Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Iowa.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. We have to do what we can do sometimes here. Certainly, we have been funding adult stem cell research. Senator Specter and I have made certain of that in our Appropriations Committee.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for the eloquent statement and for her many years of working on this issue and for her support on so many issues dealing with the health of the American people. I thank Senator Feinstein for being a stalwart in trying to break down the barriers we have to embryonic stem cell research. I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I noted as the clerk reported the bill, S. 5, she reported it as an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, and that is what this debate is all about and that is what this vote is going to be about. It is going to be about public health of people in this country and around the world and whether they are going to have hope that they will see a future in which modern medical science can actually overcome and cure things such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, and a host of other illnesses. That is what this debate is about. It is about hope. It is about health. So today begins 20 hours of Senate debate on a bill to lift the administration's restrictions on stem cell research and bring hope to millions of people in this country who are suffering from illnesses such as ALS, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and so many other devastating diseases and conditions. Most Americans probably find it hard to believe we are still arguing about this issue. They want more stem cell research. They have listened to the scientists. They have watched the House and Senate vote overwhelmingly during the last Congress to expand the administration's policy. Then they went to the polls in November and more often than not elected candidates who support stem cell research. So why are we still debating this? The answer, unfortunately, is simple: President Bush used his first--and so far only--veto of his administration to reject last year's stem cell bill and dash the hopes of millions of Americans. So we are back once again. I thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked together on this issue, starting, of course, with my colleague Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He chaired the very first hearing in Congress on embryonic stem cells in December of 1998. In all, our Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee has held 20 hearings on this research since then under the chairmanship of Senator Specter. I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell research, including Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Smith, and Senator Feinstein. So counting Senator Specter and me, there are three Republicans and three Democrats on that list, and this has truly been a bipartisan effort all the way. I thank our majority leader Senator Reid for scheduling this debate and making sure it is one of the first issues we vote on in the 110th Congress. I also thank our Republican leader Senator McConnell for working with us to schedule this debate and this vote tomorrow. Most of all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of families and patients who never gave up, who kept up the pressure to bring this bill to the floor and who were so eager to see S. 5 sent to the President's desk. They have kept the faith and now it is our job to see that they are not disappointed. There is probably one other entity I should thank and that is the House of Representatives, under the able leadership of Speaker Pelosi, which passed this bill earlier this year and sent it over to the Senate. I will talk a little bit later about how our bill differs from theirs, but nonetheless, the bill they passed is a bill that mirrors the same thing we are doing here, and that is to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Under this unanimous consent agreement we have, for information, we will debate and vote on two bills. Make no mistake, however: The only one that matters is S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The other bill is S. 30. This is the one bill that at long last will unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern times. Think of it this way: S. 5, the bill we will be debating and voting on, will take the handcuffs off of our scientists. It will take the handcuffs off so they can now begin to do the research that will lead to miraculous cures and interventions. It is a good time to step back and ask: Why is there so much support for S. 5? Well, I have a letter signed by 525 groups endorsing this bill, including patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups. There are 525 groups in all. They all agree Congress should pass S. 5. Why is that? Because it offers hope. I have a series of charts here which I will point to. S. 5 offers hope. I think this chart illustrates many--not all but many--of the ailments which scientists tell us embryonic stem cells could lead to interventions and cures for, including Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy, anemias, severe burns, leukemia, lymphoma, bone marrow disorders, diabetes, immune deficiencies, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries. That is just to name a few. There are many more, but my colleagues get the idea of how all encompassing the approach would be if we were to get into embryonic stem cell research. It is not just focused on one thing; it is broader than that. It encompasses so many illnesses and afflictions. All told, more than 100 million Americans have diseases that one day could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research. But it is not just Members of Congress saying that. No one should take our word alone. Three weeks ago Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health, appeared before our Appropriations subcommittee. I asked him whether scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the administration's current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said unequivocally: Yes. Now, Dr. Zerhouni is the Federal Government's top scientist in the area of medical research. President Bush appointed him to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health. So it took great courage on his part to say in public we need to change direction on stem cell research, but he did so because it is the truth. This is his quote. This is what the Director of the National Institutes of Health said before the subcommittee: It is clear today that American science would be better served and the Nation would be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell lines. It is not only NIH scientists who believe this way. Dr. J. Michael Bishop, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine, wrote recently: The vast majority of the biomedical research community believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key discoveries related to many debilitating diseases. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health, who just preceded Dr. Zerhouni and who himself is a Nobel Prize winner, wrote in a letter dated yesterday: S. 5 represents an important step forward for human embryonic stem cell research, a new field that offers great promise for the replacement of damaged cells, the understanding of the mechanics of disease, and the development and testing of new drugs. Unfortunately, current Federal policy has not kept pace with the speed of scientific discovery and is today of limited value to the scientific community. I could go on and on. We have a lot of scientists all over this country and the world who agree we should be pursuing embryonic stem cell research because it offers enormous hope for easing human suffering. Some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already supports embryonic stem cell research. Well, here we have an interesting situation in terms of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I have to take my colleagues back in time to August 9 of 2001. In an evening address starting at 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, the President, in an address to the Nation, said we were going to permit Federal funding for embryonic stem cells only if they were derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001. Any that were derived after that we could not fund research on. Well, at this time it was said there were 78 lines, 78 stem cell lines we could use. We know that is less than 21 now and many of these are in bad shape, and every single one of them contaminated on mouse feeder cells, which I will talk about in a moment. I always thought it was kind of interesting and very curious that we had this hypocrisy--I call it stem cell hypocrisy--that before 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, it is morally acceptable to use taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. So if the stem cells were derived before 9 p.m., it is morally acceptable, but if they were derived after 9 p.m. on August 9, it is morally unacceptable. Well, I ask, what is so significant about 9 p.m. on August 9? Why couldn't it have been 8:30 p.m., 9:15 p.m., midnight, or 10 p.m? Well, I think my colleagues get the point. It is totally arbitrary--totally arbitrary. We have to ask ourselves: Why is it that Federal tax dollars can be used on embryonic stem cells derived before 9 p.m.--that is OK--but after 9 p.m., it is not OK? Please, someone tell me why 9 p.m., August 9 is the moral dividing line. It is totally arbitrary. Even with that, we had hoped the President's policy would work, but it hasn't. Here is why. As I said earlier, on that date, the President said there were 78 stem cell lines available. We now know only 21 are eligible. It is not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity scientists need to develop treatments for everyone in the country. What is more, every single one--every single one of these approved lines--is contaminated by mouse feeder cells. What that means is when you take the stem cells and you propagate them, you get them to grow, you do them in a medium. You grow them in a medium. They were grown on mouse cells, mouse feeder cells, so they are all contaminated. Ask yourself: Would you want to take the possibility that somehow mouse cells are getting into your body because of stem cells? No. Many of the 21 lines are too unhealthy. They have degenerated. They are unhealthy. As a matter of fact, I have been told we are down to about right now only four. Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the Director of the NIH Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, said only 4 of the 21 federally approved lines are in common use by NIH-funded scientists. Only four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, another NIH Director, was a little more generous. He said there are six lines in common use. Well, four or six, you get the picture. It is not 78, it is only 4 or 6. Again, they are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. So some stem cell research is taking place, but our top scientists are working with one arm tied behind their backs because of these restrictions. It is having a chilling impact on the scientists who are thinking about entering the field. According to Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the NIH Drug Abuse Institute, the administration's policy is discouraging scientists from applying for NIH funding to conduct stem cell research. In a letter to me last year, she wrote: Despite general interest and enthusiasm in the scientific community for embryonic stem cell research, the limited number of available lines has translated into a general lack of research proposals. So the President's policy, which we have had in effect since August 9, 2001, is not a way forward; it is an absolute dead end for research. It only offers false hope to the millions of people across America and the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated through embryonic stem cell research. Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary time of August 9, 2001. The NIH estimates there are about 400 different stem cell lines worldwide. Many of those lines are uncontaminated and healthy, but they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists. Scientists in many other countries around the world don't face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. We have talked to researchers in England, for example. Our policy makes no sense to them. They cannot understand why stem cell lines derived on one date are fine to use, but if they are derived on another date, they are off limits. I don't understand that, either. I have wrestled with that since August 9, 2001. If you are going to take the position that this is totally morally unacceptable and there should be no Federal funding, then we should have no Federal funding, and there are four or five lines that are now being examined and studied that should not be allowed, either. But I have not seen any amendment from anyone here that would even overturn that policy. It is a shame that we don't open these stem cell lines. Think about it this way. We don't require astronomers to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. We don't tell our geologists to study the earth with tape measures. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available. Again, don't take my word for it. Dr. Story Landis runs the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH. In January, she appeared before a joint hearing of the HELP Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, and my subcommittee. Senator Kennedy asked her whether scientists are missing out on possible breakthroughs under the administration's current policy, and this was her answer: Yes, we are missing out on possible breakthroughs. From a purely scientific perspective, Federal funding of additional cell lines is necessary to advance the field. This is Dr. Landis, head of the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH. So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers true, meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what this bill, S. 5, would do. Under our bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date a stem cell is derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met. I believe it is important to emphasize this: We have very strict ethical guidelines. First, stem cells must come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. There are more than 400,000 embryos right now in the United States left over from fertility treatments that are currently sitting frozen in liquid nitrogen. If the contributors of those embryos--the parents, the moms and dads--have had all the children they want and they no longer need the embryos, what happens to them? Under the policy we have now, there are only two things: You can keep them frozen for the next 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 years, or however long, or you can discard them. That is what is happening every day at in vitro fertilization clinics across the country. Embryos are being discarded as hospital waste. Now, you might be a couple who says: We have had all our children, and we don't want any more. We don't want to keep paying forever and ever to have the embryos frozen. We would like to donate them to stem cell research to maybe help a young person with juvenile diabetes or someone with a spinal cord injury. We would like to contribute those embryos for that research. They cannot do it. It seems to me that at least we ought to be able to allow the couples to donate them if they wish. So the real question is, Do we throw them away or use them to ease suffering? Do we throw them away or allow them to be used with these strict ethical guidelines? I think it is the second choice that is truly moral and respectful of human life. You might even think about it this way. Embryos will be destroyed, people say. The embryo itself--about which, by the way, I will point out there is a lot of misconception. I didn't listen to it, but I read the debate in the House last year. One of the speakers--I think the former minority leader, Mr. Delay, talked about fetuses and about the protection of fetuses. A lot of people think we are talking about fetuses. We are not. We are talking about embryos. I often put a dot on a piece of paper and I say: Can anybody see what I put there? That is just how big an embryo is, which is a few dozen cells. Well, you have to get over this idea that somehow it is a fully formed fetus existing in a womb. That is not it at all. You might say it is alive, it has life--yes, it does--and you should not destroy that life. Well, you might destroy the embryo itself, but in taking the stem cells from it--the cells in the embryo give the embryo life. If you take the cells out and you propagate them and examine them and then maybe use those lines for curing diseases in the future, it seems to me that you are really propagating life, saving lives, and enhancing life by doing that. That is why giving people the choice of voluntarily contributing the cells is truly moral and respectful of human life. The second ethical requirement is that couples must provide written, informed consent. Now, I might point out that some of the 21 federally approved lines that are now in existence--especially the ones from other countries--don't meet that requirement. So we need to pass S. 5 to tighten the ethical guidelines of stem cell research, so there is no question that the embryos were donated properly. Think of it this way. We have Federal money right now that could be going--and probably is-- for research on some stem cells that were provided without written informed consent. So we need to tighten down on that. S. 5 does that. I read the debates of last year on the floor of the Senate and in the House. There was a lot of talk about setting up ``embryo farms,'' that there is going to be embryo farming so that women will take their eggs, or create embryos, and there will be embryo farms. I heard that a number of times. Well, S. 5 prohibits women from being paid to donate their embryos. There is no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go through the donation process against their will. Under our bill, couples cannot receive money or other inducements to donate embryos. Under the present guidelines that now exist from the White House, it just says you cannot receive money. Well, there might be other inducements that may be provided to you to get you to donate. We want to cut that off and say it has to be purely voluntary. So you cannot receive money or any other inducements; you must have written, informed consent; it can only come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded; and there are very strict ethical guidelines. So, again, this year's bill, S. 5, has one significant change from last year's bill that we passed. We passed that overwhelmingly, with 63 votes. But this bill has one difference. It includes the text of last year's Specter-Santorum bill, which passed the Senate unanimously but got tied up in the House and died at the end of the 109th Congress. That bill, which President Bush strongly endorsed, encouraged NIH to pursue alternative ways of deriving stem cells, in addition to our current method. As I have made clear, going back to December of 1998, I support any ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. I believe we should open every door we can in the pursuit of cures. So what we have done in the new version of S. 5 is combine the two bills the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year but did not become law. That was H.R. 810 and the Specter-Santorum bill. By voting for S. 5, the bill before us now, Senators can show they support all forms of stem cell research. Again, the Specter-Santorum bill says open it up and find out all other forms of stem cell research. That was amniotic, placental stem cells, adult stem cells, whatever. I have no problem with that. I think we ought to pursue all of them. But that is the key difference between S. 5 and S. 30--that is the other bill we will vote on tomorrow night, S. 30. That bill puts all its hopes in theories, alternative ways of deriving stem cells that might or might not work. At this point, nobody knows. We do know how to derive embryonic stem cells and how to propagate them. Some research in other countries and private research has already led to stem cells developing into nerve cells and things like that. We don't know about what S. 30 does. S. 30 says to scientists--that is the other bill before us--don't use any of the 400 existing stem cell lines already derived. Instead, put all of your effort into figuring out some new way of deriving stem cells that might take 10 or more years to pan out, or maybe not at all. For example, the proponents of S. 30 will talk a lot over today and tomorrow about stem cells that could allegedly be derived from ``dead embryos''--embryos that are not healthy and have stopped growing. I have to tell you, the idea that we can cure juvenile diabetes, ALS, and Parkinson's with something called ``dead embryos'' doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence. Think about it. If you were treating somebody with embryonic stem cells, would you rather use stem cells that came from an embryo that is healthy, vibrant, and growing or would you rather have them coming from a dead embryo? Ask yourself that simple question. The dead embryo died for a reason: there was something wrong with it. Chances are that the stem cells which come from that embryo are not so great, either. So why does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to curing ALS or juvenile diabetes? S. 5, our bill, by contrast, would immediately make those hundreds of new lines eligible for Federal research, again, as long as they were derived under the strict ethical guidelines we have in our bill. So S. 30, the other bill, might not do any harm, but I don't think it does any good, either. Again, that is why we ought to keep our focus on S. 5. If this year's debate goes like last year's, then we will expect opponents of S. 5 to make a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells. I will listen closely and try to correct those mistakes people might make. There is a lot of stuff out there. Our committee looked at this, and we have had a lot of testimony from scientists at NIH. So there will be a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells. As I have said for the last several years, I am all for adult stem cell research and use. Adult stem cells are already being used successfully in treating several blood-related diseases, and that is great. I am all for it. Let's continue this area of research. But as we now know, and as scientists tell us, adult stem cells have limits. They can't do everything that embryonic stem cells can do. Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to what Dr. Zerhouni, the Nation's highest ranking medical researcher, has to say about adult stem cells. This is what he said before our committee: The presentations about adult stem cells having as much or more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not hold scientific water. . . . I think they are overstated. . . . My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research should be pursued. That is what S. 5 will allow us to do. Most people could care less what cells are used to develop a cure. They just want a cure. So I say let's examine them all. By the way, S. 30, the other bill we will be debating that focuses on deriving stem cells from naturally dead embryos, can be done under S. 5 also or under the Specter-Santorum bill. There are no restrictions on that issue. It is just that S. 30 says that is all we will do. S. 5, our bill, says we will open the 400 lines as long as they meet the ethical guidelines we have established. We will open those 400 lines to federally funded research and everything else, too. They can look at stem cells from naturally dead embryos. They can look at them from adult stem cells, placental, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord--whatever. They can look at them all as long as they meet ethical guidelines. Lastly, we talk all about research, about science, about stem cells, using all the quotes from scientists and others. What it is really about is giving hope to people. It is about helping people who have devastating--devastating--illnesses. This is a picture of Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. Karli is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. I met Karli for the first time last fall with her mother and her sisters. She just celebrated her 12th birthday. She has type 1 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes. When people have this disease, their body stops making insulin, so they have to inject it either through needles or a pump. Here is a picture of Karli Borcherding, age 12, from Ankeny, IA, with 1 month's worth of needles. Look at that picture. There are 120 needles, 1 month. Ask yourself: How would you like to give yourself four shots a day at age 12? Imagine that, four times a day. As Karli says, she never gets a vacation from juvenile diabetes. It is with her wherever she goes--at school, at home, on field trips, on holidays. She told me: My dream is that one day we will find a cure for juvenile diabetes, and I can just go back to being just a normal kid. If adult stem cells could bring Karli a cure, she would gladly take it. But scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years, and they still haven't provided the answer for juvenile diabetes. We can't keep telling people such as Karli that embryonic stem cells might bring them a cure but, sorry, the Federal Government is not interested. Our premier institution of NIH can't be involved. We can't keep telling the millions of Americans who have Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, or spinal cord injuries: Sorry, we know that embryonic stem cell research might ease your suffering, but we would rather do nothing about it. Now is our chance to change that situation. I urge Senators to think about Karli Borcherding and all the people in their lives who could benefit from stem cell research and vote yes emphatically on S. 5 tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend, and I say again, the person who started all of our hearings on this issue in December of 1998. Under the chairmanship of Senator Specter, our subcommittee had the first hearing on stem cell research 1 month after they were derived. Under his chairmanship, we have had 20 hearings. I mentioned that earlier. There hasn't been a more stalwart, informed person in either body, or on the Hill, about embryonic stem cell research than Senator Specter.

Mr. HARKIN. Right.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure, but why is 9 p.m. of August 9 the moral dividing line that Federal funds can be used on stem cell lines? Before that it is moral, but after that it is immoral. I cannot understand that.

Mr. HARKIN. Quite frankly, that is why I don't have any problems with this line of research. All I can say to my friend is that all of the scientists who write me letters and who have weighed in on this issue, and the groups that rely upon scientists and Nobel laureates, they all say that this might be an area of interest, but it doesn't substitute for lifting the ban. I am hopeful. I guess I am a hopeful person. I am hopeful that the President will understand that we are not asking him to cross his moral line. He said repeatedly through his spokespeople, very recently, that the one bright line the President will not cross is using Federal funds to destroy embryos. I wish they would read the bill. S. 5 doesn't provide money for the destruction of embryos. We don't do that now. We have not done it in the past. So, therefore, this bill should be able to be signed because it doesn't provide one single cent of taxpayer dollars for the destruction of embryos. Of course, neither does the bill of the Senator from Georgia; of course not. So that is why I am a hopeful person, thinking that the President or his people will read this and say: You are right. We have stricter ethical guidelines in this bill than exist right now. So I am hopeful. I am hopeful that we can get this job done. Anyway, I just wanted to make one other point tonight before I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. That is what I thought. My proposal is to change the environment. That is what we have to do. I say we have to change the environment. The American people want it changed, the scientific community wants it changed, the head of NIH--former head of NIH and 525 different advocacy groups out there want it changed. Why should one person--the President of the United States--have the say-so of what is moral and what is not moral, depending upon a time?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Brown from Ohio, is here. I yield to him 10 minutes. If he needs more time, I can yield him more.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a good discussion. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Dr. George Daley be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. That is true.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, he pointed out in this letter that sometimes in actual clinical practice even poor quality embryos that might be considered naturally dead can, by in vitro fertilization, give rise to successful pregnancies. He says he also ``cannot envision an ethically acceptable clinical study that would correlate the pregnancy outcomes of enough poor quality embryos to ensure the reliability of criteria for `embryo death.''' He is saying that the quality for in vitro may be different for in utero. Therefore, it might be a poor quality in vitro, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be poor quality for implantation in utero. He raises this ethical question. He says: I am skeptical that we can devise any highly reliable criteria to define embryo death that will appease the critics of embryonic stem cell derivation. What you are talking about is the Gardner principle, which has to do with what embryos they implant. That is what that really has to do with. So therefore, sure, you are going to take the healthiest, most vibrant embryo that you are going to implant, first of all, with the hope that it will develop. I still say to my friend that while you can take the ones that don't develop after a week or so and say we will take the stem cells from them--and some happen that way. That is fine. But it just sort of begs the question, if you really want to derive the best stem cells, why wouldn't you use the healthiest embryos rather than the sickest embryos? I am not a scientist, but to me it seems that if you want the best, most vibrant and healthy stem cells, you go after the most vibrant and healthy embryos that have been frozen in vitro fertilization, as our bill says, that otherwise will be discarded. That is my point. I will soon yield. But I am not opposed to the Senator's bill. I am not opposed to looking at this kind of stem cell derivation. I don't have a problem. I think there are problems defining exactly when it dies and that kind of stuff. But if you pass S. 5, that takes care of all that, and it covers that whole issue. It would seem to me, again, that you would want to go after the healthiest and use the healthiest ones.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I wish we could do more of this on the Senate floor. By having respect for one another's opinions and thought processes and sources of information, I think we can get a clearer understanding of where people are coming from. Lots of times we give our speech and leave and nobody is around discussing anything. Some of the best times I have had on the Senate floor were debating Phil Gramm of Texas. We used to get into some good debates. He was always willing to give and take and talk back and forth in a congenial manner. We need more of that on the floor of the Senate. That is just my opinion. Mr. President, I want to say one other thing that came up. Again, it has to do with understanding these kinds of moral lines, so to speak. It is true that we all started out as an embryo. I want to remind people what an embryo is. It is a blastocyst that has between 100 and 200 cells. The embryos we are talking about in S. 5 are sitting in in vitro fertilization clinics and are frozen in liquid nitrogen. They are smaller than a period at the end of a sentence, and they are stored in tiny straws like this. What I am holding up here is one of the devices used to store embryonic stem cells in liquid nitrogen. They take this top off here, if I can get it off. They have a little tube like this. In this tube, the opening of which is about as big as the end of a period at the end of a sentence, they would put in that little tube an embryo. Then they would put it in this enclosure and put it in liquid nitrogen in a tank and freeze it. Then if the couple who donated the embryos were unsuccessful in having children--I have a couple friends of mine who are now doing that, and their first pregnancy wasn't successful. They were going back for a second. They get one of these frozen embryos, thaw it out, and it is implanted in utero. So that is what these tiny little straws are. An embryo will never become a human being unless and until it is implanted into a uterus, takes hold, and develops. Sometimes they are implanted and they don't take hold; they are discharged. So an embryo is what I think we can rightfully call potential life-- potential in that if it is implanted and takes hold, it could become a human being. Therefore, it is potential. Let's look at another chart. This is Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. She is 12 years old and has type 1 diabetes. These are all the needles she uses in 1 month, 120. Think: How would you like to give yourself four shots every day? Look at all those needles she goes through every month at 12 years of age. Karli has juvenile diabetes, as I said. She knows what will happen if she is not cured. At some point in her life, she will probably become blind. She will probably lose a foot, a leg, or one or more of her limbs. At some point in her life, diabetes will take her. This is not potential life. This is real life--a human being living right now. That embryo stored in liquid nitrogen, is it alive? Of course. It is not dead, it is alive. Is it a human being? No. It is a potential human being. Karli Borcherding is a real human being. So read S. 5. Under the ethical guidelines of this bill, NIH can fund research only on those embryos which are left over from in vitro fertilization and which would otherwise be discarded. Every day, fertility clinics discard unwanted embryos. Last year, 50,000 babies were born to couples who wanted to have a baby, couldn't, and wanted in vitro fertilization. Out of those 50,000, a lot of embryos are left over. When a couple has had one child, two, three--however many they decide--and they have leftover embryos, what happens to them? The clinic calls them up and says: If you want to keep them, you have to pay us every month. Parents may say: We don't want them anymore, we have had all our children. And if you are not willing to pay to keep them frozen for the next 200, 300, 400, 500, 1,000 years or however long, they are discarded. It happens every day of every week of every year. What we are saying and what the real question is, as long as we have leftover embryos, is it better to have them discarded and flushed down the drain or used for the kind of scientific research that would one day cure Karli Borcherding? What we are talking about is potential life, potential life frozen in nitrogen, or we are talking about real life. That is really the difference--potential life that would otherwise be flushed down the drain versus Karli Borcherding and her real life. That is why I think Senator Hatch had it correct. He said the real pro-life position is S. 5. That is the real pro-life position. As I have said before, once an embryo is discarded in an in vitro fertilization clinic, it is discarded. It is dead. But if that embryo was taken and the stem cells are taken out and those stem cells are propagated, they are alive. They don't die; they are alive. They continue to be alive. They are developed into nerve tissue, bone tissue, heart muscle tissue that some day--or they could be developed into the kinds of cells that would help Karli Borcherding become insulin free. That is what this debate is about. It seems to me, if this is a moral problem for the President or anybody else, we ought to have legislation that would shut down every IVF clinic in this country. Shut them down and ban the procedure in the United States because there are leftover embryos. If it is immoral to take those embryos, even with the written, informed consent of the donors, with no money changing hands, and if they are going to be discarded anyway, if that is immoral, wouldn't it be immoral to just discard them? But you have to do one or the other. Senator Brownback talked about adoption. I am all for that. That is fine. If couples want to adopt babies from in vitro fertilization clinics, that is fine. But as I said, we have 400,000 frozen embryos right now; 50,000 babies born every year from IVF. I think we have had, what, 135 adoptions. That is fine. They can be adopted, and there may be a lot of donors who have donated embryos. They have had their children, but they really don't want to have other people having their children. That raises other kinds of ethical questions. They might want to say: We would rather donate that for stem cell research to save Karli Borcherding's life. We have to come to grips with this issue. Is it OK to have IVF clinics, is it OK to have in vitro fertilization? If that is the case, then we have to take it step by step and confront reality. The reality is in vitro fertilization is legal, it is acceptable. It provides couples with children they otherwise could not have, and the reality is that there are leftover embryos. We have to confront that reality. What do you do with them? They are not all going to be adopted. We have to agree that is an impossibility. So are they going to be discarded or with the consent of the donors be used for embryonic stem cell research? That is really the question. I think there is really only one answer, and that is what all the scientists--I say all, the vast majority of scientists, Nobel laureates, the head of NIH, the former head of NIH, 525 advocacy groups representing all diseases and injuries in the United States that you can imagine, why they all say that S. 5 is the bill we have to pass, that we have to enact into law to take the handcuffs off our scientists. That is why it is so important we have a good solid vote for this bill tomorrow. With that, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his patience and his kindness. I yield back whatever time we have remaining on our side for today's purpose.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, it is a good debate. We should have more of these kinds of exchanges on the Senate floor. I respect my friend, and I respect his approach. Again, we have our differences in the way we approach things. I picked up on one word my friend just said--the ``environment'' in which we are operating. I assume he means the environment being the Presidential declaration of August 9, 2001, that only Federal funding could be used for stem cells derived prior to 9 p.m. but none after that. I assume that is the environment we are talking about.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as long as I do have the floor, I thought I might at least talk about the resolution we just considered, S. Res. 145. Senator Grassley and I cosponsored it. It is congratulating Zach Johnson on his victory in the 2007 Masters tournament. Basically, I might as well read it. It is not that long: S. Res. 145 Whereas, on April 8, 2007, Zach Johnson, a native Iowan, won the Masters Tournament at the Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia; Whereas, the Masters has been won by some of golf's greatest champions, including Byron Nelson, Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and many others; Whereas, Zach Johnson's final round of three-under-par 69 for a total score of 289 was two strokes better than that of any other competitor; Whereas, in a final day on which six different players led, Zach Johnson showed great skill, patience and will to withstand the challenge of the weather and the course; Whereas, Zach Johnson is the first Iowan to win the Masters, and the first Iowan to win a major championship in golf since Jack Fleck's playoff victory over Ben Hogan in the 1955 U.S. Open; and Whereas, Zach Johnson has brought great pride and honor to his family, friends, and the citizens of Iowa with his victory: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate congratulates Zach Johnson on his outstanding accomplishment in winning the 2007 Masters golf tournament.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remaining time in morning business.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 143, submitted earlier today.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, or today, the debate with respect to the stem cell bills be in alternating segments of 60 minutes as follows: Sixty minutes under the control of Senator Harkin or his designee; the next 60 minutes under the control of the Republican leader's designee, Senator Coleman; the next 60 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; and then the next 60 minutes under the control of Senator Brownback; and continuing in that alternating fashion until 9 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 140, submitted earlier today.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 3 p.m., in both closed and open sessions, to receive testimony on overseas basing plans, military installation, environmental and base closure programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 91, H.R. 137.