McCASKILL, CLAIRE: In addition, as the Senator from Iowa so eloquently outlined yesterday, most scientists and patient advocacy groups agree that adult stem cell research is not a substitute for
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: embryonic stem cell research. All research is good, but we cannot substitute an inferior form of research for the type of research that holds the most promise for these elusive cures.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Many organs do not have adult stem cells, and adult stem cells and cord stem cells are not pluripotent. That means they don't have the ability embryonic stem cells do to develop into any type of
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: cell, any type of cell, and therefore their use is limited.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Claim: Tumors are a necessary product of implanting embryonic stem cells. The truth: Tumors will only develop if undifferentiated stem cells are injected into mice. Undifferentiated cells are those
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: that have not developed into their final state. For example, a cell that has not developed into its final state is a blood cell or a bone cell or a nerve cell. In fact, tumor formation is exactly how
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: scientists determine that a cell is pluripotent--in other words, able to develop into a multitude of different types of cells. However, nobody is suggesting that undifferentiated stem cells be
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: injected into humans. The FDA has monitored this question, and there is no evidence that cells differentiated from embryonic stem cells cause tumors.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Claim: The 21 viable embryonic stem cell lines we have currently funded are plenty. It's sufficient. The truth: As Dr. John Gearhart told the Committee on Aging, the federally approved lines are not
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: genetically diverse, meaning we don't have the cell lines needed that will allow us to fully utilize this vital research. Importantly, minorities are the greatest affected group due to the lack of
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: genetic diversity in these cell lines. In addition, many of the federally approved lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. Finally, some of these cell lines are involved in proprietary
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: arguments and are not available for research purposes. Asking America's scientists to work with only 21 viable embryonic stem cell lines is hamstringing them and impeding this important progress.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Claim: This legislation will use tax dollars to fund destruction of human embryos. The truth: Each year, Congress attaches the Dickey-Wicker amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill stating
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: that no Federal funds can be used to destroy human embryos. That has not changed. This bill simply allows Federal funds to be used to study stem cell lines that are derived from human embryos that
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: otherwise would have been discarded. How many times do we need to say it: ``that otherwise would have been discarded.'' Not a dime of Federal money will fund the destruction of human embryos.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Claim: If embryonic stem cell research was such a promising field, it should have produced hundreds of cures by now. Over 30 years of research into embryonic stem cells has proved fruitless. The
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: truth: The first of human embryonic stem cells were not isolated until 1998, and research with embryonic stem cells was not awarded Federal funding until 2002. That was only 5 years ago. To put this
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: in context, from the first research into a vaccine for polio, over 20 years passed before Doctor Salk first developed the first effective polio vaccine. Hundreds of Nobel laureates agree that
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: embryonic stem cell research has great potential for developing cures, but this will take both funding and time. The NIH has provided over half a billion dollars each year in Federal funding for stem
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: cell research since fiscal year 2003, but only a small fraction of those funds has gone to embryonic stem cell research.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Claim: There are unethical â€' inadequate ethical guidelines in S. 5. In fact, this proposed legislation has tougher ethical guidelines than those which currently exist. This legislation provides the
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: ethical framework we need for this legislation. This proposed legislation makes sure that, first, the only embryos that can be used are those which are created for fertility treatments and that are
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: in excess of the clinical need and would be discarded regardless; second, there must be written, informed consent from the donors; third, that donors can receive no financial reward for their donations.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: And these two facts are important to me as I listened to the misinformation about the way we are going to subject women to egg-harvesting and this rampant market of selling eggs on the open market.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Both of those things are prohibited in this legislation. Donors cannot receive financial reward for their donations, and it has to be only eggs that would otherwise be discarded.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: And fourth, the Director of the National Institutes of Health must issue guidelines 60 days after the enactment of this legislation.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Finally, it is interesting to note: some of the 21 stem cell lines that are currently being used for embryonic stem cell research might not even meet the strict guidelines that are contained in this legislation.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Mr. President, families all across America are using medical research to participate in the miracle of birth.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Fact: The process of using medical research to enhance the likelihood of pregnancy produces an excess of eggs. I have heard no claims to the contrary because that's the fact.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Fact: Thousands of these eggs are going to be destroyed. I've heard a lot of claims in this Chamber, but no one is arguing with a straight face that the process of producing eggs for in vitro
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: fertilization does not produce thousands of excess eggs.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Fact: Thousands of these eggs are going to be destroyed. It is just that simple.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Here is the question. This is the question of the day: Is it better to use these eggs to save lives as opposed to throwing them away? It really boils down to that. And ultimately, if some of our
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: colleagues say it is wrong to use these eggs to save lives, then surely these same colleagues must believe it's wrong to throw them away. Where is their legislation outlawing their destruction? In
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: other words, where is their legislation outlawing in vitro fertilization? Because inherent in that process, inherent in that process is the destruction of human embryos.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: I come from Missouri, where we say what we think and we mean what we say. Two of Missouri's finest and most respected leaders have spoken quite eloquently on the subject of embryonic stem cell research.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Senator John Danforth, a former Republican Member of this body, strongly supported the stem cell initiative that was put successfully before voters in Missouri in 2006. An Episcopalian minister,
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Senator Danforth voted many times in this Chamber as a Senator who believed that abortion should not be legal in this country. An Episcopalian minister, Senator Danforth has also worked through the
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: moral and ethical issues he had with embryonic stem cell research. When asked about the equality of a multi-celled embryo in a petri dish and the life of a human child suffering from a debilitating
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: disease, he put it in context by asking simply: If a house were on fire and you had to make the choice, would you rescue a petri dish or a 3-year-old child?
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Doctor William Neaves is the president of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, one of the finest research institutions in the Nation. One of the most spiritual and thoughtful
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: men I have known, Dr. Neaves has studied the moral and ethical implications of in vitro fertilization and stem cell research over the last 25 years with his wife, who is also a bioethicist and an
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: ordained Methodist minister. He struggled with his position on these issues due to his faith and upbringing, but in the end, upon reflection and studying the Bible, he concluded that embryonic stem
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: cell research is morally and ethically acceptable.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: I will close with Dr. Neaves' words:
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Two elements have been pivotal in forming my belief. The first is the biological fact that in normal human reproduction, most blastocysts, or embryos, perish rather than implant in the uterus. The
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: second is Ecclesiastes Chapter 11 Verse 5 in the English Standard Bible:
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Many people of faith believe that research with embryonic stem cells represents a perfectly moral means of fulfilling the biblical mandate to heal the sick. Other people of faith disagree. Should
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Federal policy disqualify a field of research from competing for Federal funds because some Christians object to it? As a Christian who supports this research, I certainly hope not.
McCASKILL, CLAIRE: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, again I want to thank the Senator from Missouri for a very eloquent and poignant statement. I know the Senator mentioned that recently she came off a campaign in
HARKIN, TOM: Missouri. And I know that, in listening to her statement, she is reflecting the wishes and hopes of so many people in her own State who want to make sure we move ahead and find cures and treatments.
HARKIN, TOM: So I thank her very much for her eloquence and for her forthright statement on behalf of embryonic stem cell research.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President, I would now yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the question currently before the Senate regarding whether to allow Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Let me start out my
SALAZAR, KEN: remarks, first, by acknowledging Senator Harkin and the great work he has done in this field. It is beyond a doubt that he is an expert on embryonic stem cell research, one of our national leading
SALAZAR, KEN: experts in terms of health care, and having been an advocate in that area, he is recognized across this country. I admire his work on this legislation, as well as the work that has been put into this
SALAZAR, KEN: legislation by a number of colleagues, including many on the Republican side of the aisle who have joined this bipartisan coalition to make stem cell research a reality for the people of America.
SALAZAR, KEN: At the end of the day, S. 5 is about hope--about hope for over 1 million Americans who today suffer from the trembling caused by Parkinson's disease. It is about hope for the over 1 million people in
SALAZAR, KEN: America who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. It's about hope for the 17 million Americans who suffer from diabetes, including the hope that we should be giving to those young people who are suffering
SALAZAR, KEN: from juvenile diabetes and have to look at a life of having to deal with the difficulties of that illness. It is about hope for the more than 64 million Americans who today suffer from one or more
SALAZAR, KEN: forms of heart disease. So the debate today her on the United States Senate floor is, in fact, about the hope and aspirations of all Americans, including people, many of whom are related to Members in this Chamber today.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President, scientists in America agree that, without a doubt, that embryonic stem cell research holds great potential for curing these and other diseases. It is remarkable that against the
SALAZAR, KEN: conclusive determination of the scientific community, we have the Federal Government in a position where it is actively withholding the financial support that is needed to carry on this very
SALAZAR, KEN: important research for America. Mr. President, that is not the American way. The American way is to open new doors of hope. And we ought to be opening new doors of hope as we will with the passage of
SALAZAR, KEN: this legislation later today.
SALAZAR, KEN: The reason that scientists are so excited about the potential of embryonic stem cell research--and the reason that this kind of research may hold the cure for a whole host of diseases--is that
SALAZAR, KEN: embryonic stem cells have the potential to become virtually any kind of cell in the human body, such as brain cells, heart cells, or cells that produce insulin.
SALAZAR, KEN: The difficult part, Mr. President, of embryonic stem cell research for scientists is controlling the process by which embryonic stem cells become other, more specialized kinds of cells. Much more
SALAZAR, KEN: research into that process is needed. To quote a document prepared by the National Institutes of Health, and I quote, ``the promise of stem cell therapies is an exciting one, but significant
SALAZAR, KEN: technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research.'' End of quote.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President, I believe we need to begin this research as soon as possible. The Federal funding this legislation authorizes will provide a critical boost to that effort.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President, like millions of other American families, my family has been touched by the ache of loss brought about by Alzheimer's disease. My father died of complications related to the disease
SALAZAR, KEN: only a few years ago. At the end of his life, I wanted nothing more than to be able to help ease his suffering that I saw every day as he struggled with Alzheimer's. Now, as I reflect on that
SALAZAR, KEN: difficult time, I think of the families that are currently enduring the same pain mine did, and I want us to be in a position to be able to help them.
SALAZAR, KEN: I trust the vast majority of the scientific community that believes embryonic stem cell research may hold the key to the cures these families are seeking. I also believe that our Government can work
SALAZAR, KEN: to promote this science responsibly by paving the way for treatments that will save millions of lives without destroying others.
SALAZAR, KEN: Toward that end, Mr. President, I believe the legislation passed by Congress last year and before the Senate today represents a measured and responsible step toward tapping into that vast potential
SALAZAR, KEN: that embryonic stem cell research has with respect to finding cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and a wide range of other devastating diseases.
SALAZAR, KEN: In millions of cases, this legislation could mean the difference between a normal life and one that is a life of pain and suffering. In millions of other cases, it could mean the difference between
SALAZAR, KEN: life and death. And by authorizing Federal funding only for research on embryonic stem cells that will never become human life and that are donated willingly, and that otherwise would be discarded
SALAZAR, KEN: into the medical waste baskets, it achieves its objectives without destroying the potential for life.
SALAZAR, KEN: To be sure, support from private funds for this research has been very welcome. But it is simply not enough. I have heard from scores of scientists in my own home State of Colorado--working in
SALAZAR, KEN: university labs as we speak here today, who are trying to find cures for our most devastating diseases--who tell me that the Federal funding of this legislation would authorize and boost their capabilities exponentially.
SALAZAR, KEN: In addition to the practical impact on these university laboratories, however, there is something else to consider. I can think of no other Nation in this world that should lead this research than
SALAZAR, KEN: the United States of America with the strict guidelines that we have contemplated in this legislation.
SALAZAR, KEN: Throughout our Nation's history, America has been the leader, America has been the leader in making monumental scientific strides that have made life easier and better for people in our country and
SALAZAR, KEN: all over the world. In a field with such great promise, and at a time where American competitiveness is at the forefront of the Congressional agenda, I believe we must once again be the global leader.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President, I want to be clear that I also believe we should promote alternative methods of creating embryonic stem cells. For that reason, I will strongly support the legislation with Senator
SALAZAR, KEN: Harkin, who is the chief sponsor on, that we will vote on this afternoon, and I will also support the legislation that has been proposed by my colleagues, Senator Isakson and Senator Coleman, which
SALAZAR, KEN: intensifies research into these alternative methods.
SALAZAR, KEN: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
HARKIN, TOM: Mr. President? How much time do we have remaining on our side?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Senator from Iowa has 37 minutes.
HARKIN, TOM: Okay, Mr. President. I would yield until 3:45 the time to Senator Schumer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Senator from New York.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: Mr. President, first, I rise in strong and profound praise of my colleague from Iowa. He has led this fight dauntlessly, always being both dogged and smart. That is why we are where we are today.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: And I rise in support of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Today, as we stand on the brink of scientific breakthroughs, we cannot let politics pull us backward. A nation, a modern nation
SCHUMER, CHUCK: loses its greatness, its preeminence, when it turns its back on science. That is what history has shown.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: And stem cell research is the key to hope for 100 million Americans and their families who suffer from debilitating diseases. Talk about it any way you want, spin it any way you want, talk about all
SCHUMER, CHUCK: these alternatives; the bottom line is very simple: A ``no'' vote is a vote against science, a vote against the millions anxiously awaiting a cure, a cure for diabetes, a cure for Alzheimer's, a
SCHUMER, CHUCK: cure for Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and other diseases and injuries.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: Unfortunately, we all know someone with a disease such as diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, ALS or cancer who could benefit from embryonic stem cell research. Every one of us has looked into the
SCHUMER, CHUCK: eyes of someone who needs help--in my case, a young mother with a little girl about 5 years old who had juvenile diabetes and said: Senator, the doctors tell me the odds are high that my child could
SCHUMER, CHUCK: be blind at age 20 if we don't do stem cell research. How can we say no to that mother? How can we say no to that child? Scientists are on the cusp of making incredible progress through stem cell
SCHUMER, CHUCK: research, a process that has the potential to cure diseases that have been with us for centuries, like diabetes and heart disease.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: But when their progress was stalled in 2001 when President Bush limited federally funded stem cell research to 19 sources that are viable, every family who had hope was set back. With that Executive
SCHUMER, CHUCK: order, the President shut the door on hope for those families.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: With that one action, the President not only stopped current research in its tracks, he sent a message to future scientists that they should not pursue this line of work.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: As they see a limited funding stream for the work they do, fewer and fewer graduates are specializing in this type of research, and those who are deeply committed to it tend to go overseas. That's
SCHUMER, CHUCK: not a great America--an America that turns its back on science and puts politics in its place. And we want all the best minds in the country to be working together to find a cure for these debilitating diseases.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: S. 5 would answer the prayers of millions of families. It would increase the number of stem cell lines that can be used by researchers who are funded by Federal grants.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: These stem cell lines are not made from new embryos that would be created for the purpose of research. They would not be harvested from women, like some people think. These lines would be made from
SCHUMER, CHUCK: embryos created by couples who were trying to conceive through in vitro fertilization but are not used and are currently destroyed. With passage of this bill, those embryos could contribute to
SCHUMER, CHUCK: critical research instead of being thrown away.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: Let's think about the good that having these new stem cells could do by looking at juvenile diabetes. As many as three million Americans have Type I diabetes, over 13,000 children newly diagnosed
SCHUMER, CHUCK: each year. These children must be injected with insulin multiple times each day, prick their fingers to test their blood sugar as many as six times a day.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: But this doesn't have to be the reality forever. Researchers have already demonstrated they can produce insulin-producing cells from undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. It has the real potential
SCHUMER, CHUCK: to develop a cure for juvenile diabetes, providing relief to the 3 million Americans and their families who are burdened with the implication of the disease every day.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: But without being able to use Federal funding for their research, innovative stem cell research is being relegated more and more to only individuals and institutions that could afford it.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: Because NIH-funded research activities have to be housed in different buildings from stem cell research labs, which has created enormous headaches and financial barriers for researchers in my State
SCHUMER, CHUCK: of New York and has hampered both research on stem cells and research using other methods, unless we vote yes on S. 5, we are not going to make progress.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: The bottom line is that this bill would provide enormous hope to growing numbers of Americans. It would accelerate the movement towards a cure for a number of devastating diseases, while
SCHUMER, CHUCK: strengthening the rules on ethics that must be involved in this research. This is one of these issues that hits home more than anything else. Everyone knows a mother with Alzheimer's, a neighbor with
SCHUMER, CHUCK: diabetes. These are gut-wrenching situations.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: But what's most heartbreaking is to think the President's first veto could stop us from alleviating all of this terrible pain. I urge my colleagues to look into the eyes of a young child with
SCHUMER, CHUCK: juvenile diabetes, to look into the eyes of a middle-aged couple who each has a parent suffering from Alzheimer's. Don't say no to them. Vote yes on S. 5.
SCHUMER, CHUCK: I yield the floor and the balance of my time back to the Senator from Iowa.
ENZI, MIKE: Would the president give us an allocation of time remaining?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Iowa has 31 minutes. 31 minutes. Senator from Kansas has 25 minutes. The Senators from Minnesota and Georgia have 45 minutes.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: With all due respect, Mr. President, we reached an agreement at the end of the previous time that we would equally divide 2 hours, 30 minutes each between Senator Harkin, Senator
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Brownback, Senator Coleman and Senator Reid. We're in the fourth of those 30-minute blocks now, which would be ours. and then we would go to four ten-minute blocks equally divided. Is that
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: correct? But aren't there four ten minute? That happens after this? After the half an hour, okay? So I believe I'm correct, how much of our time do we have left in the 30-minute block?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 45 minutes for the Senator from Georgia.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce for, or to recognize for ten minutes the distinguished senator from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn.
COBURN, TOM: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The senator from Oklahoma.
COBURN, TOM: I listened with interest to the Senator from New York. As a practicing physician and somebody who has delivered over 4,000 children, I cared for both toddlers and young adults with
COBURN, TOM: type 1 diabetes. There is nobody who doesn't want to see that disease fixed. The problem is, we shouldn't promise things that we don't know are accurate.
COBURN, TOM: What we do know is that yesterday on CNN, an article was released from JAMA showing the treatment of 13 young Brazilians who had type 1 diabetes who are now free from using exogenous insulin. They
COBURN, TOM: are on no medicine whatsoever and their sugar is totally controlled. That is just one step going forward in all the areas of medicine.
COBURN, TOM: The other comment I will make before I make my final points is, if you talk to anybody in the area of research on Alzheimer's--Alzheimer's, even though claimed, and we heard it time and time again,
COBURN, TOM: is a devastating disease for individuals who have it, and it is a devastating disease for the families who care for their loved ones with it--I don't know of anybody in embryonic stem cell research
COBURN, TOM: or in research in medicine by themselves who has great hopes for a cure of Alzheimer's with embryonic stem cells. So we've heard that claim time and time again. It is not a great hope for
COBURN, TOM: Alzheimer's. There are hopes. There is beta secretase, which is an enzyme that causes Alzheimer's to be laid down. There are great medicines coming forward. Some are in trials in primates right now
COBURN, TOM: that tend to stop Alzheimer's right in their tracks.
COBURN, TOM: But we ought not to be promising things we don't know or are not realistic in terms of Alzheimer's. That is the case.
COBURN, TOM: I want to sum up where we are, the differences between the two bills. One bill, S. 5, has lots of positives in it. We hear that it's not going to destroy any other embryos, there is going to be a
COBURN, TOM: grandfathering of the embryos that have been created since. We heard the Senator from New York say something different. We heard the Senator from California yesterday talk about the 400,000 embryos
COBURN, TOM: that are frozen today, of which only 2.8 percent are available and less than that number â€' so less than 250 lines â€' could totally be created out of all the embryos that are available in this country today.
COBURN, TOM: So the answers, they're kind of sleight of hand. To have an effective embryonic stem cell program, other than what is provided in S. 30, means we are going to use Federal taxpayer dollars, indirectly
COBURN, TOM: or directly, to destroy embryos. You can say that you are not, but the fact is that will happen.
COBURN, TOM: So what are the positives of S. 30? The positives of S. 30 are that it looks at everything. It looks at all the new and upcoming methods. One is altered nuclear transfer. Number 1, you don't destroy
COBURN, TOM: any embryo, you don't create an embryo, but yet you get identical cells to what an embryonic stem cell would be, totally pluripotent, totally capable of doing everything that an embryonic stem cell can do.
COBURN, TOM: Why is there resistance to that? Why would there be any resistance to that? There shouldn't be.
COBURN, TOM: The second thing is what we call germ cell pluripotent stem cells. Those are made from the testes and ovaries of us, each of us, and we can have treatments designed for ourselves from those. Every
COBURN, TOM: tissue type in the body has now been produced from germ cell pluripotent stem cells, either ovarian or testicular, and again, applying the same pluripotent stem cells as you get from an embryo, but
COBURN, TOM: you never destroy a life.
COBURN, TOM: My friend from Minnesota, one of the coauthors of this bill, makes a great point. Whatever happens at the end of the day â€' right now this glass of water represents what's happening on embryonic stem
COBURN, TOM: cell research with Government funds in this country. There is a whole lot of other research going on with embryonic stem cells outside of the Government. It has not dead stopped. As a matter of fact,
COBURN, TOM: it is advancing forcefully without Government money. But this represents what is there. If S. 5 is passed out of this body and the House, this is what we will see next year: the same amount, because
COBURN, TOM: this bill is going to be vetoed.
COBURN, TOM: However, if S. 30 is passed, what we'll see is this much research, a doubling of the research next year. So one says help people play the political game when we know it is going to be vetoed. S. 30
COBURN, TOM: says let's do something real. Let's really give an answer to the hope. Let's double it up and let's do it in a way that is an ethically good way.
COBURN, TOM: The final point that I would make is to anybody who wants us to do embryonic stem cell research, anybody that has a family member with a chronic disease, anybody that has a child with diabetes,
COBURN, TOM: anybody who has any need that has hope coming from ``embryonic stem cell research,'' the question that I would put forward to them is this: If we can show you the science is going to give us exactly
COBURN, TOM: the same results with never destroying an embryo, what would your choice be--destroy an embryo and get the results or do not destroy an embryo and go one of the multitude other ways to accomplish
COBURN, TOM: exactly the same purpose?
COBURN, TOM: That is the real question that is facing this body. That's the question the American people ask. The science is 2 to 3 years ahead of the debate in this body today.
COBURN, TOM: A lot of times my colleagues accuse me of not making much sense on the floor when I talk about these issues because it is a medical issue, it is a scientific issue. I'm a doctor. I understand the
COBURN, TOM: science, so I tend to not use the words as plainly as I should. But the ethical question still arises: Do you want a doubling of the research to really go forward and answer the very human need that
COBURN, TOM: is out there or do you want to play the political game and have exactly what we have today?
COBURN, TOM: Senator Harkin, that's what will happen if S. 5 goes through. It is going to be vetoed. It will not be overridden in the House. Or we can have S. 30 that does as much or more than S. 5 and we will
COBURN, TOM: see a difference for the American people.
COBURN, TOM: The hope that you talk about will be realized when S. 30 gets passed, when S. 30 gets signed. The President has said he will sign it. It makes available everything we will need and still accomplishes
COBURN, TOM: the same goals but does it twice as fast. That is the real question: Do we want to play politics with this issue? Do we want to say somebody's legitimate position of valuing life, that they have an
COBURN, TOM: illegitimate position because they value life at the expense of somebody with chronic disease, or can they value life, come with an answer that actually accomplishes the same purpose in a better time
COBURN, TOM: frame with better results with S. 30? That's the real question for us.
COBURN, TOM: I understand the political game we are playing. I understand the diseases. But when you really read the basic raw research that is going forward today, we are not even close to what is happening, we
COBURN, TOM: are not even talking about what is happening out there.
COBURN, TOM: Final point. Make sure you understand that if you believe in embryonic stem cell research as a viable ethical alternative, you also have to believe in cloning because the only way you will get a
COBURN, TOM: treatment that is good for you without rejection, without rejecting the very treatment that's being given to you, is for you to clone yourself. That's the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk
COBURN, TOM: about in this debate because once we accomplish with true embryonic stem cells versus altered nuclear transfer, any treatment will require anti-rejection drugs or you having to clone yourself.
COBURN, TOM: Now the language is very specific. No cloning as far as implanting into a uterus, but it doesn't mean you don't clone yourself and destroy yourself to meet a need for you.
COBURN, TOM: So it is a very complicated ethical issue that we ought to be very clear about. It is not just destroying embryos. It is going the next step now to have an effect from that treatment.
COBURN, TOM: I believe there will be good treatments come out of embryonic stem cell research. I don't have any doubt about that. I believe exactly those same treatments will come and be better from altered
COBURN, TOM: nuclear transfer, from dedifferentiation, which is a term that says you take a cell that is more mature and dedifferentiate it back to a pluripotent cell, or from germ cells, either ovarian or testicular.
COBURN, TOM: We can accomplish the desires of everybody that's hurting in our country today who has a hope and do it in a realistic way with S. 30 that really will deliver the goods, deliver taxpayers' dollars to
COBURN, TOM: make a difference. S. 5 will deliver nothing, nothing for at least 2 years, because this President won't sign it.
COBURN, TOM: So the consequence and the question that comes back to us is: Are we going to do something that is meaningful or are we going to play the political game that in the long term has no meaning, at least
COBURN, TOM: for the next 2 years?
COBURN, TOM: With that I yield back my time to the Senator from Georgia.
ISAKSON. JOHNNY: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I would yield up to 15 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Minnesota.
COLEMAN, NORM: Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma, who brings a physician's perspective. We hear so often on the floor of the Senate, I think common agreement that we need
COLEMAN, NORM: to look in the eyes of young kids with juvenile diabetes and say: Are we doing all we can do? My colleague from Oklahoma has dealt with that on a regular basis. And he stands with me, and I thank him for his support.
COLEMAN, NORM: In the end, there is a practical conclusion, as he demonstrated with the glasses of water. If you really want an answer, if you want to look those kids in the eyes, talk to the families of folks with
COLEMAN, NORM: ALS or with heart disease, if you support S. 30, you can look them in the eye and say: Today I have done what I can do to move the science forward, to have additional Federal support for embryonic
COLEMAN, NORM: stem cell research but research which, in the end, is unifying research.
COLEMAN, NORM: Dr. William Hurlbut, who is one of the authors of a technique known as altered nuclear transfer, used a phrase that I borrowed. It is an island of unity and a sea of controversy. That is what S. 30
COLEMAN, NORM: offers, an island of unity and a sea of controversy. There is disagreement in this country about the use of Federal dollars for the destruction of a human embryo. That is a reality. And in the end,
COLEMAN, NORM: scientific advancement should be something that's unifying. It shouldn't be tearing this country apart. You shouldn't worry, if you are going into a hospital for some kind of treatment, whether you
COLEMAN, NORM: have, there is some moral line that has been crossed for you as an individual. You shouldn't have to do that. We shouldn't put people in that position.
COLEMAN, NORM: And the good news is we don't have to. It is fascinating. I think the science has gotten ahead of the politics. I have no doubt, as I listened to this debate, these are people of good will on both
COLEMAN, NORM: sides of this debate, supporting both proposals, but I believe the same ultimate kind of vision to improve quality of life, to enhance scientific research, to put an end to debilitating and
COLEMAN, NORM: threatening disease and illness, that's the kind of common bond we have, people of good will.
COLEMAN, NORM: And I suppose a number of years ago, individuals of good will, good moral background, religious background, do the equation and may have come to a conclusion that they would support the destruction
COLEMAN, NORM: of a human embryo for the opportunity to do good today for someone who is here. It is a line some of us can't cross. We bring deeply held moral perspectives to this issue. I understand others of good
COLEMAN, NORM: faith and strong character, solid religious background and belief, whatever say this is the line, this is the right thing to do.
COLEMAN, NORM: And I heard my colleagues on the other side quote scriptures and pastors and others and then themselves, my friends, of good will, and good heart. In the past, that may have been the only path to get
COLEMAN, NORM: to where we wanted to go.
COLEMAN, NORM: When the Clinton administration looked at this. In fact, this is the language they used. In 1999, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission issued a report entitled ``Ethical Issues
COLEMAN, NORM: in Human Stem Cell Research'' acknowledging that a week-old human embryo is a form of human life that deserves respect. The Commission stated:
COLEMAN, NORM: In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments--
COLEMAN, NORM: Those are the embryos we are talking about here, IVFâ€' in vitro fertilization,
COLEMAN, NORM: is justifiable only, only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.
COLEMAN, NORM: Science has moved ahead of where we were in 1999. I was on the phone a little while ago with a Dr. Landry from, I believe, Columbia University. Dr. Landry talked about a stem cell line coming from
COLEMAN, NORM: dead embryos that has all the capacity, pluripotency of the stem cell lines from fertility clinics. So a ``less morally problematic alternative'' is available.
COLEMAN, NORM: My friend and colleague from Georgia, coauthored this legislation, knows from Georgia experience that scientists worked on dead embryos. I thought about it, and I believe it is part of the 21 lines
COLEMAN, NORM: the President authorized for embryo research. So the work is being done. The reality is there are cell lines available today that are not eligible for Federal funding. That is because we have a
COLEMAN, NORM: policy that says no Federal funding for embryo stem cell research under than the lines the president authorized in 2001. But if we pass S. 30, and S. 30 gets signed into law, then we have available
COLEMAN, NORM: Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that would not be available today.
COLEMAN, NORM: That is then ``less morally less problematic'' because it does not involve the destruction of a human embryo.
COLEMAN, NORM: When we talk about a dead embryo, my colleague from Georgia has done a very good job. My colleagues may have said: It is a dead embryo. What can you get out of a dead embryo? Let me explain two
COLEMAN, NORM: concepts. They are at the heart of this debate. The issue, and I am not a scientist, but I have learned a lot about pluripotency, the capacity of a cell to give rise to many different cell types.
COLEMAN, NORM: Embryonic stem cells, those that have come from in vitro fertilization clinics, they have pluripotency. They have this elastic capacity to recreate any kind of cell. So maybe sometime in the future
COLEMAN, NORM: you can create stronger heart muscles. Today, in fact, with some types of stem cell research, that is being done. Maybe you can grow limbs. Maybe you can cure ALS. There is an incredible capacity, pluripotency.
COLEMAN, NORM: There is also this concept of totipotency. Totipotency is the capability of a zygote or other cell to develop as a complete, integrated human being. The line we are talking about today between S. 5
COLEMAN, NORM: and S. 30 is the line between pluripotency and totipotency. We all support research that will provide for pluripotent stem cells, pluripotent cells that have the capacity to be almost anything.
COLEMAN, NORM: The dividing line, though, is whether you have totipotency, so with a human embryo, cells that are involved in a fertility clinic--I am going to switch charts and talk about a couple of other
COLEMAN, NORM: techniques that involve pluripotency but not totipotency. What we look at with dead embryos are cells that are pluripotent. It's as if, and I don't know if it is a great analogy, but even after death
COLEMAN, NORM: we can harvest organs that have the ability, then, to serve the function you want them to serve. So dead embryos are embryos that have no totipotency but have pluripotency. You can get pluripotent cells.
COLEMAN, NORM: The other approach is an approach known as altered nuclear transfer. And that, by the way--I say ``the approach.'' There are a number of other approaches out there. My colleague from Oklahoma talked
COLEMAN, NORM: about that. I think he talked about dedifferentiation, talked about germs--there are a number of different procedures and techniques that have strong scientific support that allow us to produce
COLEMAN, NORM: pluripotent cells without totipotency. Allow us to produce embryonic stem cells that have all the capacity for research that gives the hope we are talking about without creating a human embryo that
COLEMAN, NORM: does not involve, then, the taking of human life; that does not involve the moral line that many Americans feel is there.
COLEMAN, NORM: Not all. There is a difference in this. That is why I am saying, what S. 30 does is it gives us this island of unity in the sea of controversy. What it does is allow all of us--and I do hope all my
COLEMAN, NORM: colleagues, wherever you are on this issue--support S. 30. Why would you be opposed to Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that advances us?
COLEMAN, NORM: And my colleague from Oklahoma used the two glasses of water. If you support S. 5, all you are going to get tomorrow--in January 2008, S. 5 passes. It passes in the Senate, passes in the House, it is
COLEMAN, NORM: vetoed. We have this much right now--I believe it is about $130 million. That is what this glass represents in research for embryonic stem cell research. Those are the 20-something lines left the President authorized.
COLEMAN, NORM: In January of 2008 you are going to get $132 million of federally funded stem cell research. But if we pass S. 30, what we have then is the opportunity for research in a range of other areas, perhaps
COLEMAN, NORM: doubling and maybe more--I would hope much more--of stem cell research, or pluripotent stem cells, to get the capacity to do all the treatments and everything that provides the hope because that's what it is.
COLEMAN, NORM: We are, by the way, a long way away in reality from human treatments, but it is hope. That is what this bill is, this is the HOPE bill.
COLEMAN, NORM: And just one of the other mechanisms we talked about is altered nuclear transfer. Just to explain, in the natural fertilization process, biology 101, you've got the sperm, you have the egg, you get
COLEMAN, NORM: the fertilized egg, and you get the embryo.
COLEMAN, NORM: In cloning what you have is the egg cell, you take out, you enucleate it--you take out the center. This may come from a fingernail or skin, whatever, a cell with all the DNA, and you insert it into
COLEMAN, NORM: this enucleated egg. You activate it and then you get an embryo. I think that is the way Dolly the sheep, I think, came about.
COLEMAN, NORM: And by the way, my colleague from Oklahoma talked about this. If we are going to do stem cell research from here, and we are going to take this embryo and we are going to create stem cells and we put
COLEMAN, NORM: that into you or me, you are going to have an immune reaction, and you are going to have to your whole life--if you put this in you, you are, for your whole life, going to have to deal with immune
COLEMAN, NORM: reaction suppression. That's what we do with organ transplants. The only way around that is the Dolly approach. If you create stem cells from your own cells there is no immune reaction. But none of
COLEMAN, NORM: us we are not talking about that, although there are those of us who raise the concern: How do you get ultimately where you want to go without that possibility?
COLEMAN, NORM: But then another possibility is what they call altered nuclear transfer. You take the genetic material, the somatic cell, from a fingernail or something, and what you do is before you insert it into
COLEMAN, NORM: this enucleated egg is you touch a trigger mechanism that shuts off the ability to create the embryo, but it still creates an inner cell mass with pluripotent cells, pluripotent cells--the capacity
COLEMAN, NORM: of a cell to give rise to many different types of cells. Do all the research that you want.
COLEMAN, NORM: And so S. 5 provides funding for new stem cell research. It provides the opportunity to do all that one wants to do without crossing the moral line. Why wouldn't we get there?
COLEMAN, NORM: My great fear is that what will happen this year is what happened last year. In the Senate there was a bill, the Specter-Santorum bill, which, by the way, didn't provide for all that we have in S.
COLEMAN, NORM: 30. It did not provide for the dead embryo research. I think it may have provided for some sort of ANT. The good news is that is included in S. 5, but S. 5 is going to be vetoed so that doesn't go anywhere.
COLEMAN, NORM: Last year that passed, 100 to 0, a bill with some alternative measures. But, again, we have gone way beyond last year, this year, in terms of the science.
COLEMAN, NORM: The House refused to hear it. They took an all-or-nothing approach: If you don't support the destruction of a human embryo to do stem cell research we are not passing anything. Where is the hope in
COLEMAN, NORM: that? As you look at this I would then challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to tell their colleagues in the House: Give hope, the hope we have talked about on this floor, the hope
COLEMAN, NORM: that we all agree on, the hope that there is just consensus on that we want to move the research forward. Do not let some kind of politics that I can't understand stop us from moving forward with the
COLEMAN, NORM: opportunity to move research that can produce hope.
COLEMAN, NORM: There are many scientists, many many scientists who have kind of said: Yes, we looked at ANT and we know that it can work and we need to put our efforts into that. And I will read a couple of quotes:
COLEMAN, NORM: Research results suggest that altered nuclear transfer may be able to produce human pluripotent stem cellsâ€'the functional equivalent of human stem cells â€' in a manner that is simpler and more
COLEMAN, NORM: efficient than current methods.
COLEMAN, NORM: That is by Hans Scholer, chair of the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.
COLEMAN, NORM: Another quote: Recently, multiple labs in the United States and from around the world have published or reported experiments in which adult stem cells were converted not to embryos but directly to
COLEMAN, NORM: pluripotent embryonic-like cells. The resulting cells were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells derived from embryos. The techniques used have included altered nuclear transfer, cell
COLEMAN, NORM: fusion and chemical reprogramming. The results were obtained from top scientists in the field and published in the best journals.
COLEMAN, NORM: Markus Grompe, M.D., Oregon Stem Cell Center.
COLEMAN, NORM: One of the things you're gonna hear, you'll read in the paper, it's fascinating in this debate. Those scientists that support just embryonic stem cell research without any alternative, they will
COLEMAN, NORM: tell you nothing else works. This is the whole ball of wax, my way or the highway. Then you have scientists who support these alternatives. And they say, well, no, no, this is the best way to go.
COLEMAN, NORM: we have great -- I think scientists -- maybe it is about federal funding. maybe if you don't believe your way is the only way you're worried you're not going to get the federal dollars. We've got
COLEMAN, NORM: to get past the politics. We've got to get past the petty scientific divisions and simply look at what we have out there and embrace and seize the opportunity to move forward in a way that is
COLEMAN, NORM: cohesive, that gets this nation outside of the culture wars, outside of the battles over federal funding for the destruction of â€' put it aside. We don't have to go there today. We don't have to go
COLEMAN, NORM: there today. Science is offering us a better path.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The time of the Senator has expired.
COLEMAN. NORM: I urge my colleagues, I urge my colleagues to take a look at S. 30, regardless of where you are on S. 5. This is a bill that deserves unanimous support. And in the end, let's work
COLEMAN. NORM: on our friends and colleagues in the House to pass the law so that we have, in the end, one the President will sign, one which offers and delivers true hope. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Who yields time?
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Mr. President, how much of our time remains?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Georgia has 17 minutes.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I will acknowledge, given the agreement we previously made, I think I will only take 5 of those. Is that correct? I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Senator from Georgia is recognized.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And I acknowledge the patience of the Presiding Officer. I know the Presiding Officer was in the chair last night when the Senator from Iowa and I had an exchange. I want to
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: repeat some of what was said, so I apologize to the distinguished Presiding Officer, but in the end I want to try to synthesize what got me to the point of being a part of S. 30.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: In August 2001, when the directive came down, I started learning about stem cells. When the veto took place last year, I wondered what more I needed to know to try to find a way to deal with the
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: concerns of some but the compassion of everyone. And I stumbled upon a professor at the University of Georgia, Dr. Steven Stice. I really didn't stumble upon him; one of my interns, an honor student,
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: directed me to him. He said he was doing research in this area.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: As it turned out, he was operating three stem cell lines, lines BGO1, BGO2, and BGO3. So I went to the university and spent 2 days going through what their research team was doing and the way in
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: which they were derived. I came to learn that Dr. Stice and his team, like teams in California, Wisconsin, and other States who since derived embryonic stem cells this way, derived them from what is
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: known as naturally dead or arrested embryos. Those are embryos that after 7 days following in vitro fertilization stopped cellular division. The embryo itself is clinically dead, as is someone, a
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: human being who is brain dead, although all their other organs are working. But contained within that embryo are stem cells. So it has gone through a natural death, not one at the hands of a doctor
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: or anyone else, and it produces these stem cells.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: After reading everything I could on it, I want to read one sentence from just one study which verified the pluripotency, the undifferentiation, and the independence of those lines. And I quote:
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: “Lines BGO1, BGO2, and BGO3, human embryonic stem cells are, therefore, independent, undifferentiated and pluripotent lines that can be maintained without an accumulation of karyotypic abnormalities.â€
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: It took a long time to practice those last two words and say them right, but what that practically means is exactly what we all seek.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: That is, embryonic stem cells that have the full potential for research, to answer the hope that all of us in this room have expressed today, can, in fact, be derived from embryos that are not
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: destroyed by the human hand but through the natural process of the life cycle.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And so I asked myself this question: I said well, if this is a legitimate debate--which it is a legitimate debateâ€'and if science has found there is a way to derive these stem cells without the
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: destruction of the embryo, and if--which is true--5 of the 21 lines currently exempted by the Presidential order of 2001, are, in fact, 5 ½ years of study side by side with stem cells derived by
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: destroying the embryo, and if we have clear evidence they are undifferentiated, they are pluripotent, and they do not have abnormalities, then this is the answer to thread the needle to solve the problem.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And the White House has acknowledged they will sign the bill. So, Mr. President, with respect for every Member of this Senate who has eloquently spoken on behalf of the hope of furthering research,
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I do not know what the results of the research are going to be, but I know this: If we don't do it, we will never know, and if there is a way to do it and accelerate it and thread the needle, which
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: this does, then I submit we should do it.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: So I would encourage all of my colleagues to support S. 30.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I acknowledge the tremendous work of the Senator from Minnesota and others who have helped on this. I appreciate the time allotted to us in this debate. And in the end, I think the most used word in
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: the last 2 days has been ``hope.'' And there is now a hope that we actually bring about the reality of scientific development for the cure of deadly and terrible diseases and do so in a way that
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: recognizes the natural process of the life cycle and the advancement of the science.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And with that, I yield back our time in this cycle.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And Mr. President, it's my understanding is--I am going to repeat this--it is my understanding that we now have a period of 30 minutes that are open, at which time, following that, each of the four
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: designees will have a closing 10 minutes.
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: And I see the distinguished Senator from Kansas is on the Senate floor. My understanding of that 30-minute division, Senator Brownback, is you would have up to 7 ½ minutes of that 30, and if â€' I'm sorry,
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: I am going to try this. I ask unanimous consent that the next 30 minutes be divided, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator Harkin, 7 ½ under the control of Senator
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Brownback, 7 ½ under the control of myself and Senator Coleman, and then the remaining 40 minutes would be equally divided between the four designees: Senator Harkin from Iowa, myself and Senator
ISAKSON, JOHNNY: Coleman, Senator Brownback, and Senator Reid, and then lastly, the leaders will have 30 minutes equally divided.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
IISAKSON, JOHNNY: From what I understood of that agreement, I think the Senator from Kansas would have 7 ½ minutes, then the Senator from Iowa would have 15, then I would have 7 ½ . Is that fair?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 7 ½ minutes.
BROWNBACK, SAM: Mr. President, if the Chair would please remind me when I have a minute left of my time.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair will do that.