BROWNBACK, SAM: I wish to start by entering into the Record four documents and briefly covering them as much as possible. I ask unanimous consent that all four of these documents appear directly after my testimony.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Thank you Mr. President. I want to start off with this. This first one is the list of 72 current clinical applications using adult stem cell therapy. No ethical problems on these.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Actually, the list now is 73. I will cover that in just a minute, but I want to get that in.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I want to back this letter up, or this statement up, with a letter that appeared in the magazine Science, January 19, 2007, that was refuting the article--that was a letter put forward by other
BROWNBACK, SAM: individuals questioning this level of adult stem cell therapy and treatments.
BROWNBACK, SAM: And then this letter that was in the Journal of Science was backed up by the third document which we have here, which is a list of 14 pages of the peer-reviewed scientific articles on adult stem cell
BROWNBACK, SAM: therapies and the benefits that those have produced.
BROWNBACK, SAM: And then the final document that we have here in this stack that I will be putting forward is the article that just appeared out even today from JAMA, Journal of American Medical Association, on Type
BROWNBACK, SAM: 1 juvenile diabetes being treated with the use of adult stem cells. And the results--I am just going to read these, because they are just so phenomenal, from this JAMA article: During a 7- to
BROWNBACK, SAM: 36-month followup, 14 patients became insulin free; one for up to 35 months with this treatment. And this was an adult human stem cell treatment. And one patient was not able to become insulin-independent.
BROWNBACK, SAM: The reason I cite that is it is such an exciting set of results. People have been talking on the floor a great deal about curing diabetes. Here we have a JAMA article, as I have noted to my
BROWNBACK, SAM: colleagues earlier. The unfortunate thing is the actual test took place in Brazil instead of the United States even though it was designed and much of it was done by U.S. scientists at Northwestern
BROWNBACK, SAM: University, other places. The work should be being done in the United States.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Point one being, we don't have to go there with the taxpayer funding of destroying this young human life. And I would hope my colleagues would say that in and of itself is enough information for me
BROWNBACK, SAM: to say that we do not need to cross this ethical boundary. The ethical boundary we are talking about yet again is using taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of human life so we can research on
BROWNBACK, SAM: these entities. Some would refer to it as potential for human life; that is human life, so we can research on it.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Do we want to cross that ethical boundary that has everybody in somewhat of a question whether they want to do this or not? I would submit, No. 1, we do not need to; we've got routes to go to that
BROWNBACK, SAM: work. No. 2, we should not do that in researching on human life because of the respect we have and the dignity afforded to each and every human life at all stages, at all places, for the human
BROWNBACK, SAM: existence that this individual has.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Proverbs tell us this: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.
BROWNBACK, SAM: That would seem to really highlight this debate the way that seems right to a man. Let's just research on these embryos; they are going to be disposed of anyway. You know, why not do it instead of
BROWNBACK, SAM: throwing them away? Why not do it instead of having them being adopted? Why not do it? Why not research on someone that's on death row? Why not?
BROWNBACK, SAM: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. Well, we shouldn't because it does continue that continuation of us breaching human dignity at a very early stage, granted,
BROWNBACK, SAM: but nonetheless human by all definition of what a human species and an individual is. It does breach that, and we shouldn't go there with taxpayer dollars.
BROWNBACK, SAM: As I have noted to my colleagues, it is legal to do in the United States. States can fund it, private individuals can fund it. As I have noted to my colleagues, private individuals are not funding
BROWNBACK, SAM: it. They are not funding it because it is speculative, it is not producing results, and it is producing tumors.
BROWNBACK, SAM: As I have entered into the Record previously a large set of different studies in various areas done by various groups. These embryonic stem cells are producing tumors. That is what is taking place.
BROWNBACK, SAM: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is death. Do we want to put tumors in individuals? Is that the route that we are going forward with? I don't think so. I don't think we should.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I want to emphasize as well to my colleagues that we have another route to go on this that we can work on together. I would hope we could work on the amniotic fluid and banking of amniotic fluid. I
BROWNBACK, SAM: think that would be an important key route for us to work together.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I am disturbed that at this point in time in the legislative session, first half of the year after an election, that we are spending this amount of time on a topic that is going to be vetoed S. 5 is
BROWNBACK, SAM: going to be vetoed; unlikely that the veto override is going to occur; maybe it is going to be able to happen but unlikely and when we've got other routes we can work on that will work and will
BROWNBACK, SAM: produce results. Are we going to continue this effort for division? It is all about dividing. It is all about causing a fight and somebody scoring some political points, when we have a hopeful route
BROWNBACK, SAM: that is producing results that we can work on together, that we can get more funding for, and everybody wants cures and we can get more funding for this route that's working, and we can start a new
BROWNBACK, SAM: area in amniotic fluid and placenta or we can go along with my colleagues from Georgia and Minnesota as well, a route upon which we can agree.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I think we can do those things. Yet we continue down this route of division. Why would we do that when in the balance sit patients in this country and around the world who seek our help? I have shown
BROWNBACK, SAM: you many pictures of those who have gotten help but need more and are having to travel overseas for these treatments. Let's not force them to do that.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Let's stop the politics of division. Let's start working together and have a culture that respects human dignity. And we can do that. Reject S. 5. I thank the chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Washington State is recognized.
MURRAY, PATTY: Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from this side.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Senator from Washington is recognized for 10 minutes.
MURRAY, PATTY: Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak out in strong support of the promising research that can save lives and bring hope to millions of
MURRAY, PATTY: Americans. I will vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, and I urge all of our colleagues to do so.
MURRAY, PATTY: More importantly, I urge President Bush to finally hear the voices of scientists, medical leaders, patients, and more than 500 organizations who have said loudly and clearly that it is time for
MURRAY, PATTY: promising research to move forward in this country. It's time to take the handcuffs off of our scientists, those who say that they will then be able to pursue what all Americans are hoping for and
MURRAY, PATTY: promising research for so many diseases that impact so many of our families. Mr. President, for too long, this President has allowed politics and ideology to trump lifesaving research. We've got to
MURRAY, PATTY: correct that mistake. And this bill, S. 5, that we are considering today shows us how.
MURRAY, PATTY: Throughout this country, Americans are suffering from diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and they and their families are looking to us for help. We have
MURRAY, PATTY: scientists and researchers who are so eager to provide that help, but today, as we all know, their hands are tied by arbitrary restrictions President Bush imposed back in 2001.
MURRAY, PATTY: I believe that we can allow research on embryonic stem cells, and we can do so with the strong ethical guidelines that are required under this legislation.
MURRAY, PATTY: Back in August of 2001, President Bush greatly limited the number of embryonic stem cells that were available for federally funded research. Those limits were based on inaccurate science and
MURRAY, PATTY: ideology, and they have restricted our ability to make progress. Now at the time, the White House said there were 78 stem cell lines available for federally funded research, but now we know that
MURRAY, PATTY: there are only 21 such lines. Researchers, those men and woman that we count on to find cures to the diseases that impact so many, believe it is imperative to have access to newer, more promising
MURRAY, PATTY: stem cell lines that don't pose the risk of contamination.
MURRAY, PATTY: The first consequence of the President's restriction has been to limit hope and to limit progress for families who suffer from these diseases. The second impact has been to push embryonic stem cell
MURRAY, PATTY: research overseas. That means that our country is falling behind other countries in a cutting-edge field.
MURRAY, PATTY: Because of the President's imposed arbitrary limits, we are now in this country surrendering our scientific leadership to other countries. That, Mr. President, can have far-reaching consequences
MURRAY, PATTY: for our economy and for our future.
MURRAY, PATTY: My State of Washington is home to world-class research institutions like the University of Washington. I want our country and institutions like that to be the leading edge of scientific frontiers so
MURRAY, PATTY: our country and all of us can benefit from those new advances.
MURRAY, PATTY: The bill we are considering today and will vote on this evening will lift the President's arbitrary restrictions and put in place expanded research under strict ethical guidelines. It would direct
MURRAY, PATTY: the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on stem cells that are derived from frozen embryos that are now stored in fertility clinics that, Mr. President, would
MURRAY, PATTY: otherwise be destroyed. This bill also promotes research into finding alternative ways to derive stem cells that do not involve the destruction of an embryo. And, as I said, this bill imposes strong
MURRAY, PATTY: ethical guidelines. In fact, the ethical guidelines that are in this bill are even stricter than the President's policy.
MURRAY, PATTY: Mr. President, embryonic stem cell research is a relatively young field. These cells weren't even isolated in humans until 1998. Scientists believe that embryonic stem cells are more valuable than
MURRAY, PATTY: adult stem cells because they can develop into any type of cell or tissue in the body. Just think of all the veterans who are coming home from the war in Iraq who have spinal cord injuries. Think of
MURRAY, PATTY: all the veterans of the first gulf war who are now being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis who could be helped by this promising research.
MURRAY, PATTY: In my own family, Mr. President, I have seen up close and personal the impact a disease such as multiple sclerosis can have. When I was just 15 years old, my dad was diagnosed with multiple
MURRAY, PATTY: sclerosis. I saw him in just a few years going from working to being someone who was home in a wheelchair every single day every single minute. For all of the rest of his life, my father was
MURRAY, PATTY: confined to a wheelchair. I can't tell you what a profound impact that had on my family. My mom had to stay home and raise myself and my six brothers and sisters. She had to go back to work and get a
MURRAY, PATTY: job and she had to stay home and take care of him, all at the same time. It was a very very difficult time for my family. The medical bills were amazing. The challenges that my family went through
MURRAY, PATTY: because of my dad's illness were incredible. I can only sit here today and imagine what it might have been like had there been a cure for MS for my family and for thousands of others. When I was
MURRAY, PATTY: growing up, the promise of this type of research wasn't even on the horizon. Today, Mr. President, that potential is in our hands. We need to do everything we can to make sure that that research is
MURRAY, PATTY: done so families such as mine have hope and opportunity in the future.
MURRAY, PATTY: I hope that we don't see it continually blocked by an ideological policy that puts ideology over science. It is time to change course and put our Government on the side of the patients and their
MURRAY, PATTY: families and to give them hope again.
MURRAY, PATTY: Last month the Director of the National Institutes of Health told us, and I quote:
MURRAY, PATTY: "It is clear today that American science would be better served and the nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines ....."
MURRAY, PATTY: The NIH Director said that existing lines will not be sufficient for the research that needs to be done, and he said that adult stem cells do not have the same potential as embryonic stem cells. Now
MURRAY, PATTY: that's the scientific view of the Director of the National Institutes of Health. The Senate and the President would be very wise to heed his counsel.
MURRAY, PATTY: I know what it is like to grow up with someone who has a serious illness. I can only imagine what it would have been like to know there was hope and a chance for a cure. I know of many families out
MURRAY, PATTY: there who have been waiting for this day in the Senate, for us to vote and pass this important stem cell research bill. And I commend Senator Harkin for his perseverance in coming back and again
MURRAY, PATTY: pushing at this as one of the first pieces of legislation we consider in this Congress. We all know it has a ways to go. We know the President has said he might veto it. I hope that he doesn't. I
MURRAY, PATTY: hope he sends a message to some young girl out there whose dad has just been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis that we are a country of hope once again.
MURRAY, PATTY: Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I look forward to its passage today, moving through conference. I hope it will be signed by the President. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, how much time remains?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Iowa has 7 minutes remaining.
HARKIN, TOM: Well, Mr. President, we are getting close to the end of the debate, we have some floor time in the next hour or so to go back and forth. I thought I might take a few moments now to
HARKIN, TOM: talk about why it is so necessary to have NIH do this kind of research, to oversee this research. The Senator from Oklahoma earlier said that a lot of research is going on now on embryonic stem
HARKIN, TOM: cells. And to be sure, it is. It is going on in different States, in private institutions, in England and Australia and France and Japan and Singapore and a few other countries. So why do we want to
HARKIN, TOM: get the Federal Government involved? Well, first of all, there is no other area of medical research in which we say the Federal Government should step aside and let the States do it. I know of no
HARKIN, TOM: other area of medical research.
HARKIN, TOM: Now, I always look at the human genome project. What if we had said to the States: No, we are not going to do it. You do it. They might have sequenced one gene or another or let the private sector do
HARKIN, TOM: it. They would have been getting patents on it or everything like. Now we have the mapping and sequencing of the entire human gene, and you can go online on your computer and get it, free to
HARKIN, TOM: everybody. Any researcher anywhere can get it. Now they may take that and develop it into drugs and therapies. That's fine. That is that sort of symbiotic relationship that I think we have developed
HARKIN, TOM: very well between the private pharmaceutical industry and the basic research industry, which is NIH.
HARKIN, TOM: So again, our National Institutes of Health should be involved in overseeing this, because if we don't have a coherent Federal policy on stem cells, each State writes its own rules. That means that
HARKIN, TOM: different States may have different ethical guidelines. One State would be different from another. You wind up with a patchwork quilt of laws all over this country. Then you wind up with States
HARKIN, TOM: competing against each other. So California gets to doing stem cell research, and what it does is, it hires researchers away from Missouri. Then Missouri is hiring people away from Iowa and then
HARKIN, TOM: Ohio. Then New York is trying to bid people away from Ohio. And then you get this terrible State-versus-State kind of competition in stem cell research.
HARKIN, TOM: We don't want that. We ought to be doing it on a national basis, a national effort, and we should not lose the international leadership that we have always had in biomedical research. Should we give
HARKIN, TOM: it up to Singapore or to Korea or England? No. We have always been the leader in the world in biomedical research, and we should continue that.
HARKIN, TOM: Secondly, the issue of why we have to expand our stem cell policy. Again, I repeat, for emphasis' sake, of those 78 cell lines that were supposedly available on August 9, 2001, only 21 have been
HARKIN, TOM: available. A lot of them are sick. They are not propagating properly. They are unhealthy. Right now NIH is only using between four and six of these lines and even they, I've been told, are not very
HARKIN, TOM: healthy. So the restrictions we have had by the Bush administration, since August 9th of 2001, have resulted in a situation where fewer and fewer viable good stem cell lines are available for NIH
HARKIN, TOM: researchers. However, during that same period of time in other sectors, we have derived over 400 different cell lines. And yet no one who gets NIH funding is able to do any research on these healthy
HARKIN, TOM: embryonic stem cell lines. That's why we need to develop these. We need to expand it.
HARKIN, TOM: That's what S. 5 does. S. 5 takes off the handcuffs. It lets us use, under strict ethical guidelines, those embryos that are slated to be discarded at IVF, in vitro fertilization clinics. With all
HARKIN, TOM: due respect to my friend from Georgia, S. 30 does not do that. And I say once again, S. 5, if passed, will do everything that S. 30 wants to do. Everything. If S. 5 passes, what they want to do in
HARKIN, TOM: S. 30 can be done by NIH. Now the problem with S. 30 is, if S. 30 passes and S. 5 doesn't, then S. 30 is very limited. It only says you can only use these few amount of embryos that are naturally
HARKIN, TOM: dead which, by the way, I don't think there is such a scientific term, but it has been bandied about here and it's in the bill. But there is no such scientific delineation of what is naturally dead.
HARKIN, TOM: So that is the situation we are in. S. 5 will do both. It will open up new stem cell lines with ethical guidelines. It will allow them to extract stem cells from these non viable embryos. But S. 30
HARKIN, TOM: will not. S. 30 still will not permit us to get the healthy stem cell lines that our researchers need. And that's why we need to pass S. 5.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator has 2 ½ minutes remaining.
HARKIN, TOM: Well, I will conclude my 2 ½ minutes then by referring to the other chart here on that one. Again, we have to keep in mind that the policy now in effect, the policy in effect right
HARKIN, TOM: now says that we could use Federal money to examine and do research on embryonic stem cells that were derived prior to 9 p.m., August the 9th of 2001. But we can't use Federal money to examine or to
HARKIN, TOM: do research on stem cells derived after 9 p.m., August the 9th, 2001. Those are morally unacceptable. Before 9 p.m., August 9, 2001, that is morally OK. After 9 p.m., it's not morally OK. Who decided
HARKIN, TOM: that 9 p.m. on August the 9th was some kind of moral dividing line, that stem cells derived before that, that is OK, but stem cells derived after that, that's not OK? Only one person decided that,
HARKIN, TOM: and that was President Bush.
HARKIN, TOM: The people of this country didn't decide that. Ethicists didn't decide that. Theologians didn't decide that. Scientists didn't decide that. President Bush decided that. So it is just sheer hypocrisy
HARKIN, TOM: to say we can fund those before, but we can't fund those after. And that's the situation we find ourselves in today.
HARKIN, TOM: So I say let's take off the handcuffs. Let's get rid of that fake moral dividing line that has no substance in reality and let's get on with finding the cures for people with Parkinson's and
HARKIN, TOM: Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries. That's what S. 5 is all about.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Who yields time?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
COLEMAN, NORM: Thank you Mr. President. First I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, for his leadership on this issue, his passion, his knowledge. He is not a biologist, but I
COLEMAN, NORM: have learned more about God and principle and stem cell lines from that former real estate guy than the many doctors I have talked to.
COLEMAN, NORM: I also thank my colleague from Iowa. I went to law school at the University of Iowa. I think I have some Iowa roots. The Senator from Iowa has been a champion of those with disabilities, of
COLEMAN, NORM: disability rights, a champion of hope for a long time. And in this debate there is so much we agree on. Where we disagree, though, is that S. 30 is not about a few small lines. S. 30 is about opening
COLEMAN, NORM: up embryonic stem cell research, research on pluripotent embryonic stem cells, in part, one technique being dead embryos and we've discussed that; another technique being alternate nuclear transfer,
COLEMAN, NORM: two or three other techniques, all of which have numerous scientists who say there is hope for moving the science forward, and we could do it in a way that doesn't involve the destruction of the
COLEMAN, NORM: human embryo so we don't cross a moral line but we have all the research that we want.
COLEMAN, NORM: And you may ask, you know, how can something so small be so important? To my right is a chart showing a pinhead. And these are the embryonic stem cells right there. They are the size of a pinhead.
COLEMAN, NORM: That is how big they are. How could something so small be so important? But size is not the measure of moral meaning. If you look at it from this point over here, from outer space, you look at the
COLEMAN, NORM: people, that is small, but that crowd has meaning. If you look at it from a universe perspective to the Earth, boy, that is really small. You can't even see it. Not even the size of a pinhead. Or our
COLEMAN, NORM: galaxy, if I had, Mr. President, a picture of the universe, our galaxy would be the size of a pinhead. And what we're talking about today has meaning. We have an opportunity in this country to come
COLEMAN, NORM: together and put the politics aside, the ideological divisions aside. The debate over funding, Federal funding for destruction of a human embryo, by the way which has been longstanding Federal
COLEMAN, NORM: policy, long standing, we will not provide Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo, and we don't have to. We come together with the same intention. We come together with the same
COLEMAN, NORM: perspective, with the same hope.
COLEMAN, NORM: And there are two paths to follow. One is S. 5, which will be vetoed and, in the end, what we will have tomorrow in terms of research is what we have today, as well intentioned, as well intentioned,
COLEMAN, NORM: but again, unfortunately, because the moral line is crossed and the division that will create, it will be vetoed. There will be no movement forward.
COLEMAN, NORM: But if we pass S. 30, we have the opportunity to move the science forward, to create a full range of pluripotent embryonic stem cells. By the way, if you are just using IVF stem cells, it is a narrow
COLEMAN, NORM: universe, narrow universe. But with the dead embryo and the altered nuclear transfer, you could cover every race and ethnic group in America.
COLEMAN, NORM: The science has gotten way ahead of the politics. We can put ideology aside. We can put political division aside. We can offer real hope and real advancement without crossing a moral line. Why
COLEMAN, NORM: wouldn't we do that? I hope that my colleagues see that the wisdom in really offering hope, in moving the science forward, and not falling victim to a Presidential veto, but that, in the end, by next
COLEMAN, NORM: year saying we've got more Federal dollars going into embryonic stem cell research, research on pluripotent stem cells, stem cells that have the capacity to be perhaps anything. We don't know, but there is still hope.
COLEMAN, NORM: There is a lot of research that has to go into it, but we can open the doors with the passage of S. 30. I urge my colleagues to support for S. 30.
COLEMAN, NORM: Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and I yield back the remainder of our time.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Mr. President, it is my understanding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Georgia.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Mr. President, it is my understanding, according to the unanimous consent agreement, we have four 10-minute periods.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator is correct.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Mr. President, it is further my understanding the first of those four periods is controlled by me; is that correct?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Each Senator controls 10 minutes in no particular order.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I will take that time as allocated.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Minnesota for their diligent work over the last two days on the floor of the Senate dealing with this
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: issue. And I admire the passion of both. And I am so pleased their passion is rooted in their belief, which I share, that we can move science forward, that we can enhance research for what are
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: currently incurable diseases, and that we can do so in the public domain.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Senator Harkin made a very good statement he has made a number of good statements, but he made a very good statement a little bit ago talking about why NIH is important. NIH is important because the
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: research gets in the public domain, not in the proprietary domain of an investor or someone who is hoping to find something but does not want to share that with anybody else. So it is important to
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: find a way to get the NIH investment in the embryonic stem cell research. S. 5 and S. 30 approach it from a different direction, but the goal in the end is the same; and that is, to further the science and to find cures.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I am reminded, I grew up in the 50s and the 60s. In the 1960s, I am reminded of a statement I heard--often repeated--by then Senator and previously Attorney General Robert Kennedy. I remember a
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: particular speech he made, when, having returned from Biafra, where there was a terrible famine at that time, he said you know: Some people see things as they are, and ask, why?--referring to famine.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I--meaning him--see things as they never were and ask, why not?
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: That really is what this is all about. Why not find cures? And why not find ways to seek those cures that pass the test we desire to pass that S. 30 portends? I have stated on more than one occasion
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: the methodology and the derivation of these stem cells. It has been questioned a couple of times, but facts are stubborn things. BGO1, 02, and 03, currently under the investment domain of the
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: National Institutes of Health--lines for which diabetes research, neurological progenitor cell research, and other research takes place at this very day were all derived from embryos that had passed
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: the seventh day following in vitro fertilization, were naturally dead or arrested but contained pluripotent embryonic stem cells.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And I might add, in vitro fertilization takes place every day in the United States of America. My family's been touched by it. Many families have been touched by it. And in each of those processes,
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: the development of those embryos goes through the three stages I have referred to: Gardner principle I, the first 72 hours; Gardner principle II, the next 4 days; and then those thereafter where the
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: cells stop dividing, where the pluripotent stem cells exist but the embryo is not implanted.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Now, there have been some that have talked about: Well, there is no evidence of success yet in stem cells. Now I join Senator Harkin in his statement that the only way you find out about evidence of
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: success is by doing the research. But I want to read something that I think is important and I am proud to share because research that has been done on BGO1 and 03--two of those three lines derived
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: in this methodology--have had significant research conducted on them in a number of areas. And this has got a little bit of technical language, but it expresses the promise and the hope the Senator
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: from Iowa and I and the Senator from Minnesota have all talked about. I quote:
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: The directed differentiation of BGO1 and 03 cells to neuroepithelia and multiple differentiated neuronal lineages, including cells expressing multiple markers of the midbrain dopaminergic lineage,
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: has precisely been demonstrated.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: ``precisely been demonstrated.'' That statement was confirming the research on BG01 and 03, designed to see if there was a way to develop neurological cells that could carry the hope for cures to
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: spinal cord injury and, in fact, to neurological cell or brain cell injury.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: From the research on those three lines, a patent is now pending on a neurological progenitor cell process, which is a real advancement from embryonic stem cell research, from embryonic stem cells
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: derived from level III Gardner principle derivation or those derived from an arrested or a dead embryo.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: So I would submit that my passion on S. 30 is in the hope of finding cures, in the hope of avoiding a veto, and, instead, having an investment in the furtherance of science that can grow
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: exponentially because of the unlimited moral and ethical access that would exist toward these stem cells.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: So I conclude by encouraging all the Members of the Senate to thoughtfully consider S. 30 and encourage them to vote for it as a step in the right direction, an opening of a door that has been, in
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: fact, not shut but stuck, and an opportunity to do what everybody in this Chamber has stated affirmatively they want to do; that is, provide hope for those that don't have it, expand research in the
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: public domain at the National Institutes of Health, and invest tax dollars ethically in a process that brings a promise of hope to every single American.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And I yield back my time.
HARKIN, TOM: Five minutes? Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, again, let me just ask. We have, I guess, 20 minutes; right, is that right?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 10 minutes. The Senator from Iowa controls 10 minutes. The designee of the majority leader controls 10 minutes.
HARKIN, TOM: So, I yield, yes, I yield the 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
HATCH, ORRIN: I thank my colleague.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes.
HATCH, ORRIN: I thank you, Mr. President, I am going to vote for S. 30. I don't think it does anything more than the current law is but, nevertheless, I appreciate the intentions of the two
HATCH, ORRIN: gentlemen, my dear friends, who have done this.
HATCH, ORRIN: But as this debate draws to a close, I want to take one last opportunity to give my strong endorsement to the need for our country to provide a better level of support for a very promising line of
HATCH, ORRIN: scientific inquiry: embryonic stem cell research.
HATCH, ORRIN: While I will vote in favor of both bills, it is S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, that provides the promise of making a dramatic, yet ethical, difference in the lives of so many.
HATCH, ORRIN: S. 5 may very well help us unlock that promise and the other bill will not. Some have raised ethical questions about S. 5.
HATCH, ORRIN: Make no mistake about it. Under the current policy, the President's policy, our Government does support embryonic stem cell research. All S. 5 does is it would expand that policy.
HATCH, ORRIN: To those who raise questions about the ethicality of this bill, I answer this way: If it was ethical to implement such a policy in 2001--and I have heard little criticism about that then it should
HATCH, ORRIN: be ethical to adopt S. 5 as well.
HATCH, ORRIN: The need for this bill is underscored by what one of the leading embryonic stem cell researchers in our country has had to say. I am speaking about the University of Utah's eminent researcher, Dr.
HATCH, ORRIN: Mario Cappecchi. He is the leading mouse stem cell researcher in the world today.
HATCH, ORRIN: He offers to guide this body with a succinct list of considerations which show why there should be federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. In brief, these reasons are listed on this chart
HATCH, ORRIN: right here to my right. Now let me just kind of go through those one by one so that I can make the points that I've made before.
HATCH, ORRIN: Number 1, it is a potential source of cures. If we can find these cures, we going to be able to save trillions of collars. But more importantly, we will be helping those who suffer in our society
HATCH, ORRIN: who will otherwise not have the help. Number 2 2, embryonic stem cells grow quickly and are versatile; No. 3, adult stem cells grow slowly; Number 4, adult stem cells are very restricted in what
HATCH, ORRIN: cell types they can produce; Number 5, the tissue in many important organs does not have adult stem cells so therapies for diseases involving those tissues would not be readily approachable by adult
HATCH, ORRIN: stem cell-based therapy; Number 6, the usefulness of existing embryonic stem cell lines is extremely limited; Number 7, somatic cell nuclear transfer can be used as an important research tool;
HATCH, ORRIN: Number 8, SCNT allows production of patient-specific stem cells to treat complex human diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; Number 9, the lack of Government commitment means lack of future
HATCH, ORRIN: researchers; Number 10, the health and economic implications of human stem cell research are enormous. Other countries have realized this; we are in grave danger of falling behind.
HATCH, ORRIN: Indeed, I believe history will judge us very harshly if we allow this great opportunity to pass us by. We have to support this research which to date holds forth more promise than other types of stem
HATCH, ORRIN: cell inquiry. In the interest of all those who suffer from debilitating diseases and hope for deliverance, I implore my colleagues to vote for S. 5 and send a clear message to the American people
HATCH, ORRIN: that we want this research to be expanded for the good of mankind--of all mankind.
HATCH, ORRIN: And while I have no objections to S. 30, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that it is the best solution. S. 5 is the bill that will clearly make a significant difference in the future of
HATCH, ORRIN: medical research for all of the reasons that I have outlined today.
HATCH, ORRIN: For those who oppose any type of embryonic stem cell research, let me just say this: For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can destroy 7,000 to 20,000 live in vitro fertilized eggs every
HATCH, ORRIN: year just destroy them, kill them without using those for the benefit of let's just choose one malady kids with diabetes, virulent diabetes, who might lose their eyes, their hands, their feet.
HATCH, ORRIN: Why wouldn't we do everything in our power to utilize those rather than just cast them aside as hospital waste? I can't understand that. That is not pro-life; that is pro-death. And frankly, being
HATCH, ORRIN: pro-life is not just caring for the unborn, it's caring for the living as well.
HATCH, ORRIN: With that, I thank my dear colleague for allowing me to make these remarks on the floor. This is an important debate. I hope we can get the 67 votes that are essential because we are going to get
HATCH, ORRIN: them someday. It is just, why put it off another 2 years? I thank my colleague.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I thank my colleague, my friend from Utah, for a very strong, very powerful, poignant statement. There has been no stronger leader in this Senate on health, life issues
HARKIN, TOM: than Senator Hatch. And I thank him for his support of S. 5.
HARKIN, TOM: I would yield 5 minutes to Senator Smith of Oregon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
SMITH, GORDON: I thank Senator Hatch. I thank Senator Harkin for their leadership on this vital issue.
SMITH, GORDON: The Senate today has conducted a very dignified debate on an issue that brings us right to the edge of science and faith. I have argued for several years now that science and faith need not be in
SMITH, GORDON: conflict on this issue. I have always supported in vitro fertilization, believing that that is a noble way to help infertile couples to be parents.
SMITH, GORDON: Today in America there are probably a million children who are now Americans because of this process. The inevitable consequence, however, of in vitro fertilization is that excess embryos are
SMITH, GORDON: created. The question we are debating is, frankly, whether or not they constitute human life. When does life begin?
SMITH, GORDON: My colleague, Senator Hatch, has argued nobly and long for the proposition that life begins not with a scientist, it begins with a mother. It begins when cells and spirit are joined to create a
SMITH, GORDON: living soul. If you have an embryo in a petri dish, you leave it there for 1,000 years, at the end of that time, you will have an embryo in a petri dish for the simple, logical reason that life
SMITH, GORDON: begins with mom. Life begins with the joining of flesh and the spirit. Then the question really becomes: Is it more moral to throw all these embryos away or is it more moral to allow them to be
SMITH, GORDON: utilized for medical miracles? I've reached the conclusion that we cannot have tomorrow's miracles if we tie scientists' hands with yesterday's rules.
SMITH, GORDON: I believe that we can, both consistent with religion, faith, science, and logic, allow embryonic stem cell research to proceed. We should do this because it is morally right. We should do this
SMITH, GORDON: because the United States Government needs to show up to work on this vital issue. We should do this because the resources we can provide, the ethical boundaries that we can create are essential for
SMITH, GORDON: this new area of science to go forward, giving us a chance to cure some of the most horrible maladies that afflict humankind, whether it is Lou Gehrig's, whether it is Parkinson's, childhood
SMITH, GORDON: diabetes, cancer, and more. We can't over promise, but the people afflicted with this that I see all the time in the State of Oregon need our best effort, and they need us to keep hope alive.
SMITH, GORDON: So I would urge my colleagues to vote for both of the bills before us today because it is a morally right thing to do. It is a pro-life thing to do. It is important that an ethic of life care for the
SMITH, GORDON: unborn as well as for those who are living, both the sanctity of life and the quality of life.
SMITH, GORDON: I believe life begins with mom, not in a science lab. And because of that, I am voting for this, and I do so with respect for the feelings of my colleagues who have a different theological
SMITH, GORDON: conclusion. But I believe that scripture and science are not in conflict on this issue and that life begins with mother.
SMITH, GORDON: With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I urge an affirm the vote on both these important pieces of legislation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Who yields time?
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, can I ask how much time remains?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator has 10 minutes of time as designee of the majority leader.
HARKIN, TOM: I thought I had 12 minutes left, until 5:15. Well, anyway, Mr. President, in closing this debate, first let me thank my colleagues, Senator Isakson, Senator Coleman, Senator
HARKIN, TOM: Brownback, and others who have participated in this debate. It has been, I think, a very informed and a very good debate over the last 2 days. I thank my colleague for his many courtesies. There
HARKIN, TOM: were a lot of things we agree on and obviously there are things we disagree on, but that is the march of legislation in the Senate. I wish to thank Senator Isakson and others for their speeches and
HARKIN, TOM: for their insight into this very important issue. I particularly wish to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Smith for their great leadership on this and so many other health issues in the Senate and for
HARKIN, TOM: their very poignant, very powerful statements they just made here on the Senate floor.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I started this whole debate yesterday morning by talking about hope, hope for cures for Parkinson's, to repair spinal cord injuries, to end the scourge of juvenile diabetes, to lift
HARKIN, TOM: the death sentence of those afflicted with Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, hope for families with someone lost to Alzheimer's disease. S. 5, the bill before us that will be our first vote, is a bill that
HARKIN, TOM: provides this hope, not a hope based on dreams or fiction but based on solid scientific foundations. It is why 525 disease-related groups and research institutions and universities all support S. 5,
HARKIN, TOM: because it has solid scientific foundations. It is why the Director of NIH, Dr. Zerhouni, recently said that more embryonic stem cell lines needed to be investigated:
HARKIN, TOM: It is clear today that American science would be better served and the Nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines.
HARKIN, TOM: That's what S. 5 does: provides more cell lines.
HARKIN, TOM: That's why the former Director of NIH, Dr. Varmus, a Nobel laureate, supports S. 5, to take the handcuffs off our scientists. I want to make it again abundantly clear, as there has been a lot of
HARKIN, TOM: misinformation in the last couple of days on the floor, that S. 5 somehow contains money for the destruction of embryos. That is not true. I challenge anyone to show me in the bill anywhere where it
HARKIN, TOM: contains any money for the destruction of embryos. It is simply not true. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not being accurate.
HARKIN, TOM: There are those who say: Well, the Federal Government shouldn't get involved. We can leave it up to the States and private entities. Well, we can't do that. We need coherence. We need to have the
HARKIN, TOM: crown jewel of the Federal Government, the National Institutes of Health, to oversee this so that we have good, strong ethical guidelines, so that we have compatibility, so that we have the kind of
HARKIN, TOM: interplay between scientists that is necessary to advance scientific research. To leave it up to the States means we will have a patchwork quilt of laws all over this country when it should be a
HARKIN, TOM: national effort--a national effort. And then you'll have States bidding against one another for scientists to come to their States to do this research. We don't want that to happen.
HARKIN, TOM: And lastly, Mr. President, we cannot afford to lose our global leadership in biomedical research. We, the United States of America, have always been the world's leader in biomedical research. All the
HARKIN, TOM: great scientific discoveries, whether it is polio vaccine, smallpox, all these things that make our lives better; all the new drugs we have for fighting AIDS around the world came from the United
HARKIN, TOM: States. All the cancer interventions, the reason cancer is now on the decline is because of our biomedical research in this country. We can't afford to lose that to other countries. We need to keep it in America.
HARKIN, TOM: So what it comes down to in the final analysis is simply this: If you really want to promote good science, good science, vote for S. 5. If you want strong ethical standards, S. 5 S. 5, has the
HARKIN, TOM: strongest ethical guidelines, stronger than what the Bush administration has right now, stronger than any other bill that has come before the floor of the Senate. If you want to move ahead with more
HARKIN, TOM: cell lines, as Dr. Zerhouni wants, S. 5 is the bill that will provide those cell lines.
HARKIN, TOM: If you want to put embryonic stem cell research into overdrive, to make it a national priority to do this research, S. 5 will put it into overdrive. If you want to say to Karli Borcherding, if you
HARKIN, TOM: want to say to Karli Borcherding right here, age 12, using 120 needles a month to give herself insulin shots because she has juvenile diabetes; if you want to say to Karli Borcherding and all the
HARKIN, TOM: other kids with juvenile diabetes, if you want to say to them that we are going to give you hope, we are going to give you hope that your diabetes will be cured, hope that you can live a full and
HARKIN, TOM: normal life; if you want to say to those families who have a loved one suffering from Alzheimer's, we are going to give you hope; if you want to say to those who have a family member suffering from
HARKIN, TOM: Parkinson's disease or under the death sentence of ALS, we are going to give you hope hope not based upon fiction, not based upon some will-of-the-wisp thoughts that somebody might have -- hope
HARKIN, TOM: based on solid science that scientists know that we can use.
HARKIN, TOM: We have already already -- taken embryonic stem cells and made nerve cells, motor neurons, bone cells, heart muscle cells. We know that it can be done. And yet our scientists are handcuffed today
HARKIN, TOM: because of the policy laid down by President Bush on August the 9th of 2001. It is time to lift those restrictions.
HARKIN, TOM: Some say that the President will veto this bill. We can't just decide what we do around here because a President--any President--threatens to veto something. We have to do what is right. We have to
HARKIN, TOM: do what the people of America want us to do. We have to do what's in the best interests of this country as we see our duty to do it. I hope the President will sign this bill. I hope that he'll see
HARKIN, TOM: that we have made our compromises, that we have strong ethical guidelines, that this is the way to give hope to Karli Borcherding.
HARKIN, TOM: So I hope we don't fall prey to: Well, we can't pass this because the President will veto it. We have to do what we think is right. And what is the right thing to do is to support S. 5. As Senator
HARKIN, TOM: Hatch so eloquently just said, let those thousands of embryos that are being discarded every year in in vitro fertilization clinics, let them be used to provide life to other people, hope to Karli
HARKIN, TOM: Borcherding, hope for people suffering from multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries. To me, that's the true ethical course to take. That's the guidelines that I think we must follow. Let those
HARKIN, TOM: embryos be used to provide hope to these people.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I see my colleague and a cosponsor of our bill who has been a leader on this issue for so many years, and I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Specter of Pennsylvania.
SPECTER, ARLEN: Mr. President?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator has a minute and a half.
SPECTER, ARLEN: Mr. President, on so many merits, the support has been overwhelming to allow Federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research. There are 400,000 of these embryos which
SPECTER, ARLEN: will be discarded. If they can produce life, no one would want to have research done. The fact is that we appropriated $2 million and only about 135,000 of those 400,000 embryos have been used. So it
SPECTER, ARLEN: is a matter of use them or lose them, pure and simple.
SPECTER, ARLEN: The only reason not to advance this research is on the life issue, and that is gone. We have had some of the staunchest pro-life supporters in this Chamber endorsing this bill and this concept. The
SPECTER, ARLEN: potential for medical research to cure or ameliorate the worst maladies of our era will be present with use of embryonic stem cell research. What is really involved here is when the people of the
SPECTER, ARLEN: United States will demonstrate sufficient political will to insist that the Congress and the White House adopt legislation to use Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That is the only question.
SPECTER, ARLEN: We started this on December 2nd, 1998, with the first hearing, and we've made a fair amount of progress. It is my hope that the President will sign the bill and not veto it, but he has already said
SPECTER, ARLEN: that he will veto the bill. So with 110 million Americans directly, personally, or indirectly, through families with a stake on their health and on their family's health, it is a question of when
SPECTER, ARLEN: America will move to insist the Congress act and, if necessary, override a Presidential veto. It is not a question of if it will be done, it is a question of when. And I hope this discussion and the
SPECTER, ARLEN: proceedings now will motivate the American people to say to Washington: Get it done.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Senator's time has expired. The Senator from Kansas, under previous agreement, is now controlling time and has 10 minutes.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Thank you very much Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for this debate. Appreciate Senator Specter and Senator Harkin. We have been on this debate for some period of
BROWNBACK, SAM: time. I want to give two numbers to my colleagues: 613 and zero--$613 million dollars spent on embryonic stem cell research since 2002 and the number of human treatments that we have to show for
BROWNBACK, SAM: it, zero. 613 to zero. Those are, I think, two important numbers to remember when what we are after is cures, and we have cures to show. We have cures that are working, and we can take the next $613
BROWNBACK, SAM: million and invest it in places that are getting cures, in adult, cord blood, and amniotic fluid.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Do we want to spend another $613 million and and -- use Federal taxpayer dollars to destroy young human life in the process a boundary, an ethical boundary that we have not thought wise to go to
BROWNBACK, SAM: before, to cross before? Do we want to cross that boundary and spend more money and still not get results, when we have a route we could go?
BROWNBACK, SAM: I urge my colleagues to reject and vote against S. 5 on two grounds. Number 1, ethical grounds. Embryonic stem cell research, even if presented in supposedly ethical terms, remains unethical. It
BROWNBACK, SAM: remains the destruction of young human life. No. 2, practical grounds. We do not have an infinite budget, and in the stem cell field, we need to put our money into areas where we are getting real
BROWNBACK, SAM: results--the adult field--and not divert them to the speculative embryonic field. Let's let the private sector, let's let the States if they want to, go into these areas. It is not illegal. They
BROWNBACK, SAM: can do so. They are not interestingly enough, in the private sector, because the cures are not forthcoming and tumors are being produced.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Let me discuss these in turn. Ethics. Will we sanction the destruction of nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? That's the central question surrounding S. 5. Those voting for it would
BROWNBACK, SAM: say yes. I say no. I respect my colleagues who look at this differently, but those are the facts.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Number 2, individuals should be treated with respect, whoever they are, wherever they are located, at whatever age or stage of life they are in. We should avoid prejudices. Each individual has an
BROWNBACK, SAM: inalienable right to life.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Claims that embryos are merely ``potential life'' are not supported by the science. From biology textbooks, we learn, quote:
BROWNBACK, SAM: “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. .....
BROWNBACK, SAM: It takes place at the beginning. The embryo is not ``potential life,'' it is human life at that particular stage of development in the life cycle continuum.” That's not Sam Brownback; that's biology.
BROWNBACK, SAM: The embryo would continue along the life cycle continuum if we were not interfering in its normal development by keeping it in a freezer or destroying it for experiments.
BROWNBACK, SAM: With the scientific fact in hand, we evaluate the facts in light of our ethical framework. For instance, we know that the human embryo is a human life, so how should we treat it?
BROWNBACK, SAM: Human life has an immeasurable value we all agree upon that from the youngest to the oldest. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human as a means to an end, period. That has
BROWNBACK, SAM: happened in human history before. It has always been regretted. Our value is intrinsic. Yes, we want to help people and treat people who have medical conditions, but we must not trample upon any
BROWNBACK, SAM: human to achieve such a good end.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Treatments. There remain no embryonic human treatments or applications despite 25 years of embryonic work in animal models and a decade of work with human embryonic stem cells, and $620, excuse me,
BROWNBACK, SAM: $613 million dollars invested since 2002 at the Federal level. That doesn't include States, private, other governments.
BROWNBACK, SAM: What we have learned about embryonic stem cells is that these cells form tumors when they're implanted. The scientific literature abounds with such stories. One example is in the area of diabetes,
BROWNBACK, SAM: published last year in Stem Cells. If you read the article and you find:
BROWNBACK, SAM: The expression of the insulin gene could be demonstrated only when the cells differentiated in vivo into teratomas. Teratomas are tumors.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Moving from the ethical to the practical, should we put millions or billions of dollars into interesting speculative research on these tumor-forming embryonic stem cells or should we put our money
BROWNBACK, SAM: where we are already getting strong results with adult stem cells?
BROWNBACK, SAM: I have shown this to my colleagues. This is just the research of the front page of the research journals on adult and cord blood stem cell research and the successes we've had so far since 2002.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Similar files for embryonic stem cells? There's none. Adult stem cells have no ethical strings attached. You can get them from an adult without causing the patient harm; you can harvest them from
BROWNBACK, SAM: rich cord blood, and, as noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association on March 7 of this year, they can be obtained from amniotic fluid without causing harm to the unborn child.
BROWNBACK, SAM: When we started this debate yesterday, we were aware of at least 72 peer-reviewed, real human treatments and applications using adult stem cells. Now, with the breaking news yesterday of Northwestern
BROWNBACK, SAM: University in Chicago, juvenile diabetes worked on in Brazil, we are at 73. Again, there remain no embryonic stem cell applications.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I say to my colleagues, remember Jacki Rabon, a lady from Illinois, a constituent of the Senators from Illinois, who has spinal cord injuries. She had to go to Portugal to be treated. Do not divert
BROWNBACK, SAM: funds away from successful adult stem cell treatments and force your constituents to go to Portugal at great personal expense. Vote against S. 5 and put the money into adult stem cell research.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Remember David Foege. For your constituents who have heart failure disease, do not divert funds away from successful adult stem cell treatments. Do not force your constituents to go to Bangkok at
BROWNBACK, SAM: great personal expense. Vote against S. 5.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Remember Dennis Turner. For your constituents with Parkinson's, do not divert funds away from successful adult stem cell treatments. Let us provide these treatments here in America. Vote against S. 5.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Remember the 13 diabetes patients whom we learned about yesterday who have gone 3 years, the top have gone three years insulin-free using a treatment with their own adult stem cells. Do not divert
BROWNBACK, SAM: these funds away from this area. Vote against S. 5.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, the Proverbs tell us there is a way that seems right to man, but its end is the way of death. That seems right to some people. And I respect their opinion and I respect them, but its
BROWNBACK, SAM: end is the way of death. Kills the young human life. It harms us as a culture, when we treat human life as property. We have done that. We don't like it. We don't like the history associated with it.
BROWNBACK, SAM: These embryonic stem cells form tumors. Tumors remind me of death. Do we want to go that way, even though it may seem right? These embryos are going to be destroyed, so why not? Somebody on death row
BROWNBACK, SAM: is going to be destroyed, so why not? Because they have dignity. They remain dignified and we should treat them with dignity, as we should here. Vote against S. 5.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I yield the floor.