leave that to our theologians.

Why isn't the President prosecuting the many thousands of American men and women who use these IVF clinics? If their attempts to have children result in leftover embryos and their embryos eventually get discarded, aren't they complicit in murder? Let's say a couple had in vitro fertilization; they wanted to have children. They finally have their children, and they say: We don't want the rest of those embryos, you can discard them--because they have to approve it. Are they complicit in murder?

Under the President's narrow moral logic--I hate to call it logic-- under the President's narrow moral view, any man or woman who allows their embryos to be discarded, something that happens every single day all over the country, is authorizing murder. Why is the President standing idly by? Why isn't he putting all these men and women in jail? I would have to warn him, though, there are over 50,000 babies born every year to couples via IVF. We are going to have to build a lot of jails if you are going to throw them all in jail for murder.

As I have said, the President's veto is cruel for dashing the hopes of millions of Americans who suffer. It is hypocritical, as I pointed out here, because the President says it is OK in one moment but it is not OK here.

I want to point out another thing the President gave misinformation about today. He said today that there were 22 lines, stem cell lines for research--from here on this chart. That is OK, you understand. That is morally OK because, according to the President, it was before 9 p.m. of August 9. I still don't understand that, but somehow that is morally OK. What he didn't tell you is that when he made this decision at 9 p.m. on August 9, at that time he said there were 78 lines. Now he says there are 22.

There is one other thing the President didn't say today and we all know is a scientific fact: Every single one of those stem cell lines is contaminated because they were all grown in Petri dishes with mouse cells to energize them and grow them--so they are all contaminated. They will not be used for human therapies. Many of those stem cell lines are sick. They are not viable. He didn't tell you that, either, did he? He didn't tell you that they are all contaminated with mouse cells. He didn't say that.

As I have said, it is cruel, it is hypocritical, and his veto today shows a shocking contempt for science, a disdain for science. I don't know who the President's science teachers were when he was in school, but I will bet none of them are bragging about it.

The President's political adviser, Karl Rove, told the Denver Post last week that researchers have found ``far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.'' I hate to disagree with such a renowned biomedical expert as Karl Rove but, frankly, he does not know what he is talking about and his statement is absolutely, totally, irrevocably false.

Here is what Dr. Michael Clarke of Stanford University said about Mr. Rove's claim: It is ``just not true.'' I will take Dr. Clarke's word over Mr. Rove's any day of the week. Dr. Clarke is the director of the Stanford stem cell institute, and he published the first study showing how adult stem cells replicate themselves. So here is an authority on adult stem cells basically saying what Karl Rove said is just not true. Yet Karl Rove says it.

Dr. Stephen Teitelbaum also disagrees with Mr. Rove. Dr. Teitelbaum

is a professor of pathology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, a former President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. I spoke with him on the phone yesterday. He said something that struck me, and I wrote it down. He said if people want to disagree on moral grounds, that is fine. If people want to have a certain moral view of something, that is their right in our society. But they don't have the right to buttress their claims with misinformation and falsehoods. In other words, the President and Mr. Rove are entitled to their own moral opinions, whatever they may be. However narrow they may be, they are entitled to them. But they are not entitled to mislead the public with misinformation and falsehoods. And that is what the President did today. That is what the President did today.

The facts are that virtually every reputable scientist in this country believes in the promise of embryonic stem cell research to cure and treat diseases. It has the greatest potential to do so. By vetoing H.R. 810, the President is closing his heart and his mind to the facts, to the science, and to the strict ethical guidelines we put in the bill.

By his veto today, the President has put himself in some very illustrious company down through history, people such as Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, who told Galileo that it was heresy for him to claim that the Earth went around the Sun. Religious teaching at that time said that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around the Earth. We forget that Galileo was sentenced to life in prison.

The President also puts himself in the company of people such as Pope Boniface VIII, who banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s, and for 300 years it was banned. There was no dissection of cadavers until finally someone came along who decided to do it and discovered all of the different ways the muscles work in the body. Of course, now we know that cadaver dissection from donated cadavers has led us to all kinds of medical breakthroughs and the understanding of how the human body works. But here was a Pope who said: No, you can't do it. Just like the President today--no, you can't do it. So the President can take his place alongside Pope Boniface VIII.

The President could also take his spot alongside people such as Rev. Edward Massey, who had this to say in 1722 in response to the new science of vaccination. Here is what Reverend Massey said:

Diseases are sent by providence for the punishment of sin

and a proposed attempt to prevent them is a diabolical

operation.

Imagine how many millions of lives would have been lost if the Reverend Massey's ignorance had prevailed, if a President of the United States had said: You know, Reverend Massey is right, we are not going to permit vaccinations. Think of it. President Bush, take your place right alongside him.

I might add you don't even have to go back so far. The President has company in more recent times. Just a few decades ago, many religious people considered heart transplants to be immoral--heart transplants to be immoral. Others objected on moral grounds to the use of anesthesia during childbirth, saying that the Bible held that women were meant to suffer when delivering babies.

Many people opposed in vitro fertilization, one of those being Dr. Leon Kass. Guess what he was. He was the head of this President's Bioethics Council. Years ago, he opposed in vitro fertilization. Do you get the picture? And the President made him the head of his Bioethics Council.

I guess, Mr. President, you can take your place alongside Leon Kass, too. Tell all those wonderful families out there who have had babies through IVF, tell them that they were wrong, they should not have had them.

In all of these cases, we look back with a sense of astonishment that people could be so blinded by a narrow view of religion or ideology that they could stand in the way of scientific progress that has saved lives, eased pain and made life better for so many people.

Twenty or 30 years from now, history books will ask the same question about this President. People will wonder: How could he have objected to research that has led to so much good for so many people?

Maybe not in my lifetime--I don't know how long God will give me here on Earth. But maybe these young people's lifetimes here, the pages, maybe in their lifetime through the embryonic stem cell research that is being done in Great Britain, Korea, Singapore, and other places around the world where a number of scientists--because they are handcuffed to do that research here--will find a way of taking embryonic pluripotent stem cells and finding how they make nerve cells. And guess what. Just as they have done with rats--we have seen the films of rats with their spinal cords severed, taking embryonic stem cells from other rats and putting them into these rats and watching them walk again. As my departed friend Christopher Reeve, the first Superman, said after that, ``Oh, to be a rat.''

You all remember the tragedy of Christopher Reeve. He was paralyzed from the neck down. He fought so hard for embryonic stem cell research.

It has been said that we are 99 percent rat. I don't mean just us politicians. I mean humans. And politicians, maybe more. I don't know. But it is said of humans that we are basically 99 percent the same DNA as a rat. We can do it for rats. It is not hard to think that the same thing can be done for humans.

It is going to happen in their lifetimes--the lifetimes of these young people here today. Somewhere, in Great Britain, somewhere, they can do this research and we will find out how to take these cells-- people like my nephew Kelly who hasn't walked for 27 years because of a spinal cord injury--and make it possible for people like him to walk again.

People will say, What was this President thinking? Like Pope Boniface VIII, like Cardinal Bellarmino, like Reverend Massey--how could the President have objected to this ethical good research that has led to so much good for so many people?

Let's be clear. Nothing could be more pro-life than signing this bill into law.

We all know people--friends or family members--with ALS or Parkinson's or juvenile diabetes or a spinal cord injury. What could be more pro-life than using the scientific tools that God has given us to help heal them?

White House spokesperson Tony Snow said yesterday, ``The President is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research.''

Again, I want to emphasize a couple of things. We carefully crafted H.R. 810 to impose strict ethical standards on embryonic stem cell research. This bill would not allow Federal funds to be used to create or destroy human embryos. The only embryos we are talking about are those already slated for destruction in the clinics. It is right there in the bill. Let me read it:

Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through

consultation with the individuals seeking fertility

treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be

implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

It is right there in the bill.

All we are saying is, instead of discarding some 400,000 embryos that are currently sitting frozen in storage, let us use some of them--as long as the donors give written informed consent--to help people who are suffering from diseases. I think it is this choice that is truly respectful of human life.

Besides, the stem cells that come from those embryos don't die. That is the amazing thing about stem cells. They keep reproducing themselves. They just keep reproducing themselves. They will be more alive when used as treatment in research than if they were washed down a drain or sit in storage for another hundred years.

Think about that. They talk about destroying these embryos. If you take an embryo from an IVF clinic and destroy it, wash it down the drain, that is the end of it. That really does destroy the embryo. That does kill it. That ends it.

But if you take that embryo and take the stem cells out--talking about a blastocyst which has about 100 or 200 cells--take some of those cells out, those cells live. They are alive. They do not die. They live. They grow. They became tissue, nerve tissue, bone tissue, or maybe they became other

things that we can use to help cure disease. They live. It seems to me that it is the pro-life position. Using research to improve people's lives is a true pro-life position.

Once again, the President has staked out an extreme ideological position--a position that flies in the face of science and common sense. He refuses to listen to any other point of view, including the pleas of Nancy Reagan, Republican supporters of the bill, scientists all over America, and people at NIH.

I was told that some Republican supporters of this bill requested an opportunity to talk with the President, and they were turned down. He didn't even want to talk to them.

As I have said, President Bush's veto is cruel, hypocritical, and absolutely disdainful of science. But I guess most of all, it is just sad. It is just sad.

On Monday and Tuesday, we had a great debate. On Tuesday we had a great bipartisan vote, 63 Senators, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, pro-life, pro-choice, all came together to support life- saving research. That was also supported by more than 70 percent of Americans. It was a huge debate for millions of Americans suffering from disease and paralysis who might be cured by this life-saving research.

After the vote, I went upstairs. There was a young woman in a wheelchair. She must have been upstairs watching the vote. I didn't ask her name. She was using a wheelchair, and she said, ``Thank you--thank you for giving me hope.''

Today, the President slammed the door. He took that hope away. How sad. How sad.

The President insists that he knows better than the American people; he knows better than all of the scientists; he knows better than all the directors at the National Institutes of Health; he knows better than 63 Senators; he knows better than the majority of the House.

So with one arrogant stroke of his pen, he dashed the bill, dashed the hopes of millions of Americans. He vetoed the hopes. It wasn't just a veto of the bill. He vetoed the hopes of millions of Americans living with Parkinson's, ALS, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

Where is the President's compassion? How dare the President refer to himself as a compassionate conservative.

I don't think you can get much more conservative than Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Smith, Senator Lott, and a number of Senators here. I named them because they are cosponsors of the bill. You don't get much more conservative than that. Can you get much more conservative than Nancy Reagan? I don't think so. They were compassionate. They were truly compassionate.

My message to my nephew Kelly who waited 27 years, my message to millions of others whose hopes were raised this week and then sadly crushed today, my message is this: The President's veto is not the final word. It may be this year because to get the agreement to bring up the bill we had to agree that we wouldn't bring it up again this year. So it is over for this year. Perhaps next year, when Senator Specter and I will reintroduce this bill along with others in January, we will have more Senators here. We will have more Senators who represent the true wishes of the American people, who understand the necessity for moving ahead on stem cell research.

Maybe the voters this fall will speak about that. All those families who have someone with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or juvenile diabetes, maybe they will say, Look, we need people in the Senate and in the House who will help us get over this veto.

The President's veto is not the final word. Science is on our side. Ethics is on our side. There is an election in November. It will be known where every candidate, where he or she stands on embryonic stem cell research. We will introduce it again in January. We will be back. We will not go away. And just perhaps we will have a few more Senators and a few more Members of the House who want to do the ethical, right thing, and help cure disease and suffering with the potential of embryonic stem cell research.

It is a sad day, a sad day, indeed. We will be back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the majority leader or his designee introduces a bill related to energy during Thursday's session, it be in order to move to proceed to that legislation on Friday.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am awaiting the arrival shortly of Senator Lautenberg on our side, but in the meantime I thank Senator Hatch for the eloquent statement he made, to thank him for his long- time support of this endeavor to open more stem cell lines for research. It shows clearly, as I said earlier today, this is not a partisan issue. I see no real partisan cleavage lines anywhere. It was passed with a bipartisan majority in the House. The leader in the House was Congressman Mike Castle, a Republican from Delaware. The Democrat was Congresswoman Diana DeGette from Colorado. Our leader here is Senator Specter, leader on the bill, and I am his counterpart on the Democrat side. We have had great support from both sides of the aisle on this legislation. I don't cast it in any type of partisan terms.

There are those who obviously spoke yesterday very eloquently about their moral objections to using embryos. But, again, I point out this bill does not create any new embryos. All we are talking about is using the leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization and only if (a) the donors give their written, informed consent; (b) that no money changes hands; and (c) that the embryo will never be implanted in a uterus and will be discarded.

Fifty thousand healthy babies were born last year to couples who went to fertility clinics. Obviously, there are some embryos left over after that. They are frozen. After the parents have the children they want to have, they call the clinic or the clinic calls them and asks, do you want to continue to pay to keep these embryos frozen; and they say, no, we have our family. The clinic will then discard them. That is all we are talking about. Those embryos are going to be discarded, and with the donor's written, informed consent. They can say, no, I don't want them used for that, and then we wouldn't. You cannot induce anyone to do that by saying we will pay you for it. This clearly has to be kept in mind, that this is what we are talking about in this legislation.

Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey is here. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

I thank the Senator from Arkansas.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.

I will soon yield 7 minutes each to Senators Feingold and Schumer, in that order.

First, I had a meeting I was supposed to go to at noon. I am sorry I missed the meeting; people are waiting for me. I am not sorry that I was here to hear the profound statement made by my friend Senator Smith. It was one of the more touching, more profound, and more insightful statements made during these 2 days of debate. I thank the Senator for that.

I yield 7 minutes to Senator Feingold, and at the end of 7 minutes, to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and also the next speaker, Senator Kennedy, for their great leadership over all of these years to give hope to so many Americans. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Eight minutes? Then I yield myself 8 minutes, I guess.

First of all, Mr. President, I thank all the Senators who came here to speak in support of H.R. 810, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, moderates. I think it has been a very good debate.

When I started the debate, I talked about hope. Senator Feinstein spoke about that. Senator Kennedy just spoke eloquently about hope. I think that is where we should close the debate, on hope, because H.R. 810 offers real hope. It offers real hope to people who are suffering from Alzheimer's, from ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes. It offers hope to their loved ones and their families.

Senator Kennedy just read the statement by Lauren Stanford about her hope, her hope that she can one day be whole again. To repeat for emphasis sake what Senator Kennedy just said, Lauren Stanford--she is innocent, as she said. She did nothing to bring on her diabetes. As she said, all I have is hope.

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

passing H.R. 810. I can dream again.

The one thing that has helped me accept what I have had to

all these years is the presence of hope. Hope keeps me going.

That is Lauren Stanford. ``Hope keeps me going.''

H.R. 810 basically opens the door and lets in the sunshine. It opens the door for more responsible research, research done with good peer review, research done with good oversight, and, I might add, research done with strong ethical guidelines that we have in H.R. 810.

I remind my colleagues and all who are watching, the ethical guidelines in H.R. 810 are stronger than what exists

right now--stronger than what exists right now.

The American people get it. They understand this. We know in a recent poll that asked, ``Do you support embryonic stem cell research?'' that 72 percent said ``Yes.'' That is almost three out of four. Most of these American people who support stem cell research don't have MDs. They don't have a Ph.D. But they know one thing: virtually every reputable biomedical scientist, almost all Nobel Prize winners, say that embryonic stem cell research holds enormous potential to cure diseases and injuries. They know that.

That is why 591 groups, disease advocacy groups, patient groups, scientific groups, research institutions, religious groups--591 American organizations support H.R. 810. That is why over 80 Nobel Prize winners have written to us asking us to pass H.R. 810. The American people get it. They know what is at stake.

As I said, it has been a good debate. I thank Senator Frist, our majority leader, for engineering this debate and making it possible for us to have an up-or-down vote on H.R. 810. But I must say, in the last couple of days, what has saddened me is that so much time has been spent talking about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cell research is the way to go. Frankly, the vast majority of American people could care less. They could care less. They want cures. They want cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injuries. They want their loved ones to have a better life, a fuller life, a pain-free life--less suffering.

If adult stem cells get us there, fine. If embryonic stem cell research gets us there, fine. We should not shut the door; we want to open the doors. We have done 30 years of work on adult stem cell research and not one of these illnesses has yet been cured or even remotely cured by adult stem cells. We have only had embryonic stem cells for 8 years, but we ought to open the doors.

It is a false dichotomy to say that it is either adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells. As Senator Smith of Oregon said today so eloquently, the people of America want these embryos that are left over from IVF clinics not to be discarded but to give the gift of life to those who suffer.

Last night when I left the floor of the Senate, I met a young man out here, the first time I ever met him. His name is Jeff McGaffrey. He is sitting here on the floor of the Senate today. I didn't know this: he is an intern on the HELP Committee. He was appointed to the U.S. Air Force Academy in Missouri, and during his first year there he suffered an accident and now doesn't have the use of his legs. He is paralyzed from the waist down.

I want to read this. This is a letter from Jeff McGaffrey.

Honest to God, not a day goes by, not an hour goes by when

I don't think about my days at the academy, about the life I

led as an officer in the Armed Forces, leading soldiers in

service to our nation. In spite of this chair that I am

confined to, I still regard myself as an officer, a soldier

on the frontlines of a different type of battlefield; a

battle not against a country or an army, but against disease

and injury.

I continue to cherish the hope for a cure, until the day

comes, if God-willing, I can walk away from this chair and

back into the camaraderie and respect of the men and women

who proudly serve our country in the Armed Forces.

I ask that you please keep my hope alive, and not just my

hope but the hopes of millions of people, including our

soldiers and veterans who proudly served our country and who

currently suffer from disease and injury.

Keeping this hope alive is made possible by moving forward with stem cell research, especially H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. We know not where embryonic stem research might lead, but we know there is only one way to find out, by allowing NIH funding for our best and brightest scientists to explore the full therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells.

I ask unanimous consent that Jeff McGaffrey's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I close with this thought. So many people are suffering in our country. They have hope.

My nephew Kelly was injured 27 years ago serving his country--just like Jeff McGaffrey--on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. He was sucked down by a jet engine and broke his neck. He has been paralyzed for 27 years. He keeps his hope alive. He has followed this debate. He has followed years of research. Kelly McGuade is a smart young man. He has followed it, and he knows that the one thing which gives him the best hope is embryonic stem cell research.

Are we today going to dash their hopes? Are we going to shut the door, pull the curtain down, and say, I am sorry? What all the major scientists with the best minds say is the best potential--are we going to close the curtain and shut the door?

I say open the door. Bring in the sunshine. Let our scientists move ahead with the strong ethical guidelines, with good peer review and with good oversight to give hope to my nephew, to Jeff, and to millions of Americans.

I yield the floor.

On behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that Thad Seegmiler, a Committee on Finance intern, be accorded floor privileges during consideration of the stem cell legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that Anne Michael Langguth and Bryan Klopack be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of families and patients who never gave up, who kept up the pressure to bring this bill to the floor, and who are so eager to see H.R. 810 sent to the President's desk for his signature. They have kept the faith. Now it is our job to see they are not disappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for

treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease.

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

Embryonic stem cell research has vast potential for

addressing critical health [care] needs.

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

The vast majority of the biomedical research community

believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the

source of key discoveries related to many debilitating

diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite general interest and enthusiasm in the scientific

community for embryonic stem cell research, the limited

number of available lines has translated into a general lack

of research proposals.

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

So I submit that the President's policy is not a way forward, it is a dead-end street. It offers only false hope--false hope; not real hope, false hope--to the millions of people across America and the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated through embryonic stem cell research.

Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary deadline of August 9, 2001. These lines are uncontaminated. They are healthy. But they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists. I do not mean just scientists who work at NIH; I am talking about all the scientists who work in all of our universities and research institutions across America. They are off limits--off limits. They cannot use it. It is really a shame.

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

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

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

The more cell lines available for study, the more likely a

cell line will be maximally useful for a given research, and

potentially clinical, application. For this reason, the

scientific community would be best served by having a greater

number of human embryonic stem cell lines available for

study.

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

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

Access to a wider array of embryonic stem cell lines would

definitely increase scientific opportunity and the chances of

breakthrough discoveries.

I should note that scientists in many other countries around the world do not face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. When you talk to researchers in England, for example, our policy makes no sense to them. They cannot understand why stem cell lines derived on one date are fine to use, but if they are derived on another date they are off limits. They do not have arbitrary barriers like that in England, and that is a big reason so many of the major advances in stem cell research are happening there rather than in the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you tell me whether S. 2754--

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

authorizes research on stem cells at the NIH that currently

is not permissible or legal?

Dr. James F. Battey at NIH said:

No, it does not.

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

The Amyotrophic Lateral

Sclerosis Association,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2006.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators: The ALS Association (ALSA) strongly supports

the Senate's consideration of legislation to advance stem

cell research. We are grateful for the bipartisan efforts of

Senators to bring this important issue up for a vote before

the August Congressional recess and are particularly

appreciative of the leadership on this issue demonstrated by

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

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

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

The Senate will shortly be considering legislation to

permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund

research with additional and new and existing human embryonic

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

research and particularly research with hESCs, we trust that

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

Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on you and

like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage.

The President must also be persuaded not veto this

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

ago, United States investigators will be out of the running

in coverting embryonic stem cells into important new

therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that

American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant

funds for research with the hundreds of hESC lines generated

outside the United States or generated in this country with

private funding.

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

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

Yes.

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

Will the Senator repeat that? I was reading something.

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

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

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

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

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

Is it not being done in the United States?

Have any of these findings been published?

I would appreciate that.

I thank the Senator. There is a good colloquy.

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

I thank the Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be glad to engage in a colloquy.

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

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

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

Tumors but not cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

How much time remains on our side?

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

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

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

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

I am reading a letter from Scienceexpress, a publication of Science magazine. It is entitled, ``Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?''

Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often

claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human

illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list

created by David A. prentice, an employee of the Family

Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-

KS) and other opponents of ES cell research.

Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped

patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real

help for real patients''. On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated,

``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the

listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by

adult and cord blood stem cells''.

In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all

required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine

of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65.

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

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

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

in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated

or cured several blood cancers, including several leukemias,

lymphomas and multiple myeloma.

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

caregivers in this country that battle blood cancers on a

daily basis, our organization would like to emphasize as the

Senate debates H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research and

Enhancement Act, that we exist today because we have not

found cures for these devastating diseases. Furthermore, the

claim that treatment of blood cancers with cord blood, blood

or marrow stem cells--known as hematopoietic stem cells--

demonstrates the potential of `adult stem cell' research or

is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research is

misleading and disingenuous.

Mr. Dahlman concludes:

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society asks that you and your

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

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

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

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

Dear Orrin:

Thank you for your continued commitment to helping the

millions of Americans who suffer from devastating and

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

many.

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

Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that

would open the research so we could fully unleash its

promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific

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

action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.

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

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

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

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

wait.

Sincerely, Nancy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of the biomedical community believes that

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

discoveries relating to many debilitating diseases. In fact,

some of the strongest advocates for human embryonic stem cell

research are those scientists that have devoted their careers

to the study of adult stem cells.

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

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

cell lines actually available under current policy is too

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

it significantly more difficult and expensive for research to

be conducted. These limits have hindered the important search

for new understanding and treatment of devastating diseases.

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

Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for

treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a true story.

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2006.

Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups,

health organizations, research universities, scientific

societies, religious groups and other interested institutions

and associations, representing millions of patients,

scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you

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

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

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

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

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

the bill which holds promise for expanding medical

breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

immediately.

Sincerely,

A O North America; AAALAC International; AARP; Abbott

Laboratories; Acadia Pharmaceuticals; Accelerated Cure

Project for Multiple Sclerosis; Adams County Economic

Development, Inc.; AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology

Association); Affymetrix, Inc.; Albert Einstein College

of Medicine of Yeshiva University; Alliance for Aging

Research; Alliance for Lupus Research; Alliance for

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

Foundation; ALS Association; Ambulatory Pediatric

Association; AMDeC-Academic Medicine Development Co.;

America on the Move Foundation; American Academy of

Neurology.

American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of

Pediatric Dentistry; American Academy of Pediatrics;

American Association for Cancer Research;

American Association for Dental Research; American

Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; American

Association for the Advancement of Science; American

Association of Anatomists; American Association of

Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Colleges

of Osteopathic Medicine; American Association of

Colleges of Pharmacy; American Association of

Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological

Surgeons; American Association of Public Health

Dentistry; American Autoimmune Related Diseases

Association; American Brain Coalition; American Chronic

Pain Association; American College of Cardiology;

American College of Medical Genetics; American College

of Neuropsychopharmacology; American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

American College of Surgeons; American Council on

Education; American Council on Science and Health;

American Dental Association; American Dental Education

Association; American Diabetes Association; American

Federation for Aging Research; American

Gastroenterological Association; American Geriatrics

Society; American Institute for Medical and Biological

Engineering; American Lung Association; American

Medical Association; American Medical Informatics

Association; American Medical Women's Association;

American Pain Foundation; American Parkinson's Disease

Association; American Parkinson's Disease Association

(Arizona Chapter); American Pediatric Society; American

Physiological Society; American Psychiatric

Association.

American Psychological Association; American Public

Health Association; American Society for Biochemistry

and Molecular Biology; American Society for Bone and

Mineral Research; American Society for Cell Biology;

American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and

Therapeutics; American Society for Microbiology; American

Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair; American

Society for Nutrition; American Society for Pharmacology

and Experimental Therapeutics; American Society for

Reproductive Medicine; American Society for Virology;

American Society of Clinical Oncology; American Society of

Critical Care Anesthesiologists; American Society of

Hematology; American Society of Human Genetics; American

Society of Nephrology; American Society of Tropical

Medicine and Hygiene; American Surgical Association;

American Surgical Association Foundation.

American Thoracic Society; American Thyroid Association;

American Transplant Foundation; Americans for Medical

Progress; amFAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research;

Arizona State University College of Nursing; Arthritis

Foundation; Arthritis Foundation, Rocky Mountain

Chapter; Association for Clinical Research Training;

Association for Medical School Pharmacology Chairs;

Association for Prevention Teaching and Research;

Association for the Accreditation of Human Research

Protection Programs, Inc.; Association of Academic

Chairs of Emergency Medicine; Association of Academic

Departments of Otolaryngology; Association of Academic

Health Centers; Association of Academic Physiatrists;

Association of American Medical Colleges; Association

of American Physicians; Association of American

Universities; Association of American Veterinary

Medical Colleges.

Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology

Chairs; Association of Anesthesiology Program

Directors; Association of Black Cardiologists;

Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology;

Association of Independent Research Institutes;

Association of Medical School Microbiology and

Immunology Chairs; Association of Medical School

Pediatric Department Chairs; Association of Medical

School Pharmacology Chairs; Association of Professors

of Dermatology; Association of Professors of Human and

Medical Genetics; Association of Professors of

Medicine; Association of Public Health Laboratories;

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals;

Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry;

Association of Specialty Professors; Association of

University Anesthesiologists; Assurant Health; Asthma

and Allergy Foundation of America; Athena Diagnostics;

Aurora Economic Development Council.

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

Baylor College of Medicine; Baylor College of Medicine

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences; Biotechnology

Industry Organization; BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Inc.;

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Foundation on Health Care;

Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Boston University

School of Dental Medicine; Boston University School of

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

Myers Squibb Company; Broadened Horizons, LLC; Brown

Medical School; Buck Institute for Age Research; Bums &

Allen Research Institute; Burrill & Company; Burroughs

Wellcome Fund; C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition;

California Biomedical Research Association.

California Institute of Technology; California Institute

for Regenerative Medicine; California Wellness

Foundation; Californians for Cures; Campaign for

Medical Research; Cancer Research and Prevention

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

Western Reserve University School of Dentistry; Case

Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Cedars-

Sinai Health System; Center for the Advancement of

Health; Central Conference of American Rabbis; CFIDS

Association of America; Charles R. Drew University of

Medicine and Science; Charles River Laboratories; Child

& Adolescent Bipolar Foundation; Children's Memorial

Research Center; Children's Neurobiological Solutions

Foundation; Children's Research Institute (Columbus);

Children's Research Institute (Washington).

Children's Tumor Foundation; Childrens Hospital Boston;

Christopher Reeve Foundation; City and County of

Denver; City of Hope National Medical Center; Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory; Coleman Institute for

Cognitive Disabilities, University of Colorado System;

Colfax Marathon Partnership, Inc.; Colorado Bioscience

Association; Colorado Office of Economic Development

and International Trade; Colorado State University;

Columbia University; Columbia University College of

Dental Medicine; Columbia University Medical Center;

Community Health Partnership; Conference of Boston

Teaching Hospitals; Connecticut United for Research

Excellence, Inc.; Conquer Fragile X Foundation; Cornell

University; Council for the Advancement of Nursing

Science (CANS).

Creighton University School of Medicine; CURE (Citizens

United for Research in Epilepsy); Cure Alzheimer's

Fund; Cure Paralysis Now; CuresNow; Damon Runyon Cancer

Research Foundation; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute;

Dartmouth Medical School; David Geffen School of

Medicine at UCLA; DENTSPLY International; Digene

Corporation; Discovery Partners International; Doheny

Eye Institute; Drexel University College of Medicine;

Drexel University School of Public Health; Duke

University Medical Center; Dystonia Medical Research

Foundation; East Tennessee State University James H.

Quillen College of Medicine; Eli Lilly and Company;

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

Emory University; Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff

School of Nursing; Emory University Rollins School of

Public Health; Emory University School of Medicine;

FasterCures; FD Hope Foundation; Federation of American

Scientists; Federation of American Societies for

Experimental Biology (FASEB); Federation of State

Medical Boards of the United States, Inc.; Fertile

Hope; Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority; Florida

Atlantic University Division of Research; Ford Finance,

Inc.; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Research Center; Friends of Cancer Research, Friends of

the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial

Research, Friends of the National Institute of Nursing

Research; Friends of the National Library of Medicine;

Genetic Alliance.

Genetics Policy Institute; George Mason University;

Georgetown University Medical Center; Guillain Barre

Syndrome Foundation International; Gynecologic Cancer

Foundation; Hadassah; Harvard University; Harvard

University School of Dental Medicine; Harvard

University School of Public Health; Hauptman-Woodward

Medical Research Institute, Inc.; Hereditary Disease

Foundation, HHT Foundation International, Inc.; Home

Safety Council; Howard University College of Dentistry;

Howard University College of Medicine; Huntington's

Disease Society of America; IBM Life Sciences Division;

Illinois State University Mennonite College of Nursing;

ImmunoGen, Inc.; Indiana University School of

Dentistry.

Indiana University School of Medicine; Indiana University

School of Nursing; Infectious Diseases Society of

America; Institute for African American Health, Inc.;

Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus; International

Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery (IFADD);

International Longevity Center--USA; International

Society for Stem Cell Research; Invitrogen Corporation;

Iraq Veterans for Cures; Iris Alliance Fund; Iron

Disorders Institute; Jacobs Institute of Women's

Health; Jeffrey Modell Foundation; Johns Hopkins; Johnson

& Johnson; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare

Organizations (JCAHO); Joint Steering Committee for Public

Policy; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Keck School

of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Kennedy Krieger Institute; Keystone Symposia on Molecular

and Cellular

Biology; KID Foundation; Kidney Cancer Association; La

Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology; Lance

Armstrong Foundation; Lawson Wilkins Pediatric

Endocrine Society; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society;

Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown

University; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute

at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center; Louisiana State

University Health Sciences Center; Louisiana State

University Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry;

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Loyola

University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine; Lung

Cancer Alliance; Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.;

Lupus Foundation of Colorado, Inc.; Lupus Research

Institute; Lymphatic Research Foundation; Mailman

School of Public Health of Columbia University.

Malecare Prostate Cancer Support; March of Dimes Birth

Defects Foundation; Marine Biological Laboratory;

Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource Center; Masonic

Medical Research Laboratory; Massachusetts

Biotechnology Council; Massachusetts General Hospital;

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MaxCyte, Inc.;

McLaughlin Research Institute; Medical College of

Georgia; Medical University of South Carolina; Medical

University of South Carolina College of Nursing;

MedStar Research Institute (MRI); Meharry Medical

College School of Dentistry; Memorial Sloan-Kettering

Cancer Center; Memory Pharmaceuticals; Mercer

University; Metro Denver Economic Development

Corporation; Miami Children's Hospital.

Midwest Nursing Research Society; Morehouse School of

Medicine; Mount Sinai Medical Center; Mount Sinai

School of Medicine; National Alliance for Eye and

Vision Research; National Alliance for Hispanic Health;

National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and

Depression; National Alliance on Mental Illness;

National Alopecia Areata Foundation; National Asian

Women's Health Organization; National Association for

Biomedical Research; National Association of Hepatitis

Task Forces; National Caucus of Basic Biomedical

Science Chairs; National Coalition for Cancer Research;

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; National

Coalition for Women with Heart Disease; National

Committee for Quality Health Care; National Council of

Jewish Women; National Council on Spinal Cord Injury;

National Down Syndrome Society.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National

Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias; National Health

Council; National Hemophilia Foundation; National

Hispanic Health Foundation; National Jewish Medical and

Research Center; National Marfan Foundation; National

Medical Association; National Multiple Sclerosis

Society; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National

Partnership for Women and Families; National

Pharmaceutical Council; National Prostate Cancer

Coalition; National Quality Forum; National Spinal Cord

Injury Association; National Venture Capital

Association; Nebraskans for Research; Nemours; New

Jersey Association for Biomedical Research; New Jersey

Dental School.

New York Blood Center; New York College of Osteopathic

Medicine; New York State Association of County Health

Officials; New York Stem Cell Foundation; New York

University College of Dentistry; New York University

School of Medicine; New York-Presbyterian Hospital;

North American Brain Tumor Coalition; North Carolina

Association for Biomedical Research; Northwest Association

for Biomedical Research; Northwestern University;

Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine;

Nova Southeastern University College of Dental Medicine;

Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Oklahoma Medical Research

Foundation; Oral Health America; Oregon Health & Science

University; Oregon Health & Science University School of

Nursing; Oregon Research Institute; Oxford Bioscience

Partners.

Pacific Health Research Institute; Paralyzed Veterans of

America; Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; Parkinson's

Action Network; Parkinson's Disease Foundation;

Partnership for Prevention; Pennsylvania Society for

Biomedical Research; Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America; Pittsburgh Development

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

Cancer Foundation; Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

International; Quest for the Cure; RAND Health;

Research! America; Resolve: The National Infertility

Association; RetireSafe; Rett Syndrome Research

Foundation; Rice University.

Robert Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins;

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science;

Rush University Medical Center; Rutgers University;

Salk Institute for Biological Studies; sanofi-aventis;

Scleroderma Research Foundation; Secular Coalition for

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

for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research

(SAVIR); Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology;

Society for Education in Anesthesia; Society for Male

Reproduction and Urology; Society for Neuroscience;

Society for Pediatric Research; Society for

Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; Society for

Women's Health Research; Society of Academic

Anesthesiology Chairs; Society of General Internal

Medicine; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.

Society of Reproductive Surgeons; Society of University

Otolaryngologists; South Alabama Medical Science

Foundation; South Dakota State University; Southern

Illinois University School of Medicine; Spina Bifida

Association of America; Stanford University; State

University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental

Medicine; State University of New York Downstate

Medical Center College of Medicine at Brooklyn; State

University of New York Upstate Medical University; Stem

Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation;

Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Stony Brook

University, State University of New York; Strategic

Health Policy International, Inc.; Student Society for

Stem Cell Research; Suicide Prevention Action Network-

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

Targacept, Inc.;

Temple University School of Dentistry; Texans for

Advancement of Medical Research; Texas A&M University

Health Science Center; Texas Medical Center; Texas Tech

University Health Sciences Center; The Arc of the

United States; The Association for Research in Vision

and Ophthalmology; The Biophysical Society; The Brody

School of Medicine at East Carolina University; The

Burnham Institute; The CJD Foundation; The Critical

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

FAIR Foundation; The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis

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

Institute; The Foundation Fighting Blindness; The

George Washington University Medical Center. The

Georgetown University Center for the Study of Sex

Difference in Health, Aging and Disease.

The Gerontological Society of America; The J. David

Gladstone Institutes; The Jackson Laboratory; The Johns

Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health;

The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing; The

Medical College of Wisconsin; The Medical Foundation,

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

Research; The Ohio State University College of

Dentistry; The Ohio State University College of

Medicine and Public Health; The Ohio State University

School of Public Health; The Parkinson Alliance and

Unity Walk; The Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene,

Inc.; The Rockefeller University; The Schepens Eye

Research Institute; The Scientist; The Scripps Research

Institute; The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute;

The Society for Investigative Dermatology; The Spiral

Foundation.

The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine;

The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine; The

University of Iowa College of Dentistry; The University

of Iowa College of Public Health; The University of

Mississippi Medical Center; The University of

Mississippi Medical Center School of Dentistry; The

University of Oklahoma College of Dentistry; The

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; The

University of Tennessee Health Science Center; The

University of Tennessee HSC College of Nursing; The

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San

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

Center; The University of Texas Medical Branch at

Galveston School of Medicine; The University of Texas

Southwestern Medical Center; The University of Toledo

Academic Health Science Center; Tourette Syndrome

Association; Travis Roy Foundation; Tufts University

School of Dental Medicine; Tulane University.

Tulane University Health Sciences Center; Union for

Reformed Judaism; Union of Concerned Scientists;

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations;

United Spinal Association; University of Alabama at

Birmingham School of Medicine; University of Alabama at

Birmingham School of Nursing; University of Alabama at

Birmingham School of Public Health; University of

Arizona College of Medicine; University of Arkansas for

Medical Sciences; University of Buffalo; University of

California System; University of California, Berkeley;

University of California, Berkeley School of Public

Health; University of California, Davis; University of

California, Irvine; University of California, Los

Angeles; University of California, Los Angeles School

of Dentistry; University of California, Los Angeles

School of Medicine; University of California, San

Diego.

University of California, San Francisco; University of

California, San Francisco School of Dentistry;

University of California, San Francisco School of

Nursing; University of California, Santa Cruz;

University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati Medical

Center; University of Colorado at Denver and Health

Sciences Center; University of Colorado at Denver and

HSC School of Dentistry; University of Colorado at

Denver and HSC School of Nursing; University of

Connecticut School of Medicine; University of Florida;

University of Florida College of Dentistry; University

of Georgia; University of Illinois; University of

Illinois at Chicago; University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Dentistry; University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Nursing; University of Iowa; University of

Kansas; University of Kansas Medical Center.

University of Kansas Medical Center School of Nursing;

University of Kentucky; University of Kentucky College

of Dentistry; University of Louisville; University of

Louisville School of Dentistry; University of Maryland

at Baltimore; University of Maryland at Baltimore

College of Dental Surgery; University of Maryland at

Baltimore School of Nursing; University of Miami;

University of Michigan; University of Michigan College

of Pharmacy; University of Michigan Medical

School; University of Michigan School of Dentistry;

University of Michigan School of Nursing; University of

Michigan School of Public Health; University of Minnesota;

University of Minnesota School of Public Health;

University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Dentistry;

University of Montana School of Pharmacy and Allied Health

Sciences; University of Nebraska Medical Center.

University of Nebraska Medical Center College of

Dentistry; University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of

Dental Medicine; University of Nevada, Reno School of

Medicine; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of

Dentistry; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

School of Public Health; University of North Dakota;

University of North Texas Health Science Center;

University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania School

of Dental Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School

of Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School of

Nursing; University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of

Public Health; University of Pittsburgh School of

Dental Medicine; University of Pittsburgh School of

Medicine; University of Rochester Medical Center;

University of Rochester School of Medicine and

Dentistry; University of Rochester School of Nursing;

University of South Carolina Office of Research and

Health Sciences; University of South Dakota School of

Medicine and Health Sciences.

University of South Florida; University of South Florida

College of Nursing; University of Southern California;

University of Southern California School of Dentistry;

University of Utah HSC School of Medicine; University

of Vermont College of Medicine; University of

Washington; University of Washington School of

Dentistry; University of Washington School of Nursing;

University of Washington School of Public Health and

Community Medicine; University of Wisconsin-Madison;

Van Andel Research Institute; Vanderbilt University and

Medical Center; Vanderbilt University School of

Nursing; Virginia Commonwealth University School of

Dentistry; Virginia Commonwealth University School of

Medicine; Wake Forest University School of Medicine;

Washington University in St. Louis; Washington

University in St. Louis Center for Health Policy;

Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine.

WE MOVE; Weill Medical College of Cornell University;

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research; WiCell

Research Institution; Wisconsin Alumni Research

Foundation; Wisconsin Association for Biomedical

Research and Education; Woodruff Health Sciences Center

at Emory University; Wright State University; School of

Medicine; Yale University; Yale University School of

Medicine; Yale University School of Nursing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Senator Frist:

As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation's Board of

Directors, I am writing in response to assertions that adult

stem cells have treated or cured the disease of testicular

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

straight on this issue.

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer among men ages

15-35 and approximately 8,000 men will be diagnosed with

testicular cancer in the United States this year. While

testicular cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer,

our organization would like to emphasize as the Senate

debates H.R. 810 . . . that we have NOT completely eradicated

the disease.

There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment

generally available to treat testicular cancer.

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

Rather, adult stem cells enable testicular cancer patients

to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment

for the disease.

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

We support exploring every avenue of research, including

embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits,

until a cure is found. . . .

The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your

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

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

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

On behalf of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, I am

writing in response to assertions that adult stem cells have

treated or cured several blood cancers, including several

leukemias, lymphomas and multiple myeloma.

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

caregivers in this country that battle blood cancers on a

daily basis, our organization would like to emphasize, as the

Senate debates H.R. 810 . . . that we exist today because we

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

the claim that treatment of blood cancers with cord blood,

blood or marrow stem cells--known as hematopoietic stem

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

research or is a substitute of embryonic stem cell research

is misleading and disingenuous.

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

Mr. Dahlman concludes:

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society asks that you and your

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

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

Look at this photo of Lauren Stanford. She says:

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

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

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

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

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

health and future.

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

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

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

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

Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through

consultation with the individuals seeking fertility

treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be

implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

Written consent.

The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the

embryos with written informed consent and without receiving

any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nathan Porteshawver and Tracie Bryant of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I ask unanimous consent that Ahmed Salem, an intern on his HELP Committee staff, be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of the three bills addressing the stem cell issue and all rollcall votes thereon.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, I ask unanimous consent that the following legislative fellows in his office be accorded floor privileges for the duration of Senate consideration of stem cell bills, and on all votes thereon: Dr. Al Pheley, a Robert Wood Johnson fellow; and Bruce Gilberg, an American Association for the Advancement of Sciences fellow.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural Cooperative Renewable Fuel Stations Act of 2006. This legislation closes a gap in the existing tax incentive for installing alternative refueling stations. The bill extends the existing alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit to patrons of agricultural cooperatives.

Our continued dependence on foreign oil is extremely worrisome. Today, about 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Last year, Americans imported almost 5 billion barrels of oil. Our Nation's overreliance on oil-derived gasoline poses a threat to National security and places a heavy economic burden on the citizens of our Nation. In addition, this heavy dependence on oil negatively impacts the environment.

That is why Senator Lugar and I, with strong bipartisan support, have pushed to replace foreign oil with more home-grown biofuels and biobased products. We recently introduced the Biofuels Security Act to aggressively ramp up the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel, ensure greater E-85 availability as well as what are known as flex-fuel cars, those that can run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Last year I authored critically important biomass research, development and deployment provisions to the energy bill. This new measure complements such efforts.

Cooperatives play an important role in the marketing of agricultural products. According to the USDA, there are over 3,000 agricultural cooperatives in America today representing millions of American farmers and investors. The production and distribution of bioenergy offers a new and lucrative economic opportunity for these organizations.

This year the ethanol industry alone will add more than 5 billion gallons of clean burning, renewable fuel to our energy supply. Between now and 2012 ethanol is expected to contribute $200 billion to the GDP. Not surprisingly, many cooperatives are eager to participate in the budding bioeconomy. One way for them to do this is to offer E-85

to their customers. This is a natural fit for farmer cooperatives, given that they already often produce the feedstocks as well as the ethanol itself that goes into E-85.

Section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. Sec. 30C-- provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties up to $30,000. This legislation would simply allow agricultural cooperatives to pass the section 30C tax credit through to their members. It parallels pass- through provisions we have enacted previously, such as the small- producer ethanol tax credit and the wind power tax credit of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The section 30C credit is fostering the creation and expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure and this legislation would bolster its effectiveness.

The benefits of this legislation are clear. By supporting the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels such as E-85 we can help reduce pollution, increase farm income, create jobs, bolster economic growth and promote energy and national security. Farmer owned agricultural cooperatives can and will be leading the way in the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Safe and Fair Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food--SAFER--Act. This legislation will protect consumers from contaminated meat and poultry by giving the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration, FDA, greater authority to remove unsafe products from the market.

If enacted, the bill would give USDA and FDA the following three key tools in keeping food safe for consumers: authority to mandate that a company recall unsafe meat, poultry, and food products if a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe or unwholesome food; require companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is adulterated or misbranded; and authority to USDA and FDA to levy civil penalties if a company violates federal meat, poultry, or food laws. USDA and FDA are lacking fundamental authorities to maintain a safe and secure food supply. This legislation would change that.

Foodborne illness continues to be a far too common problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that each year 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 1,800 deaths can be attributed to foodborne diseases. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that the cost of foodborne illness is $6.9 billion a year in medical

costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths. Even in the face of such numbers, companies say USDA and FDA do not need more effective tools to enforce food safety standards. They say the food industry is compliant with voluntary recalls. It is true most companies do comply, but there have been problems and delays in recalls. The problem is, USDA and FDA have no backup authority to order a recall if the company refuses. What happens then? Without this legislation, USDA and FDA have to lose precious time to get unsafe product off the shelves. Another criticism of this legislation is that it would give USDA too much power to mandate recalls, and may even push the Department to go too far. However, the bill has a procedure for due process, so that if a company has evidence that a recall or civil penalties are unjustified, they are appealable before an administrative law judge.

In addition to mandatory recall authority, the authority to levy a financial penalty if a company does not comply with our food safety laws is crucial to enforcing the standards. Civil penalties are an effective deterrent to stop violators and are already used to enforce analogous federal safety standards. Currently, USDA and FDA can only withdraw inspectors and shut down a plant that repeatedly or willfully violates our meat, poultry and food laws, which can often be a lengthy and costly process. Such drastic action is very seldom even taken. The ability to levy civil penalties gives USDA and FDA a much-needed tool for ensuring compliance with our food safety laws.

USDA recently proposed a rule to provide the public with valuable information about meat and poultry that is voluntarily recalled. The rule will disclose the names and locations of stores where such products have been sold. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, it is not enough to protect consumers. This USDA rule does little more than place the burden on consumers to protect their families or themselves from foodborne illnesses. The SAFER Meat, Poultry, and Food Act would act as a complement to this USDA proposal, and would give USDA, as well as FDA, the power to enforce the food safety standards they have set. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the American consumer.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural Cooperative Renewable Fuel Stations Act of 2006. This legislation closes a gap in the existing tax incentive for installing alternative refueling stations. The bill extends the existing alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit to patrons of agricultural cooperatives.

Our continued dependence on foreign oil is extremely worrisome. Today, about 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Last year, Americans imported almost 5 billion barrels of oil. Our Nation's overreliance on oil-derived gasoline poses a threat to National security and places a heavy economic burden on the citizens of our Nation. In addition, this heavy dependence on oil negatively impacts the environment.

That is why Senator Lugar and I, with strong bipartisan support, have pushed to replace foreign oil with more home-grown biofuels and biobased products. We recently introduced the Biofuels Security Act to aggressively ramp up the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel, ensure greater E-85 availability as well as what are known as flex-fuel cars, those that can run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Last year I authored critically important biomass research, development and deployment provisions to the energy bill. This new measure complements such efforts.

Cooperatives play an important role in the marketing of agricultural products. According to the USDA, there are over 3,000 agricultural cooperatives in America today representing millions of American farmers and investors. The production and distribution of bioenergy offers a new and lucrative economic opportunity for these organizations.

This year the ethanol industry alone will add more than 5 billion gallons of clean burning, renewable fuel to our energy supply. Between now and 2012 ethanol is expected to contribute $200 billion to the GDP. Not surprisingly, many cooperatives are eager to participate in the budding bioeconomy. One way for them to do this is to offer E-85

to their customers. This is a natural fit for farmer cooperatives, given that they already often produce the feedstocks as well as the ethanol itself that goes into E-85.

Section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. Sec. 30C-- provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties up to $30,000. This legislation would simply allow agricultural cooperatives to pass the section 30C tax credit through to their members. It parallels pass- through provisions we have enacted previously, such as the small- producer ethanol tax credit and the wind power tax credit of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The section 30C credit is fostering the creation and expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure and this legislation would bolster its effectiveness.

The benefits of this legislation are clear. By supporting the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels such as E-85 we can help reduce pollution, increase farm income, create jobs, bolster economic growth and promote energy and national security. Farmer owned agricultural cooperatives can and will be leading the way in the months and years ahead.