BROWNBACK, SAM: I believe under the prior agreement I have 30 minutes of time to use at this time. May I inquire of the Chair?
ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Approximately 30 minutes, a little bit less due to the ' 44 minutes, the Senator has remaining.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Thank you very much, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want to introduce to the body and the discussion to a gentleman I had a chance to meet who came in front of a Senate
BROWNBACK, SAM: Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee testimony. His name is Keone Penn. I have a picture of this young man here. I want to share his story. He was cured --. We use that term advisedly,
BROWNBACK, SAM: but clearly, cured of sickle cell anemia through a cord blood adult stem cell treatment--cured.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I want to do part of this, actually, to encourage other people out there who might by chance be listening or know somebody else who has sickle cell anemia that has not yet been able to get treated
BROWNBACK, SAM: yet; to talk about cures using cord blood. We have cord blood banking. That is taking place. Cord blood is the blood between the mother and the child when the child is in the womb, and the use of it,
BROWNBACK, SAM: which we have now banked--10,000 units roughly thereabouts have been used and distributed across the country for many types of illnesses and sicknesses and I want to talk about curing sickle cell
BROWNBACK, SAM: anemia in some cases using cord blood.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Sickle cell anemia is a disease that afflicts more than 70,000 Americans and a disproportionate number of African Americans. Keone, of course, tells his story the best so I want to just highlight
BROWNBACK, SAM: what he stated in front of a Senate science subcommittee hearing that I chaired. He said:
BROWNBACK, SAM: My name is Keone Penn. Two days ago I turned 17 years old. Five years ago they said I wouldn't live to be 17. They said I'd be dead within 5 years.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I was born with sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell is a very bad disease. I had a stroke when I was 5 years old. Things got even worse after that. My life has been full of pain, crises, blood
BROWNBACK, SAM: transfusions every 2 weeks, and more times in the hospital than I can count.
BROWNBACK, SAM: The year before I had my stem cell transplant I was in the hospital 13 times. I never was able to have a normal life. My stem cell transplant was not easy, but I thank God that I'm still here. I will
BROWNBACK, SAM: graduate from high school and I want to become a chef because I love to cook. I think I'm pretty good at it.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Sickle cell is now a part of my past. One year after my transplant I was pronounced cured. Stem cells saved my life.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Many have heard of Keone's amazing story on previous occasions, and the effectiveness of cord blood stem cell research with blood diseases such as sickle cell rightly gives hope to millions.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, Keone's story is yet another of a great litany of adult stem cell successes.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I want to focus now on the cord blood stem cell successes and why we shouldn't be directing research dollars down other paths, such as embryonic stem cell and human cloning that have not produced
BROWNBACK, SAM: these sorts of cures or these sorts of treatments, and when we could do a lot more with treatments in the cord blood field.
BROWNBACK, SAM: As I noted, we started a cord blood banking program. We now have cord blood banking taking place in several places. I hope people are doing more of this across the country. As I stated, we've
BROWNBACK, SAM: distributed nearly 10,000 units of this to get to matches in various places, in various individuals across the country. We need more cord blood donated because you have to match a series of six
BROWNBACK, SAM: factors. At least four of those factors must match to be able to use the cord blood in a particular individual like Keone. Therefore, you need to have a broad cross-section of cord blood in the
BROWNBACK, SAM: banking supply so that people can possibly find a match.
BROWNBACK, SAM: In many places it's been used as a substitute for bone marrow and the difficult collection process that takes place sometimes with bone marrow. We need more in the cord blood field so we can get more
BROWNBACK, SAM: people treated like Keone Penn. I think that is a key avenue forward for us, in stem cell work, in producing the results.
BROWNBACK, SAM: The next step, and the next field we need to go to is amniotic fluid. I want to show this to my colleagues. Some of them would have seen this issue. We started a cord blood banking program to get
BROWNBACK, SAM: this in, so we could get more matches across the country and we could get a broader cross-section of individuals who have contributed from various types of blood so that we could get matches.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Well, the next area we need to bank in, I believe, is amniotic fluids. The fluid that surrounds the child as the child is in the womb is also a rich source of stem cells. It would be my hope that in
BROWNBACK, SAM: this year's appropriations bill we would not only study, I would hope we would begin the collection and funding of collecting amniotic fluid.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Now I urge my colleagues on all sides of this issue to say: Okay, here is another one that we can agree upon in moving forward in the stem cell field. I wanted to cite to this, because it is an
BROWNBACK, SAM: exciting breakthrough of news.
BROWNBACK, SAM: This article appeared in JAMA, Journal of American Medical Association, February 28th of this year, on amniotic fluid. Amniotic fluid-derived stem cells can be coaxed to become muscle, bone, fat,
BROWNBACK, SAM: blood vessels, nerves, and liver cells. Amniotic fluid stem cells might be capable of repairing damaged tissue resulting from conditions such as spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and stroke.
BROWNBACK, SAM: My reason for pointing this out is this is one we can agree upon. This is one we can move forward with. Amniotic fluid is discarded after the pregnancy, is not collected. It can be collected. It
BROWNBACK, SAM: could be collected. We should see about collecting this and move forward on these treatments, and some of the $621, $613 million dollars that we spent on embryonic stem cell research could go into
BROWNBACK, SAM: this field, and likely you are going to be producing results very quickly in the amniotic fluid and some people are talking about, as well as the placenta, being able to collect stem cells from the
BROWNBACK, SAM: placenta and other rich sources of stem cells--if we can take some of this $613 million that has produced zero human clinical trials to date and put it into fields that are producing or have the high
BROWNBACK, SAM: potential here in a near-term basis to be able to produce treatments or possibly even cures ' in summary, no ethical problems, no ethical issues; and this would be clearly a key one for us to go forward with.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, I also want to further develop the thought about embryonic stem cells leading inevitably to human cloning. And I just want to put out some numbers on this, but just follow with the
BROWNBACK, SAM: discussion on this and people certainly will understand it. If we are to collect and develop additional embryonic stem cell lines, we get these embryos from IVF clinics around the country, and you
BROWNBACK, SAM: start these lines, the genetic match will not take place. That genetic material will not match anybody, because it's unique genetic material, so as soon as it is implanted into somebody else, there
BROWNBACK, SAM: is going to be a rejection by the body taking place. That individual is going to have to be on immunosuppressive drugs for the remainder of their life, because the body is rejecting this foreign material.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Therefore, the answer is gonna move forward, saying, well, okay, we have developed this science, we can do human embryonic stem cell work, it works, but we are getting the rejection taking place.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Therefore, we are going to need to do human cloning, but it is not going to be real human cloning, it is going to be SCNT ' somatic cell nuclear transfer, so we can feel better about it. That's the
BROWNBACK, SAM: scientific name for human cloning--and we are not going to really clone, because we will create the clone, we will harvest women's eggs, we'll then create the clone, and we are not going to allow the
BROWNBACK, SAM: implementation of it. Therefore, we can say it is not cloning because it is not going to result in a full-scale child, by all definitions. It's just we are going to clone a person, we are going to
BROWNBACK, SAM: start human life and then we are going to purposefully kill it for its stem cells, that genetic match.
BROWNBACK, SAM: That is the process that this will inevitably lead to if we are successful in this science that I believe highly doubtful, given the tumor formation that's already taken place with embryonic stem
BROWNBACK, SAM: cells. But let's say we are successful in the next couple of decades, we can develop the science, the tumor issues somehow we are able to deal with, over that period of time, we get over that hurdle, we can develop it.
BROWNBACK, SAM: We have an immunosuppressant problem, so therefore now we've got to move into human cloning. Where do we get those human clones? We get them from people. We have to have an egg that we get from
BROWNBACK, SAM: women. We are going to have to develop, we will get the genetic material from the person that needs the embryonic stem cells; that's not a problem. But we are going to have to harvest a lot of eggs.
BROWNBACK, SAM: And I just want to go through some of those numbers from different individuals that have looked and thought about this. And I would hope my colleagues, even if they are on the other side of this,
BROWNBACK, SAM: would think about where does this take us, would have a real question about the idea of doing massive amounts of human cloning, massive amounts of harvesting of women's eggs to do human cloning that
BROWNBACK, SAM: is going to take place. Because you do not get a one-for-one match, you get the one human egg, you are not going to get it to necessarily take as a human clone, it is going to take a number of
BROWNBACK, SAM: attempts to take place ' I believe the numbers I have heard are somewhere around 200 eggs are necessary to get one clone to take.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Now, maybe we are able to develop that technology better into the future. But you're probably, if we develop this line, you are probably looking at the need for hundreds of thousands, if not
BROWNBACK, SAM: millions, of embryos needed to pursue this speculative embryonic stem cell research. And its application, you are going to need millions of eggs and millions of human clones--excuse me, I cannot call
BROWNBACK, SAM: them clones ' SCNT products, that is the scientific name for human clones, SCNT clones, we're going to need to have and these embryos are going to have to be developed that way to obtain sufficient
BROWNBACK, SAM: embryos for this speculative research scientists will turn to human cloning, which will exploit women for their eggs, because where are we going to get hundreds of thousands of eggs? Are we going to
BROWNBACK, SAM: have women in this country be willing to voluntarily go through the process, a difficult process? It can be damaging to their bodies.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Maybe we will get some to do that. It's probably more likely we will be going abroad to recruit people to give eggs. It is unlikely they will give them, it is more likely they will be paid for those
BROWNBACK, SAM: eggs to take place, and to go through this difficult, painful, and potentially harmful problem.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Is that the route we want to go, or would we be wiser to work with amniotic fluid, the cord blood, the placenta collection that's taking place, and take some of this money and develop that field? I
BROWNBACK, SAM: think this is just pretty clear, the route forward.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I also want to discuss the idea that we were talking about, a disposable medical product in the frozen embryos. I want to put back up a chart of just one of those embryos that we have here, and talk
BROWNBACK, SAM: about this from a standpoint. I just ask my colleagues to think about this for a second.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I believe everybody is wrestling with the notion that the human embryo it is alive. We all agree it is alive. Some of us will give it the status of a life; others would not. Others would call it a
BROWNBACK, SAM: potential for human life. I don't believe that is the scientific term, but some would call it a potential for human life.
BROWNBACK, SAM: It is a human embryo. Here is a picture of a human embryo. This is actually a child who was adopted as a frozen embryo and implanted and grew. This is, of course, what we are looking at as a physical
BROWNBACK, SAM: entity. It is human. It is in the human species. We know that. And all of us are having some level of difficulty with using taxpayer funding to destroy that young human life. Well, why are we having
BROWNBACK, SAM: that level of difficulty with destroying something that looks like this? And I think it is because just in our own being, and the natural law that resides in each of us, we believe in dignity for
BROWNBACK, SAM: every human being, period. We believe that everybody that's here, that's listening or watching this, is a dignified person and worthy of respect and worthy of recognition as a person. And that's why
BROWNBACK, SAM: when we have people on death row and facing execution, we do not say, well let's go and harvest their organs. When we hear that term, we are appalled about it, because we are saying: That is wrong.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Well, why? Because the person is going to die. They were convicted of a heinous crime. Why not harvest their body parts and save some lives? Because we certainly could. That way we could save a
BROWNBACK, SAM: number of lives by harvesting the organs, and this is a person that's committed a terrible crime. They're guilty. And despite the number of people having difficulty with the death penalty--and I have
BROWNBACK, SAM: difficulty with the death penalty--why wouldn't we go ahead and harvest the organs? We are going to throw them away, right? We are just going to dispose of them, right?
BROWNBACK, SAM: Well, but something within us says, you know that doesn't feel right; that doesn't seem as if that is the wrong thing to do. And it doesn't seem as if it is right because it is not the right thing to
BROWNBACK, SAM: do. And it violates their human dignity, that that individual, even though they have committed that crime, is a dignified human being and worthy still, even though they have committed the heinous
BROWNBACK, SAM: crime, is worthy of us treating them with some level, with respect, and not harvesting their organs. If they decide to voluntarily give them up, that's their choice, but they are worthy of that
BROWNBACK, SAM: respect. So why, when we are looking at human life here, that all of us agree is human, is alive, would we just say: Well, callously, we can just throw them away because they do not look like us?
BROWNBACK, SAM: Well, the child at this stage starts to look like us, but it is pretty small and you can say really doesn't look much like us. Can we do it at that stage too? If we are uncomfortable with doing it in
BROWNBACK, SAM: the early phase, or we are comfortable with doing it in an earlier phase, or when Hannah is born, can we just research on her then? She can't do a whole lot at that point in time for herself. If we
BROWNBACK, SAM: leave her by herself, she will die. She can't care for herself at that point in time. So why not just research on her at that point? Well, no, because she is a dignified human. So, okay, she is here.
BROWNBACK, SAM: What about here? Well, yes, Probably so. At that point? Here?
BROWNBACK, SAM: Well, I don't think so. I agree she is human. I agree she is alive, but I am not willing to give her any dignity status as a human.
BROWNBACK, SAM: What divided those? Some would say place, placement. If it is placed in a womb, it is. If it is not in the womb, it's not. Location does not determined personhood in our past. I would suggest it
BROWNBACK, SAM: doesn't determine it in our future nor presently. There is a natural revulsion toward this idea that we would take life from somebody for their body parts for somebody else, and here we are having
BROWNBACK, SAM: difficulty of saying, well, yes, but the possibilities are so promising we are going to go ahead and do it anyway.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I quarrel with the possibilities being that promising, and I have gone through this at length with my colleagues and discussed that. Even if it were, even if it were, what about the human dignity of
BROWNBACK, SAM: each of us? And when we have an alternative that's working, and we have more possibilities than we can fund in the amniotic fluid developing, and the placenta research, why not go those avenues,
BROWNBACK, SAM: where we are actually getting some possibilities, we are actually getting people treated, and have no ethical questions, and can go forward aggressively and happily about it?
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, I am pro-life and whole life. I believe life is sacred. I believe life is sacred in the womb and I believe life is sacred wherever it is. I believe that child in Darfur is sacred, I
BROWNBACK, SAM: believe that the person even on death row is sacred, and should be treated with dignity. I believe that the youngest phases that people are sacred and should be treated with dignity and I do not
BROWNBACK, SAM: think we have to go there. And if we do go there, it leads down a path we do not want to follow in human cloning, and that we should agree with as a society.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, I want to also note to my colleagues that we can spend a lot of time on this bill. I don't believe it is going to become law because of the divide in this country, because the
BROWNBACK, SAM: President's going to veto it. We'll see if there are votes to sustain that veto or to override that veto. I don't think this is going to become law. So why wouldn't we then look at this as a chance
BROWNBACK, SAM: for us to work together on areas that we know have high potential for cures and treatments and that unite us? There are plenty of things that divide us. There are clearly things in this area that
BROWNBACK, SAM: unite us, there are clearly future areas of things that we can work on to unite us and to provide cures. And why wouldn't that be a better approach? Are we so locked into a division here that we
BROWNBACK, SAM: can't find a way forward? And I would submit that we can find a way forward, and that we can work on these topics and provide cures so that none of us are the poorer for it. We are moving forward.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Unfortunately, too much of the work is happening overseas in the adult stem cell work and our people are not getting good access to it. And I've cited several examples that should not be happening
BROWNBACK, SAM: overseas; should be readily available here--of treatments that are developed here but are actually being practiced in places overseas because of either lack of an interest or support that we would
BROWNBACK, SAM: have here. I would urge my colleagues to vote against S. 5. I would urge my colleagues to work with me and others on developing this promising field in the amniotic fluid as we move forward with it.
BROWNBACK, SAM: I would urge others to work with me as we work on adult stem cell work and cord blood that is currently treating and curing people and that we could do more of that and we can do that together and
BROWNBACK, SAM: happily together and unite our country on an important topic instead of constantly dividing.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Senator from Michigan.
LEVIN, CARL: Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that Melanie Roberts, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office be granted the privileges of the floor for the pendancy of S. 5 and S. 30.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, so ordered.
LEVIN, CARL: Mr. President, are we operating under a UC at the moment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: We are operating under manager's consented time under unanimous consent. The Senator from Iowa controls 90 minutes. The Senator from Iowa controls 90 minutes.
LEVIN, CARL: I have been authorized to yield myself 10 minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator is recognized.
LEVIN, CARL: Mr. President, in the previous Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives voted resoundingly to lift the President's burdensome restrictions on embryonic stem cell
LEVIN, CARL: research. The President, however, used the first ' and so far only ' veto of his administration to reject this potentially life-giving research which is supported by a clear majority of the American
LEVIN, CARL: people. We are here today to try again to give our scientists the tools they need as they work to cure some of the most debilitating and dreaded diseases. And we will not--and we should not--yield
LEVIN, CARL: until we remove the obstacles that the President has put in the scientists' way.
LEVIN, CARL: This fight is critical, because embryonic stem cell research could hold the key to curing diseases that no other research could cure. As best we know now, an embryonic stem cell is unique in nature.
LEVIN, CARL: It alone can develop into any other type of cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells--and embryonic stem cells alone--can become a nerve cell or a muscle cell, or any of the more than 200 types of
LEVIN, CARL: cells in the body. The promise of this unique ability is clear: If scientists could replace diseased cells with healthy cells created from embryonic stem cells, it could save an untold number of lives.
LEVIN, CARL: For example, Parkinson's disease is a motor system disorder that results from a loss of brain cells that produce dopamine. Individuals with Parkinson's disease often experience a trembling in the
LEVIN, CARL: hands, arms, or face, and impaired balance and coordination. As the disease develops, it can become difficult to walk, talk or complete other basic tasks. With research, scientists may be able to
LEVIN, CARL: coax embryonic stem cells into becoming healthy neurons that produce the desperately-needed dopamine. And if those neurons can be successfully transplanted into a patient with Parkinson's disease,
LEVIN, CARL: that person could be cured.
LEVIN, CARL: The list of diseases that could benefit from stem cell research is long--Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and many others. Stem cell research could
LEVIN, CARL: offer the millions of Americans suffering from these diseases not just hope but cures.
LEVIN, CARL: Supporters of stem cell research understand that these breakthroughs will not be easy or inevitable. But the President's policy makes them far less likely. On August 21st of 2001, President Bush
LEVIN, CARL: issued an executive order that the Federal Government would only fund embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines created before that date. ``Stem cell line'' is the name given to
LEVIN, CARL: constantly-dividing cells that continue to be derived from a single embryo.
LEVIN, CARL: Most independent experts estimated at the time of the President's executive order that about 80 stem cell lines--a woefully inadequate amount--would be available for Federal research. Most of those
LEVIN, CARL: lines were later determined to be polluted and unusable, leaving only about 20 stem cell lines available.
LEVIN, CARL: Last month, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, was asked during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
LEVIN, CARL: Education whether, quote ``scientists have a better chance of finding new cures and new interventions for diseases if the current restriction on embryonic stem cell research were lifted.'' Dr.
LEVIN, CARL: Zerhouni responded, quote : ``these cell lines will not be sufficient to do all the research we need to do ..... these cell lines have exhibited instability from the genetic standpoint and it is not
LEVIN, CARL: possible for me to see how we can continue the momentum of science in stem cell research with the cell lines that we have currently at NIH that can be funded. It is clear today, he said, that
LEVIN, CARL: American science would be better off, better served and the nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines.'' Close quote.
LEVIN, CARL: In issuing his executive order and in vetoing the bill we passed last year, the President did not question the scientific possibilities of stem cell research. In fact, he said the opposite because he
LEVIN, CARL: stated in 2001, quote:
LEVIN, CARL: “Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases.” Close quote.
LEVIN, CARL: The President's objection is to using embryos for research. But the key fact--and one that opponents refuse to deal with--is that any embryo not used, any embryo not used for stem cell research is
LEVIN, CARL: going to be destroyed anyway. The embryos created by fertilization clinics that are not going to be used for implantation will be destroyed. Why not give them a life-giving use then? No answer has
LEVIN, CARL: been forthcoming from the President.
LEVIN, CARL: RAND Health conducted a study in 2003 that found there were approximately 400,000 embryos in storage in the United States and that most of these embryos will never be used because parents either had
LEVIN, CARL: a successful pregnancy and no longer need them or because treatments were unsuccessful. In addition, the study found that only 2 percent of these embryos will be used to create pregnancies. The rest will be discarded.
LEVIN, CARL: Last year, the Detroit News editorialized against a Michigan law restricting embryonic stem cell research and used words that apply equally well to the President's policy. The News said, quote:
LEVIN, CARL: “The justification for this law is to protect human embryos, but the fact that fertility clinics can simply discard them means that the research ban is pointless.” Close quote.
LEVIN, CARL: Sean Morrison, the director of University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology and one of the country's leading stem cell researchers, agrees. In an article in the Ann Arbor News last month,
LEVIN, CARL: Dr. Morrison stated, quote:
LEVIN, CARL: “The thing about that that's crazy is human embryos are discarded all the time by fertility clinics .....So it's legal to throw them away, but it's not legal to use them to try to help somebody.” Close quote.
LEVIN, CARL: Embryonic stem cell research is truly a life-giving process because of the extraordinary potential for healing living, breathing human beings, human beings with names and faces and families.
LEVIN, CARL: Members of the House of Representatives have now passed the bipartisan Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 3. After we debate the companion bill, S. 5, I hope that we too will again adopt it
LEVIN, CARL: and remove the President's arbitrary prohibition against funding stem cell research on embryos. It will pave the way for hundreds or thousands of additional stem cell lines to be made available.
LEVIN, CARL: This bill has the strong support of the American Medical Association, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Association of American Universities, the Christopher Reeve
LEVIN, CARL: Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Parkinson's Action Network, and more than 500 additional organizations. And most importantly, it has the
LEVIN, CARL: overwhelming support of the American people. If the President again vetoes this bill, I hope that Congress will override this veto.
LEVIN, CARL: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my statement be inserted in record. And I yield the floor.
BINGAMAN. JEFF: Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time reserved on Senator Harkin's side.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, the Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Mr. President, I rise in favor of S. 5, the stem cell enhancement bill of 2007. Many of my colleagues have eloquently stated reasons for supporting this bill over the past two
BINGAMAN, JEFF: days. The passage of this bill would be an important step forward for research into treatments for devastating diseases. In addition, passing S. 5 will help the United States as a leader in
BINGAMAN, JEFF: biomedical research, a leader in transparent and ethical research practices, and a leader in developing safe, effective treatments for diseases. I want to see stem cell therapies developed in this
BINGAMAN, JEFF: country so that we can ensure the safety and availability of these treatments for American families and at the same time create jobs for highly skilled workers to do the necessary research and to
BINGAMAN, JEFF: develop these new treatments.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Our current policy puts us at a severe disadvantage to other countries. As the Director of the NIH said at a recent hearing, our current stem cell policy is like working with one hand tied behind our
BINGAMAN, JEFF: backs. Scientists in most other countries are at an advantage to U.S. scientists because they are allowed to study the best stem cell lines and do so with government funding.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Let me explain this world stem cell policies map that I've put up here. It is color coded to show the different stem cell policies that exist in different parts of the world. And we've essentially
BINGAMAN, JEFF: chosen four colors or four categories of policies that I'm trying to focus on. First, we have the countries in yellow which have not adopted stem cell policies. And you can see those countries are
BINGAMAN, JEFF: fairly extensive. Next to those are those that have adopted stem cell policies. The U.S, is part of that group. Those are the countries in gray on this world map. The U. S. is among the most
BINGAMAN, JEFF: restrictive of those countries that are in gray, but we do have other countries that have policies that are in that category as well.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Third are the countries in light brown which allow the creation of stem cell lines from leftover embryos in IVF clinics. And you can see those light-brown countries. Passing S. 5 would move the
BINGAMAN, JEFF: United States into that group of countries, with other countries such as France and Canada and Brazil.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: And the final group depicted on this world map are those that are shaded in dark brown. They allow other laboratory techniques to be used to create embryonic stem cell lines. You will notice that
BINGAMAN, JEFF: many of these countries have very strong scientific research programs. And I would particularly mention the United Kingdom, India, and China as part of that. Scientists in these other countries,
BINGAMAN, JEFF: other than the United States, are free to use the type of stem cells best suited to their research, whether they are adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells created before 2001 or embryonic stem
BINGAMAN, JEFF: cells created after 2001. In fact, many countries have been promoting stem cell research because they see this as an opportunity to get ahead in this field during a time when U.S. scientists are
BINGAMAN, JEFF: restricted to less useful stem cell lines.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: For example, the United Kingdom has established a world stem cell bank to collect, characterize, and distribute embryonic stem cell lines to researchers around the world. The United Kingdom has also
BINGAMAN, JEFF: developed a comprehensive national regulatory system that requires researchers to follow strict ethical guidelines. While these regulations may slow research to some extent, embryonic research is an
BINGAMAN, JEFF: area that merits extra care and transparency and oversight. We should not relinquish our duty to uphold high ethical research standards to other countries or to individual States within this country
BINGAMAN, JEFF: or to the market more generally.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Mr. President, I ask an additional 2 minutes.
THE ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Without objection, The Senator is recognized for another two minutes.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Many other countries, including Singapore, Korea, and Australia, also have federally funded centers for embryonic stem cells. However, it will be difficult for the United States to
BINGAMAN, JEFF: capitalize on the research advances that are made in these other countries since federally funded scientists in the United States are restricted from collaborating with foreign scientists who use the
BINGAMAN, JEFF: stem cell lines that were generated after 2001.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Furthermore, we can't leave this important field of science to the private sector alone. We have a long history of bipartisan support for basic science research in this country precisely because it
BINGAMAN, JEFF: does not make financial sense for industries to invest substantially in early-stage research. Any scientist will tell you that human embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, and
BINGAMAN, JEFF: that it has gone more slowly than it would have otherwise gone because of the restrictions currently in place in our own policy. Furthermore, most cell-based therapies, including bone marrow stem
BINGAMAN, JEFF: cell transplants, were first developed in academic research hospitals and have never been widely utilized. This means that Federal funding is even more important for stem cell or for cell-based
BINGAMAN, JEFF: therapies such as stem cell transplants than it is for other types of treatments.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 5. It is an important step to keep the United States a world leader in the field of biomedical research, and it will give hope to many of our
BINGAMAN, JEFF: citizens for the treatments they desperately need.
BINGAMAN, JEFF: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Maryland.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Thank you very much Mr. President, I rise today to speak with some great urgency on the need to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, the bill S. 05.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Mr. President, we must pass this bill because if we do not, the American people will continue to suffer, our brilliant researchers will be discouraged and think about leaving the field of scientific
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: research and, No. 3, we are also outsourcing our intellectual capital because other research is going overseas.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: We have to have a sense of urgency because stem cell research takes a long time to do. We cannot have science on demand or scientists on demand. If we don't act now, we are going to be discouraging
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: very important research and wonderful young people from going into this field.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Every year we wait, we fall 3 years behind in our research ' another time where a patient might have been saved, a family that might not have had to watch a loved one suffer, and also would not have
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: to watch our great ideas going somewhere else.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Stem cell research is very important to the American people. It is very important to Maryland and it is very important to me. I am a firm, clear, unabashed supporter of expanded stem cell research
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: and, at the same time, that this research be conducted under the strictest bio-ethical standards. That is why I like S. 5. This legislation is based on sound cellular biology science and also good,
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: sound ethical principles.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: This legislation is so important not because legislation is important but because it opens more opportunity to do stem cell research. What does that mean? It means that currently the existing law
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: under President Bush restricts stem cell research to adult cells, to some vague 21 lines that are becoming tired and toxic. But under our legislation, it would open it up to embryonic stem cell
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: research where embryos are garnered that are discarded in in vitro processes in which the donors themselves has to make that informed choice.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: What does this do, though? Well, I will tell you, stem cell research is the kind of research that could find a cure for Parkinson's disease, diabetes disease, diseases of the brain and the immune
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: system, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injury. Just imagine if scientists could find a cure for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or if they can't find a cure, to be able to regenerate new kinds of
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: brain cells to give people a cognitive or functioning stretchout. Think about the impact on families, but also think about the impact on our nursing home budget.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Think about research in juvenile diabetes, type 1 diabetes, where little children, every day--whether they are 5 or 9 or 11--have to be testing their blood sugar. They can't eat the way other kids
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: do. They have to watch how they pace themselves when they play ball or do other things so they don't induce hypoglycemia. As they get older and their cells get even more tired, they fear that as they
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: get older they could lose a kidney or lose their eyesight.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: If we could find more breakthroughs in juvenile diabetes, we would give them their childhood back. We would give them a life that has a future full of promise. That's why we are fighting here. It is
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: not about ideology. It is not about party. It is about our American people. And what we invent here could help be saving lives everywhere.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Yesterday, I went to Johns Hopkins University to discuss this stem cell research. I wanted to be sure that I was on the right track: sound science, good, solid ethical frameworks. And I said to the
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: scientists: Tell me what you are doing and tell me what impedes you now working under the Bush framework?
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Well, they gave me an earful. First of all, inspirational--inspirational--in what they are doing in pediatric leukemia, in juvenile diabetes, in multiple sclerosis. And also, just to give an example,
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: in talking to Dr. Doug Kerr, he is working now through stem cells--yes, it is with paralyzed rats--to not only regenerate spinal cord but to have those cells connect to muscle so not only for whether
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: you are regenerating spinal cords that have been injured or severed, but also to connect the muscle so you could walk again. That was the dream of Christopher Reeve. But that is the dream of every
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: paraplegic right now--whether it's come from a diving accident, if you are an athlete, or whether you have been injured in Iraq or Afghanistan.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Wow! Don't we want Dr. Kerr to do what he is doing now and to be able to extend that? But they do not get the clinical trials because they are restricted in the types of cells they can use.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: So we saw a cornucopia, again, of opportunity there. But I said to the docs at Hopkins: Well, why can't we do this with private or State funds? They said: Senator Mikulski, you have to have a
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: national framework. First of all, that's where you get your bioethical guidelines. It is done not while there is one set of guidelines for States that can afford research and that there is another
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: set of guidelines for those that can't. Also, there is not enough in private philanthropic funds to be able to do this.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Private funds function like venture capital. But at the same time, what happens with States? Maryland is now in a bidding war with our $25 million against California. We've got scientists that are
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: leaving Maryland to go to California. Hats off to them. But also, then, we have scientists in Maryland and California who are leaving the country because they can do work in Sweden or Singapore that
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: they can't do in their own country. These are American scientists that want to do their own work in their own country. But we are driving them out with our narrow-minded ideological sense of, you
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: know, politicizing science.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: So we can't do this with State funds, and we cannot do it with private funds. As I said, right now we are outsourcing this to China, to Singapore, to Australia, to Germany. I am not saying there are
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: good countries or not good countries, but what are we doing? We are losing our intellectual capital. We are also losing our young scientists.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Mr. President, yesterday, I talked to a young doctor. I knew him as a resident. His wife was a friend of a friend of mine. I knew him through his residency. Now he is a young doctor, married, with
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: three children. His whole field is diabetes. And he is so eager to do this juvenile diabetic research. He has already started it. He is already good at it. Gosh, maybe he could win the Nobel prize
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: one day. But guess what? There is not the money for the young scientist. And also, the very shackling of what goes on now in these so-called Bush lines, with these ideological guidelines, they
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: cannot do the research. He's gotta think really hard about whether he wants to continue his life dream of finding a cure for juvenile diabetes.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: You see, this man has devoted his life to getting ready to do this, and now his own Government is stopping him--not because he is not smart, not because we don't have the will, but because we have
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: too much ideology and too little money in the wallet.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: We have a President that's given us a framework where research has one hand behind the back. Scientists have been prohibited from doing new stem cell research.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Six years ago, the President restricted Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. And what did it do? It just created an unregulated atmosphere. The result was federally funded stem cell
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: research was halted almost entirely. Stem cell research was done by private entities. A private entity has no Federal bioethical standards.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Now, Mr. President, like you, I'm a sunshine person. I believe that you should have research conducted in the sunshine. That's where you have compliance with bioethical standards. That's why we need
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: to have the kind of national framework where everybody goes by the same rules, by the same time, in the same way. Without national standards, research will be done by the well-heeled, outside of the
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: public eye, with no national scrutiny. This is where I fear dark and ghoulish things can occur.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: I acknowledge the validity of some of the concerns raised by colleagues. But as long as you shove it underground, as long as you shove it behind closed doors, then you're going to get either faulty
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: research or very bad ethics.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: I believe that the legislation pending will remove the restrictions imposed by the President. It will provide the ethical and medical framework we need for federally funded stem cell research. It
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: will create strong ethical guidelines and most of all, it will ensure that we now open the opportunity for even greater and more expanded stem cell research so scientists will now have access to new,
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: fresh stem cell lines which they now don't.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: And what does it mean? Well, I'll you what it means. It means for the United States of America we have heard what the voters said in November. They said: Change the direction of the country. Change
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: the priorities. Come back home, America. Remember what America is. We're the land of the free, the home of the brave, and of discovery. Let's go for it.
MIKULSKI, BARBARA: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senate will receive a message from the president of the United States.
MESSENGERS: Mr. president, a message from the president of United States.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Mr. President Madam secretary.
SECRETARY: I'm directed by the president of the United States to receive a message in writing.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The message will be received and appropriately referred.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The senator from Iowa.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her very eloquent statement and for her strong support of hope and health and healing, as encompassed in S. 5.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, while I await the arrival of our next speaker, I just want to point out that time and time again I hear those who are opposed to S. 5 use the phrase money being used, they are opposed
HARKIN, TOM: to funds being used for the destruction of embryos. Earlier today I had corrected one Senator who said that. I said: Show me in the bill where it is. Well, then other Senators, Senator from Kansas
HARKIN, TOM: and others, have gotten up and talked about not using money for the destruction of embryos.
HARKIN, TOM: I challenge anyone, any Senator to come and take S. 5 and show me anywhere in there where there is one dime used for the destruction of embryos. It's not there. I get the feeling that somehow a
HARKIN, TOM: misrepresentation repeated and repeated and repeated somehow seems to take hold so that people say: Well, there must be money for the destruction of embryos in it. There is not. That is covered by
HARKIN, TOM: the Dickey-Wicker amendment which pertains to appropriations bills, and I am an appropriator, and that is covered there. So none of this money is used for the destruction of an embryo. All it's used
HARKIN, TOM: for is for the research on stem cells that have been derived, which is what is being done today, by the way--which are derived. Now, those derivations can come from private entities or State
HARKIN, TOM: sponsored or wherever, maybe some international, maybe foreign countries, maybe, wherever. But none of the money in our bill, S. 5, can be used for the destruction of an embryo, period. If anyone
HARKIN, TOM: says so, please come and show us where it is in the bill that says that.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I see that the distinguished Senator from Missouri is here and I would yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri. I'm sorry. I yield 15 minutes.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: I probably won't use it all. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on a matter of significant medical, scientific, and personal importance. Today, my colleagues and I have the
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: opportunity to support research which will result in lifesaving cures, research which alleviates pain and suffering, and research which improves the quality of life of millions of Americans. I am
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: speaking about research that will provide some of the most significant medical advances that we have ever seen in the history of mankind.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Of course, I am speaking in the strongest support of Senate bill 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. And I wish to thank my distinguished colleagues, Senators Harkin, Hatch, Kennedy, and
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Specter, for the leadership they have offered on embryonic stem cell research legislation over the last several years.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: In my short time in the United States Senate, I have had the occasion to speak and vote on numerous matters of significant national importance, but not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: heal the sick. Today, we have a chance to set aside partisan politics and support legislation that aims to improve the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. It is a noble cause and one
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: that reminds me of how proud I am to represent Missouri in the United States Senate.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Who would oppose such a cause, and what would their reasons be for such opposition? The opponents of embryonic stem cell research attack it on multiple fronts ' public opinion, scientific fact, and
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: moral grounds ' and the war against embryonic stem cell research is fought in our communities, in the media, and today in this Congress. Unfortunately, the casualties are the medical researchers and
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: doctors who want nothing. These doctors and researchers want nothing more than to cure diseases. That's all they want. They have no grand scheme. There is no big money here. We are talking about
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: curing diseases. And ultimately, the casualties are the patients who would benefit from those cures.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: My greatest disappointment in this debate has been the numerous inaccurate statements made in this Chamber by opponents of embryonic stem cell research. Because this issue was on the ballot in
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Missouri last year, I had the opportunity to learn a great deal about this field during the months that we campaigned for the United States Senate, as this issue was debated in great detail across my
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: State. Let me talk about a few of the misrepresentations that have been made in this debate.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Claim: Adult stem cell research and stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid are adequate and we don't need embryonic stem cell research and there are 72 adult stem cell
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: treatments for human diseases.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: The truth: In the medical journal Science, in July of 2006, Dr. William Neaves of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City and Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University Medical
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: School in St. Louis detail this false claim originates from David Prentice of the Family Research Council. Mr. Prentice asserts that there were over 1,000 ongoing clinical trials of adult stem cell
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: therapies. A review of the record at the NIH Web site that tracks clinical trials, however, showed that Mr. Prentice grossly misinterpreted the data. He searched it for any entry containing the word
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: ``stem'' and counted items such as ``brain stem,'' ``system,'' and ``stem from,'' which is a verb. There were numerous other errors and omissions that served as the basis for this claim. In fact,
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: there are only a handful of clinical trials with adult stem cells, and only nine conditions have adult stem cell treatments that are approved by the FDA.