Floor Statements

Mr. President, this morning we have a period of 1 hour for morning business. Following that hour, the Senate will return to the consideration of the Water Resources Development Act. We are considering that bill under a unanimous consent agreement that allows for seven additional amendments. We will finish that bill today, and that will require votes throughout the course of the day. I expect that not all of the debate time will be used on each of the remaining amendments. If we are able to yield back some time today and if some of the amendments don't require rollcall votes, it is possible to finish early this evening. If Senators begin to use all of the time allocated, it will turn into a much later session with votes. In any event, we will finish the bill today.

Tomorrow we have an order to proceed to the Child Custody Protection Act. I am pleased that we are now able to proceed to that bill without any objection, and I hope we can get an agreement to finish that bill in a reasonable period of time as well.

In addition, this week we have some circuit and district court nominations on the Executive Calendar that will require some votes. We will consider those in all likelihood on Thursday.

I thank my colleagues for their assistance. We have had a very good and very productive week, with our debate on stem cell research, including scientific and ethical issues, over the last couple of days.

Mr. President, last week, on the morning of July 12, Hezbollah launched a brazen and unprovoked attack on Israeli soldiers patrolling their side of the border with Lebanon in northern Israel. Hezbollah militants killed seven Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more in the attack. These two soldiers remain captive, presumably somewhere inside of Lebanon.

This Hezbollah attack followed an earlier attack from the Hamas terrorist groups on June 25. Hamas terrorists entered Israeli territory, attacked an Israeli military base, killed two soldiers, and kidnapped another. CPL Gilad Shalit has yet to be released.

Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists organizations. They receive military and financial support from terror-sponsoring regimes in Damascus and Tehran, and they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. In fact, they call for Israel's destruction.

In June 2000, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan deemed Israel in full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425 by completely withdrawing its forces from Lebanon. Yet in the past year alone, Hezbollah has launched at least four separate attacks into Israeli territory using rockets and ground forces. It has blocked implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 by refusing to disarm and disband its militia.

Last summer, Israel completely evacuated its forces from the Gaza Strip. Instead of demonstrating a willingness and ability to govern responsibly and improve the lives of the Palestinians living there, Hamas has used Gaza as a base to launch rocket attacks and other assaults on the State of Israel, like the one that led to the capture of Corporal Shalit on June 25.

Let us be clear: Hezbollah and Hamas, with the backing of Syria and Iran, are wholly responsible for the recent outbreak of violence in the Middle East.

While it is important for Israel to proceed carefully, we cannot deny its right to self-defense. Prime Minister Olmert's government has a responsibility to the Israeli people to defend

Israel against terrorist attacks. He has a responsibility to do what he can to prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future.

Israel is an ally--our closest friend in the Middle East. We share its strong commitment to democracy, to the rule of law, and to a peaceful solution to this conflict, a solution that leaves two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a resolution reaffirming its steadfast support for Israel in its fight against these vicious terrorists and other extremists who target Israeli citizens and exploit their own civilian populations as shields.

Hezbollah and Hamas must immediately and unconditionally release the captured Israeli soldiers and cease their rocket attacks against Israel. The state sponsors of these groups in Syria and Iran must be held to account.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this morning at 10 a.m. we will resume debate on the stem cell issue with each 30 minutes alternating between the two sides. We have the designated times locked in with three votes occurring in a stacked sequence beginning at 3:45 today.

I thank the Members who were available yesterday for the debate. We had a good debate, an important debate, on the whole range of ethical and scientific issues which were introduced and talked about yesterday in that debate, and I am sure it will be constructive, with that same cooperative dialog and spirit today. We have a limited amount of time for closing remarks, so Senators should be on the floor of the Senate during their speaking blocks, and if there is any time available in those speaking blocks, that time will be appropriately allocated.

We will recess today as usual from 12:30 until 2:15 for the weekly policy meetings, and later on this afternoon, we will also begin work on the Water Resources Development Act. We have a time agreement which limits the amendments to the so-called WRDA--the Water Resources Development Act--and we expect to begin debate on some of those amendments this afternoon and evening.

Other items that may be considered this week include some circuit and district judges that have been reported by the Judiciary Committee. We mentioned the Child Custody Protection Act, and we have mentioned the Voting Rights Act. So we will have a busy week.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I understand I have 15 minutes under my control.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes on my time to Senator Dodd, who has been unable to come to the floor.

Mr. President, last year I made a commitment to try to bring H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to the floor. This week, I followed through on that promise. Over the last 2 days, we have discussed science, we have discussed ethics and how those two issues, science and ethics, interplay.

That is important because stem cell research will be the first of many major moral and ethical challenges to biomedical research that this Senate has the responsibility to address in the 21st century. We will face similar discussions again and again as biomedical science rapidly advances, especially as we learn more and more about molecular and cellular developmental biology. It is our responsibility as legislators, as representatives of the American people, to determine the proper role for our Federal Government, both in financial support, as well as in ethical oversight, in this evolving, new, exciting research and to build around it appropriate ethical safeguards and appropriate ethical framework.

As legislators, as representatives, we must participate in defining this research, surrounding the culture of life. If we don't do so, the research itself will begin to define us and who we are.

Biomedical research holds great promise, but it is a promise that must be harnessed within these moral and ethical safeguards. The secret, the heart of human dignity, is living within limits--ethical limits and moral limits--limits that do not hamper human scientific advances but, rather, allow us to preserve and promote them. That is why it is important and appropriate that we can consider all three of the bills that have been debated over the last 2 days. In the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act and the Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, we realize the potential of research practices that may actually bridge moral and ethical differences, while the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act seeks, by other means, to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research.

Over the last 2 days, we have engaged in a robust debate, a full debate, highlighting the ethical dilemmas presented by research about those very early beginnings of life, as well as the potential, the hope for this research.

I close by making a final comment on what I believe is this inherent need for policy surrounding science and add a cautionary note in this discussion. I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because of these remarkable, exciting, rapidly accelerating advances in developmental biology. New doors of exploration have been exploding and opened by things such as the Human Genome Project, by our new knowledge of molecular genetics, molecular sequencing, cellular mechanisms. Some have called the 21st century--we are in the early years of the 21st century--the century of the cells, a century that will explode with regenerative medicine, the ability to replace cells that had been damaged by disease or ill health.

As a heart surgeon, I can't help but to dream of no longer having to cut out a diseased heart, a heart that is failing, and replace it with a donated heart because advances in cell therapy, advances in regenerative medicine will allow us to repair tissues or regenerate that new cardiac tissue, healthy tissue, without any surgery at all.

Ten years from now, today's hope can be that reality. In 15 years, whole organ-heart transplantation could--we do not want to overstate but could be relegated to the history books. That is why it is so important to bring this debate to this Senate, to allow science to advance, to promote science with strong ethical oversight.

In the last century, we faced a whole range of ethical considerations; in my own field of heart transplantation, decisions about how you define brain death. The discussion went on for years and years, actually two decades, into the late 1960s, ethical discussions about to whom you decide to give that healthy heart, when you have so many people who are dying--ethical decisions that have to be made every day.

We have had controversies over blood transfusions, genetic therapy, we even faced controversy over the treatment and diagnosis of HIV/AIDS. But as we have seen over the course of today's and yesterday's debate, the future will bring even more profound ethical questions. They will continue to come with increasing frequency as we continue to unlock those mysteries of health and disease.

How we in humanity handle this gathering, this increasing control over cellular and molecular science, as well as developmental biology, will reflect who we are as a people and where we are going. We can't hide from, as representatives of the American people, nor should we, the questions that this new knowledge presents. Our votes today are a mere step, a first step toward beginning to answer them.

Throughout today's debate, I have heard a number of my colleagues, myself included, talk about the potential for healing, that inherent hope offered by adult stem cells as well as embryonic stem cells, but it is important that advocates not oversell the potential for medical treatment. As a physician, I understand the importance of promoting hope and of giving hope, but it is irresponsible to give false hope. This evolving science is relatively new, and even our basic research has to be done before we can truly give that hope to become reality, and even then we may encounter failure.

All of these are difficult issues on which people of very good faith can

reasonably disagree. However, I hope that all can agree this debate and the approach we took in this debate by considering three bills as a package, each bill to be voted upon separately, is a fair way, is a thoughtful way, to begin to address the future of stem cell research.

The bills are important steps in defining science policy and advancing the practice and science of medicine. To get this far, we had to set aside our differences. I am hopeful that at the end of the day we will have made important strides forward in promoting biomedical advancement in a responsible and in an ethical manner. I expect the outcome of these votes will demonstrate there is some consensus among Members, even on this very divisive issue.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, in just a few moments we will be voting on three bills. The first bill we will be voting on is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. The second bill we will be voting on is the alternative means, the alternative ways of deriving stem cells. And the third is the House bill in support of research which is derived from blastocysts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on all three bills en bloc.

Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the three bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, plans tonight are that we will get consent on moving to the Water Resources Development Act. Senator Inhofe is available to start that bill.

I congratulate and thank all of our colleagues for the very good debate that we have had over the last 2 days on a very tough issue, a difficult issue. Members have had the opportunity to express themselves with good debate on science and on the ethics. I thank them for that collegial approach.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 534 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act, under the previous order.

Mr. President, today the Senate will conduct a period of morning business with the time equally divided until 12:30. At 12:30, we will begin the debate on the three bills related to stem cell research, and we will have debate throughout the day and tomorrow, with the time alternating between the majority and minority in 30-minute increments, and then proceed to stacked votes tomorrow afternoon at 3:45. Each of these votes will require 60 votes for passage. The votes on Tuesday will be the first votes of the week.

On Friday, we were able to reach an agreement on the Water Resources Development Act, and Chairman Inhofe will be managing the floor consideration of that bill on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. President, over the next 2 days we will be discussing the issues surrounding stem cell research and discussing a total of three bills over the course of 48 hours. Our discussion over the next 2 days will focus on science and on ethics and how science and ethics interplay.

Science: We are in a remarkable era of exciting and rapidly accelerating advances in developmental biology. New doors of exploration have been thrown wide open by the Human Genome Project and by our new knowledge and our new understanding of molecular and cellular mechanisms. Some have called this 21st century the century of cells--a century that will explode with regenerative medicine so that heart surgeon Bill Frist will no longer have to cut out a diseased heart and replace that diseased heart with a healthy heart but would rather treat a patient with cells requiring no surgery.

We are going to be discussing ethics. Although not easy, we do have to confront head-on the difficult issues around life's beginnings, all of which have large scientific, moral, and religious implications. The rapidly advancing science has taken us to today's debate.

As we will see in our discussions on the floor of the Senate, it is safe to say that no scientific issue is more divisive today than this discussion surrounding stem cells. As others have said, you can't do an end run around all of these ethical challenges. They are before us, and they are going to come with increasing frequency with advancing science. Our responsibility as policymakers is, through deliberation and through dialog and through debate, to frame those moral principles which protect and defend human dignity and promote scientific advances and medical applications that will lead to healing.

In the last century, we faced ethical controversies over organ transplantation, my field: Who would receive a scarce organ? What are the criteria to determine brain death? We had ethical

discussions and ethical controversies over blood transfusions: Who receives blood transfusions? What are the indications? We also faced ethical dilemmas over genetic therapy.

Well, the 21st century, the current century, brings even more profound ethical questions, and they are going to come with increasing frequency. How we and humanity handle our gathering control over these mysteries of cell development and embryo development will reflect who we are as a people and where we are going.

Today, the Senate will begin debate on these three important pieces of legislation: the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, from Senators Santorum and Specter; the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, Senators Santorum and Brownback; and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, the so-called--in the House--Castle- DeGette bill, and in the Senate, the Specter-Hatch bill.

Many of my colleagues have, like me, spent hours grappling with these issues: the future of stem cell research, how we balance pro-life positions with the potential for new life and health offered by stem cell research. There is, perhaps, an inclination to avoid such difficult issues, to ignore them and to let others debate, but I have come to realize we must participate in defining research surrounding the culture of life. If not, it will define us.

Five years ago, on July 18, 2001, I came to the Chamber and laid out a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within an ethical framework. I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles. I also said that policymakers and the public must reassess on an ongoing basis the research and the circumstances under which it is conducted because science will continue to advance. As the 21st century progresses and as science--developmental biology--advances, we will continually face moral and ethical challenges. It is our responsibility, as individuals and as a body politic, to reassess the constructs governing biomedical research. It will define us. That is why I brought cord legislation to the floor earlier in the year, and it was passed.

As I said then and as I believe now, we must also do all we can to pursue other alternative strategies that will hold potential for developing pluripotent stem cell lines without damaging or destroying nascent human life. That is why, in the package before us today, I have asked the Senate to consider legislation to enhance support for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. I am extremely pleased that Senator Santorum and Senator Specter worked together to craft the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. Their bill is similar to legislation I worked on with Senator Isakson and others of our colleagues last year, and I encourage every Senator to support it.

This bill would fund alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent stem cells, including extracting from embryos that are no longer living, nonlethal and nonharmful extraction from embryos; extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos but are embryo-like; and reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines. There is no reason this legislation shouldn't gather the support of every Member of this body. It should unify us.

The second bill we will consider is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006. Specifically, the bill prohibits the implantation and gestation of an embryo in a human or animal for the purpose of aborting for research--the manufacture of human life for experimental purposes. Senators Brownback and Santorum have proposed legislation that would draw a clear line which should not be crossed. This is a forward- leaning pro-life bill, a moral guardrail in place before any inducement exists to promote it.

Shortly after I originally outlined my principles 5 years ago, President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. It federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an ethical framework, and it showed respect for human life.

President Bush and I do not differ about the need for strong guidelines governing stem cell research. His policy was generally consistent with the principles I set forth a month before his announcement back in 2001. However, as science has progressed over the last 5 years, we have learned that fewer than the anticipated number of cell lines have proved suitable for research, and I think the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research is too restrictive.

H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, addresses this restriction in our current policy. It has many shortcomings, but it is clearly consistent with my fifth principle on stem cell research: ``Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded.'' In fact, the bill applies what I proposed in 2001 verbatim. It allows Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded.

Mr. President, in closing, all three of the bills the Senate will address beginning at 12:30 today will raise profound ethical questions that are challenging. They merit serious dialogue, and they merit serious debate. That is why I am pleased that on an issue of this magnitude, Senators will have the opportunity over the next 2 days to have their ideas considered and voted on separately and cleanly.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 1, ban embryo creation for research.

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

No. 3, ban human cloning.

No. 4, increase adult stem cell research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should not let the potential of this research drive the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are already driving and promoting ethical alternatives such as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

I ask unanimous consent that the report to accompany H.R. 5672 be star printed.

I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 125 and the bill be referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 533, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.