Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. How many people have been cured of juvenile diabetes with this?

Mr. HARKIN. Is it not being done in the United States?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. I am not intimately knowledgeable of all of the nuances in research that is being done. We had hearings, and we have the information in our hearing record on a lot of that. Standing here now, I don't know all of that.

Mr. HARKIN. Have any of these findings been published?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from the American Society for Cell Biology. The letter was sent to Senator Hatch, dated July 17. It says: The Senate will shortly be considering legislation to permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund research with additional and new and existing human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. As staunch supporters of biomedical research and particularly research with hESCs, we trust that you will exert your influence to ensure passage of H.R. 810. Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on you and like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage. The President must also be persuaded not veto this legislation for if we continue on the path he set five years ago, United States investigators will be out of the running in coverting embryonic stem cells into important new therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant funds for research with the hundreds of hESC lines generated outside the United States or generated in this country with private funding. I note there are 27 leading scientists on this letter, 17 of them having received the Nobel Prize for medicine in one form or another. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my time is up. Again, this is going to be a good debate, a good airing of the issues. Tomorrow we will vote on this bill and send it to the President. I am hopeful that the President, after reviewing it and looking at what happened in the past--the new things that have come to light because of the mouse feeder cells and the contamination of those lines--will sign the bill and give real hope to millions of Americans. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association, Washington, DC, July 12, 2006. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators: The ALS Association (ALSA) strongly supports the Senate's consideration of legislation to advance stem cell research. We are grateful for the bipartisan efforts of Senators to bring this important issue up for a vote before the August Congressional recess and are particularly appreciative of the leadership on this issue demonstrated by Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-

Mr. HARKIN. I would appreciate that.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from a number of different groups endorsing H.R. 810. It is patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific institutes, religious groups, and others. There are 205 groups listed here. I will not go through all of them, obviously, but I think it is important that all of these groups be laid upon the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Specter on an exemplary opening statement on this 2-day debate we will be engaged in and also thank him, as I will in my formal statement, for his leadership over the past several years on so many issues of health care, and this one in particular. I am proud to join him in this effort, as I have for the last year, to try to get H.R. 810 to come up. Mr. President, we have waited a long time for this day to come, I think too long. We could have and should have voted on H.R. 810 more than a year ago after it passed in the House with a strong bipartisan majority. So we have lost some valuable time. But more to the point, America's best medical researchers have lost valuable time. But be that as it may, H.R. 810 has finally come to the Senate floor, and we will vote on it tomorrow afternoon. I thank majority leader Bill Frist for brokering the agreement to make this vote possible. It took courage for him to announce last summer that he supports the bill. And it took courage for him to schedule this vote. I have already commended him privately, and I commend him publicly as well. Again, I thank Senator Specter for leading the effort to promote stem cell research for so many years. He chaired the very first hearing in Congress on embryonic stem cells, as he said in his remarks, in December of 1998. And, again, just repeating what Senator Specter had said--but for the sake of emphasis--our Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee has held 18 hearings on this research since then. Senator Specter and I also introduced the very first bill in Congress on stem cell research in January of 2000. So Senator Specter and I have traveled a long road together, and I thank him for being such an extraordinary leader and partner in this effort. I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell research: Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Smith, and Senator Kennedy. Counting Senator Specter and myself, there are three Republicans and three Democrats on the list who have led the effort to bring up H.R. 810 and pass it, and it has been a truly bipartisan effort all the way. 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 are so eager to see H.R. 810 sent to the President's desk for his signature. They have kept the faith. Now it is our job to see they are not disappointed. Under the UC agreement, we will debate and vote on three bills. But make no mistake, the only one that really matters is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This is the one bill that, at long last, will unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern times. So, as we begin this debate, it is a good time to step back and ask: Why is there so much support for H.R. 810? Hundreds of patient advocacy groups have endorsed the bill; so have dozens of Nobel Prize winning scientists, dozens of research universities, and, I might add, so has the American public. Polls now show that 72 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research--72 percent--compared with 24 percent who oppose it. That is a 3-to-1 margin. So the American people--three out of four--are in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Why? Well, the answer is very simple. Embryonic stem cell research offers real hope--real hope--for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, real hope for people with Parkinson's, real hope for people with spinal cord injuries, real hope for people with heart disease, real hope for people with diabetes, real hope for people with cancer, real hope for people who suffer from autoimmune diseases such as lupus. All told, more than 100 million Americans have diseases that one day could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research. Here is just a brief list of them: cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, birth defects, severe burns-- millions of Americans who could be cured or helped with stem cell research. But it is not just Members of Congress who are saying it; we have asked top scientists. Senator Specter and I sent letters to the National Institutes of Health last week. Senator Specter referred to that in his remarks. We asked their top scientists for their thoughts on stem cell research. Every single one of them said embryonic stem cell research offers enormous potential. We asked 19 NIH scientists-- heads of the different individual institutes--and all 19 agreed. Here is what Dr. Zerhouni, the NIH director, wrote to us: Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease. This is from Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the director of the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. She wrote: Embryonic stem cell research has vast potential for addressing critical health [care] needs. And it is not just NIH scientists who believe this way. In a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1989, he writes: 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. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Scientists agree: embryonic stem cell research offers enormous hope--real hope-- for easing human suffering. Now, some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already supports embryonic stem cell research. What about the speech the President gave 5 years ago? Well, let me try to explain the President's policy as was enunciated 5 years ago. He gave the speech on August 9, 2001. I remember it well. I was listening to it. I was on the road. I was listening to it on the radio. The President, at that time, said that federally funded scientists could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the stem cells had been derived prior to 9 p.m., August 9, 2001. Well, I thought to myself at the time--and I have thought since--that is rather odd. It is morally OK to do research on stem cells derived before 9 p.m., but it is not morally acceptable to do research on stem cells derived after 9 p.m.? Well, I thought to myself, why not 9:05? What about 9:15 p.m. or 9:30 or midnight? Why was 9 p.m. the magic cutoff hour on August 9, 2001? Well, clearly it was totally arbitrary. That just happened to be when the President gave his speech. But for whatever reason, the President said only those lines derived by 9 p.m. August 9, 2001, were eligible for federally funded research. At the time, after I checked into it, some of us were hopeful that the policy would work. But it has not, and here is why. When President Bush announced his policy, he said 78 stem cell lines were available. Many people thought 78 stem cell lines might be enough, might have enough genetic diversity to actually do the kind of research we needed. But as the years progressed, we found that only 21--only 21--of the approved lines are actually available for study; not 78, only 21. We found out something else I did not know at the time. All 21 of these lines are contaminated by mouse cells. In other words, the embryonic stem cells were grown on mouse cells, so they are contaminated, making it highly unlikely ever to be used for any kind of human therapy. I ask: Would any of you want to have stem cells used for your illness if they were contaminated with mouse cells? I do not think so, and neither do the scientists. And the other thing we found out is that now many of the 21 lines are too unhealthy to use. They have actually become sick. Dr. Nabel of the NIH Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute wrote to me that only four of these lines are in common use--four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, another NIH director, director of the general medical sciences, said there are about six lines in common use. So what is happening now is that these policy restrictions are making our scientists work with one arm tied behind their back. It is having a chilling impact on scientists thinking about entering the field. Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the NIH Drug Abuse Institute, said it is stifling interest in research. She said: 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. Well, if you are a research scientist at one of our hundreds of universities around the country, and you are eligible for NIH funding, would you want to do research on only four lines that may not lead to anything? Would you put in a proposal to do that? You could be one of our budding genius researchers. You might want to put your efforts and endeavors into something else rather than a dead-end policy. So I submit that the President's policy is not a way forward, it is a dead-end street. It offers only false hope--false hope; not real hope, 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 deadline of August 9, 2001. These lines are uncontaminated. They are healthy. But they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists. I do not mean just scientists who work at NIH; I am talking about all the scientists who work in all of our universities and research institutions across America. They are off limits--off limits. They cannot use it. It is really a shame. I was listening to Senator Specter earlier talk about some of the earlier pronouncements, some by the Catholic Church, back in the Middle Ages, some by--he mentioned another Calvinist Church--I don't know who all he mentioned--but the views at that time and how we look back and say: How could they have been so blind to prohibit certain activities, such as using cadavers for scientific experimentation to learn how the body works so we could perhaps cure illnesses and diseases? I was listening to that, and I thought: We have new stem cell lines, uncontaminated with mouse feeder cells, healthy, ready to go. Scientists cannot use them. And I thought: We do not require astronomers today to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. We do not tell our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available. And, again, I would not want anyone to take just my word for it. I think Dr. James Battey knows more about stem cell research than anyone at the National Institutes of Health. He runs the stem cell task force there, and this is what he wrote when I asked him whether it would help our scientists to have access to more stem cell lines. Here is his direct quote: The more cell lines available for study, the more likely a cell line will be maximally useful for a given research, and potentially clinical, application. For this reason, the scientific community would be best served by having a greater number of human embryonic stem cell lines available for study. That is from a letter to me from Dr. James Battey, chair of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, dated July 13, 2006. Dr. Volkow of the Drug Abuse Institute was even more blunt. She wrote: Access to a wider array of embryonic stem cell lines would definitely increase scientific opportunity and the chances of breakthrough discoveries. I should note that scientists in many other countries around the world do not face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. When you talk 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. They do not have arbitrary barriers like that in England, and that is a big reason so many of the major advances in stem cell research are happening there rather than in the United States. So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers real, meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what H.R. 810 would provide. Under this bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line regardless of the date it was derived as long as strict ethical guidelines are met. I think it is important to run through some of those ethical guidelines. First, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. As Senator Specter pointed out, there are more than 400,000 embryos in the United States left over from fertility treatments that are currently sitting frozen in storage. The moms and dads have had all the children they want; they no longer need any more of these embryos, and most of them will be discarded. It happens every single day at fertility clinics around the country. People have used in vitro fertilization, had their children, and they don't want any more. Rather than continue to pay the facility to store them and freeze them, they call up and say we don't want them anymore. The facility discards them. It happens every day. All we are saying is, instead of discarding them as leftover embryos, let's allow couples, if they wish, to donate them to create stem cell lines that can cure diseases and save lives. The choice is this: Throw them away or use them to ease suffering and, hopefully, cure diseases. It is the second choice that I believe is truly moral and truly respectful of human life. Again, I have to emphasize, as I will today and tomorrow time and time again, H.R. 810 does not create any new embryos. Not one new embryo will be created under H.R. 810--only those left over in in vitro fertilization clinics, and only if the moms and dads give their written consent. As I said, the second ethical requirement requires them to provide informed written consent. Again, a lot of people don't realize this, but the President's policy is a little fuzzy on the matter of informed and written consent. Some of the 21 federally approved lines-- especially those coming from other countries--don't meet that requirement. So we need to pass H.R. 810 to tighten the ethical guidelines on stem cell research, so there is no question that the embryos were donated voluntarily. Finally, H.R. 810 prohibits anyone from being paid to donate embryos. There is no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go through the donation process against their will. So no money can change hands. The three ethical guidelines, to repeat, are: One, we can only use excess embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics; second, there must be informed written consent for the donation of those embryos; and third, no money can exchange hands to pay for any of these. Let me address one more issue, and that is the matter of the so- called alternative ways of deriving stem cells. Some opponents of this will speak today and tomorrow and argue that we don't need to pass H.R. 810. Instead, they say, we should put our current stem cell research on hold in hopes that some new way of deriving stem cells will pan out some time, hopefully, in the future. That would be a tragic mistake. I support any ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. In fact, Senator Specter and I included language in our appropriations bill last year urging NIH to support research on alternative ways of deriving stem cells. But not one of these so-called alternative methods has ever succeeded in producing a stem cell line. Right now, they are just theories. Maybe one day, 5 years or 7 years or 10 years or 15 years from now, one of these methods will pan out. But maybe not. I think this chart tells the story. The NIH estimates that there are about 400 stem cell lines worldwide, almost all of which were derived after the President's arbitrary cutoff date of August 9, 2001. Every one of these lines was derived the same way, using embryos that were left over from infertility treatments that would otherwise have been discarded. So you see on the chart ``stem cell lines derived using current method,'' and we have about 400 stem cell lines worldwide. Now, how many lines were derived using unproven alternative methods? Zero. It is 400 to zero. Yet we will hear today and, I think, tomorrow from some who say we should pass other bills. We should not use the proven method we have, but we should go to alternative methodologies. We know right now that zero stem cell lines have been derived from using those alternative methodologies. Again, should we pursue these alternative methods? Of course. This is no prohibition against that. We should open every door we can in the ethical pursuit to cures. But meanwhile, people we love are dying from Parkinson's and ALS, and children are suffering from juvenile diabetes. Should we say wait another 5, 7, or 10 years and see if we can derive stem cells from these alternative methods? Maybe we can, maybe we cannot. If we cannot, what do we do then? Say the doors are all closed? Meanwhile, we have many stem cell lines derived from leftover embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics. Another point about the alternatives bill. Even if Congress were to pass it and the President signs it, it has absolutely no impact on the progress of stem cell research. That is because the other bills we are voting on here don't authorize anything NIH cannot do already. We had a hearing. Senator Santorum, the author of that bill, was at the hearing. We had people from NIH. Senator Durbin was there and he asked the question: Can you tell me whether S. 2754-- which is another one of the companion bills we will be voting on tomorrow-- authorizes research on stem cells at the NIH that currently is not permissible or legal? Dr. James F. Battey at NIH said: No, it does not. That was on June 27 of this year. So the alternatives bill, S. 2754, might not do any harm, but it doesn't do any good either. It just says, NIH, you can do what you can already do. Well, that is fine with me; I have no problem with that. But don't be fooled into thinking that S. 2754 somehow takes the place of H.R. 810. It doesn't. That is one more reason we need to focus on H.R. 810. In closing, my nephew Kelly is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. He has been a quadriplegic for about 27 years since suffering a spinal cord injury in a terrible accident while he was in the U.S. Navy and serving on an aircraft carrier. Kelly's hope has been that sometime scientists will finally find a way to mend his spinal cord so he can walk again. He has been following very closely the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research. His hope, like the hope of Christopher Reeve's, was--we all remember him, our first ``Superman''; he fought so hard for embryonic stem cell research before he passed away. They both hoped embryonic stem cell research would lead to a breakthrough that would allow them to walk again. Kelly asks all the time: When is the Senate going to vote on H.R. 810? You know, we have seen the videos of mice whose spinal cords have been damaged so they could not walk and were treated with stem cells from other mice and they are now walking again. As Christopher Reeve once said after reviewing the video of one of these white rats that could not walk but was given stem cells and now was walking, ``Oh, to be a rat.'' Well, after more than a year of prayers and pressure, my nephew Kelly and millions of other Americans suffering from disease and paralysis will get their wish. I am optimistic that we have the 60 votes necessary to pass H.R. 810 tomorrow and send it immediately to the President's desk. There are a lot of stories. I am sure we all have family stories such as my nephew's. Here is a letter from the ALS Association--the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association, also called Lou Gehrig's Disease. It says, in part: The advancement of stem cell research is vital for people such as Roger Gould from Ames, IA. ALS has steadily eroded Roger's ability to control muscle movement, limiting his ability to speak, walk, move his arms, and lead the type of life most all of us take for granted. Ultimately, the disease will take his life. Stem cell research provides promise to people such as Roger and his wife Cindy that one day an effective treatment for ALS will be found. It also gives hope to thousands of others that ALS no longer will mean death in an average of 2 to 5 years after diagnosis; that one day we may be able to prevent ALS from taking the lives of people such as Rob Borsellino, a nationally recognized columnist from Des Moines, IA, who lost his battle against ALS last month, a year after his diagnosis. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. There is a good colloquy. I would further ask the Senator from Oklahoma--this has been done for 3 months--do we have any data to show that this does cure juvenile diabetes? Does it abate it somewhat? I don't know what the outcomes have been for these eight or nine people.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Again, those are advocacy groups and scientific associations--590. How about the American people? Three out of four Americans agree: support stem cell research. The question asked in a national poll: Do you support embryonic stem cell research? Seventy-two percent of Americans said yes. Seventy-two percent. That is pretty overwhelming. I heard the distinguished Senator from Ohio here just a few moments ago say that one of the reasons he was opposed to the bill was because we wanted to do things that would not divide Americans. He thought this would divide Americans. Divide Americans? Seventy-two percent are in favor of it. Over 590 different advocacy groups expressing support, and 205 other disease-related groups all in support. This doesn't divide America at all. Of course, there is always going to be somebody opposed to something around here. But I haven't seen anything that received this much overwhelming support in a long time. As a matter of fact, passing embryonic stem cell research, H.R. 810, will pull Americans together in the fight against disease. And it is bipartisan. As I said, the bill passed the House bipartisanly. The sponsors of the bill itself were three Republicans and three Democrats. It was stated earlier today a couple of times about a letter that former First Lady Nancy Reagan had written. I thought I would have it blown up and put on a chart for people around the country to take a look at, just to show you how this has nothing to do with partisanship. It shows it is from the office of Nancy Reagan dated May 1, 2006, a letter to Orrin Hatch, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was one of the cosponsors of this bill. It says: Dear Orrin: Thank you for your continued commitment to helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope to so many. It has been nearly a year since the United States House of Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that would open the research so we could fully unleash its promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific progress to help their loved ones, the wait for U.S. Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend. I understand that the U.S. Senate is now considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can count on friends like you to help make sure this happens. There is just no more time to wait. Sincerely, Nancy. When you have seen a loved one suffer from Alzheimer's--I am sure as Mrs. Reagan watched the former President suffer from Alzheimer's--it motivates you to say: Whatever we can do to advance the research, to hopefully get a cure someday, that is what we should do. For those of us who have friends who have Parkinson's disease, those of us who have seen friends and loved ones die of Lou Gehrig's disease, for those of us who have members of our family or close friends who have had spinal cord injuries, this motivates us to do everything humanly possible to expand this field of research. My friend Christopher Reeve said, one time when we had watched a film of a rat, a white mouse or white rat, that had its spinal cord damaged so it couldn't walk and then it received embryonic stem cells and then it walked again, Christopher Reeve, former Superman said, ``Oh, to be a rat.'' It holds so much promise, embryonic stem cell research, to ease the suffering and the pain of so many people. I hear today talk about we have to do adult stem cells; maybe there is not enough money. Again, I refer to my friend from Ohio, who was here earlier who said funding for medical research is probably going down because of the war and because of Katrina and because of homeland security. I said: Wait a minute, earlier this year this Senate voted 73 to 27, to put $7 billion back in the budget so we wouldn't cut medical research--73 votes in the Senate. I don't know, 73 votes is pretty overwhelming. It was $7 billion we were supposed to put back in to help medical research. I don't know to what the Senator was referring. I have heard talk today about adult stem cells and all these other things and how we had adult stem cells do this and adult stem cells do that. Why haven't embryonic stem cells led to treatment as much as adult stem cells have? Scientists have been doing research on adult stem cells for over 30 years, and we still, after 30 years, have not extracted one stem cell line from adult cells--not one. Now embryonic stem cells were only derived in 1998, 8 years ago, and they have only been getting Federal funding in a limited manner since 2002, under the guidelines the President set down in 2001, which limited the number of stem cell lines to then 78, which we found out later was only 21 stem cell lines. Again, there are no arbitrary restrictions on research on adult stem cells. Scientists and private companies don't have to be skittish about doing the research. They don't have to worry that all of a sudden the Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it, so they can plan ahead and do long-term research. Let's compare that situation with human embryonic stem cells. As I said, we didn't derive them until 1998 and the first Federal grant wasn't awarded until 2002. Even now, only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for human stem cell research is used for human embryonic stem cells. The vast majority still goes for adult stem cells. Here it is. I pointed this out earlier today. Human embryonic stem cells in fiscal 2006 from NIH, $38.3 million. Adult stem cells, $200 million. Again, only a tiny fraction going for human embryonic stem cells. Five times as much is going for adult stem cell research. So it is no wonder, after 30 years and all this research and all this money, that more diseases are being treated today with adult stem cells. Scientists have only been studying embryonic stem cells for 5 years, with one arm tied behind their back. That one arm being tied their back by the President's proclamation of August 9, 2001, that only stem cell lines derived before 9 p.m. that evening could receive Federal funding. Anything derived after 9 p.m. could not receive Federal funding. I have wondered ever since, why was it morally acceptable to use stem cell lines derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 but morally unacceptable for funding of stem cell lines derived after 9 p.m. Can someone please tell me the ethics of that. Can someone please tell me why 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 is some kind of a moral dividing line? It is totally arbitrary. The President could have said stem cell lines derived at 10 p.m. or he could have said stem cell lines derived before Christmas of this year. It is the same thing. No one has taken this floor to define why August 9, at 9 p.m, is some kind of a moral dividing line. The fact is, it doesn't really matter what I think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't matter a heck of a lot what other Senators may think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. What matters is what does the great body of scientists think about the potential. The overwhelming majority of reputable biomedical scientists also believes we should pursue embryonic stem cell research; not to the exclusion of others but that we should pursue it. I have a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1989. Here is what he says: The vast majority of the biomedical community believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key discoveries relating to many debilitating diseases. In fact, some of the strongest advocates for human embryonic stem cell research are those scientists that have devoted their careers to the study of adult stem cells. I have a letter from Dr. Alfred G. Gilman, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1994. It has become obvious, however, that the number of stem cell lines actually available under current policy is too small and is controlled by a limited monopoly, which has made it significantly more difficult and expensive for research to be conducted. These limits have hindered the important search for new understanding and treatment of devastating diseases. I have a letter from the Director of the NIH, Dr. Elias Zerhouni. Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease. The breakthroughs are coming. But they take time. They take a lot of scientists researching. This is not something you can put two people on. They need a lot of different lines. Embryonic stem cell research should be ongoing at universities all across America, at our great research institutions, and it ought to be done under the guidance and direction and ethical guidelines of NIH and the ethical guidelines that we have in this bill. The clampdown on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance to start shows a total lack of understanding about how science works, how research works. I have often said that basic research is similar to having 10 doors and they are closed. There is a high probability that behind one of the doors is the answer to your question. If you open one door, you know what the odds are of finding the right answer. If you open two doors, the odds are a little bit better. If you open five doors, the odds are 50-50. That is what basic research is about. It has been said here a lot of the earlier research on fetal tissue came to nothing. A lot of basic research comes to nothing--in terms of an actual application. But almost all basic research adds to our body of knowledge. Maybe, from one of those basic research grants that was put on the shelf, some other scientist coming along later on might pick something from that, put two or three together and find something. I am reminded of John Embers, a scientist--I believe he was at Harvard. I will check my facts on that, but I believe he was a doctor at Harvard many years ago. I am talking about a long time ago. I am talking about in the 1940s. He had done some interesting research, basic research on kidney cells of monkeys because they had unique properties. It was a funny research. It was on certain Rhesus monkeys and the oddity of certain kidney cells. Dr. John Enders didn't get anything for it. He did the research, put it on the shelf, and nothing ever came of it, until a few years later another scientist, examining in another area, remembered Dr. Enders' work, went back and got it, coupled it with his, and came up with something called the Salk polio vaccine. It wasn't until over 25 years later that Dr. John Enders finally received the Nobel Prize for his research. But I suppose someone 5 years after Dr. Enders had done his research would have said: Why did we spend money on that foolish kind of research? It didn't lead to anything. It kept some scientists employed, but it didn't lead to anything. But Dr. Salk came along, coupled that research with what he was doing and came up with the Salk polio vaccine. That is a true story. Again, we have to understand a lot of this is basic research. A lot of it will lead to nothing. But as more and more scientists get involved in examining embryonic stem cells and how they grow, how they multiply, how they differentiate, how they become nerve tissue, how they become brain tissue, how they become skin tissue, how they become blood tissues--as they begin to investigate that, I am sure there will be a lot of blind alleys. But I submit that everything that is done builds the body of scientific evidence that we need, the science that will eventually lead to a cure of a disease. That is the promise of embryonic stem cell research. To stop it now or to limit it doesn't make sense. People talk about the ethics and morality. I have heard talk about we have to protect innocent life. This is an embryo; an embryo with 100 cells, 200 cells. You can take whatever view you want of that embryo. The point is that the bill we are talking about does not destroy one embryo. It only says that we can get funding for the research on those. These are embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, in in vitro fertilization clinics. They are being discarded every day. Why don't people come out and say: Stop in vitro fertilization. Make it a crime. You don't hear anybody saying that because 50,000 babies were born last year to people who wanted to have a baby and couldn't have one and used in vitro fertilization. Once they have their children, they call up the in vitro clinic and say: I don't want the remaining embryos, just discard them. I ask you, what is the moral thing to do, just discard them or, with the written consent of the donors, use those embryonic stem cells to save lives and ease suffering and cure disease? That, to me, is the moral and the ethical choice. I see my time is up and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 14, 2006. Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups and other interested institutions and associations, representing millions of patients, scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week. Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is the bill which holds promise for expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810. H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810 immediately. Sincerely, A O North America; AAALAC International; AARP; Abbott Laboratories; Acadia Pharmaceuticals; Accelerated Cure Project for Multiple Sclerosis; Adams County Economic Development, Inc.; AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology Association); Affymetrix, Inc.; Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University; Alliance for Aging Research; Alliance for Lupus Research; Alliance for Stem Cell Research; Alnylam US, Inc.; Alpha-1 Foundation; ALS Association; Ambulatory Pediatric Association; AMDeC-Academic Medicine Development Co.; America on the Move Foundation; American Academy of Neurology. American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Association for Cancer Research; American Association for Dental Research; American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; American Association for the Advancement of Science; American Association of Anatomists; American Association of Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine; American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons; American Association of Public Health Dentistry; American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association; American Brain Coalition; American Chronic Pain Association; American College of Cardiology; American College of Medical Genetics; American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. American College of Surgeons; American Council on Education; American Council on Science and Health; American Dental Association; American Dental Education Association; American Diabetes Association; American Federation for Aging Research; American Gastroenterological Association; American Geriatrics Society; American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering; American Lung Association; American Medical Association; American Medical Informatics Association; American Medical Women's Association; American Pain Foundation; American Parkinson's Disease Association; American Parkinson's Disease Association (Arizona Chapter); American Pediatric Society; American Physiological Society; American Psychiatric Association. American Psychological Association; American Public Health Association; American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; American Society for Cell Biology; American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics; American Society for Microbiology; American Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair; American Society for Nutrition; American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; American Society for Virology; American Society of Clinical Oncology; American Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists; American Society of Hematology; American Society of Human Genetics; American Society of Nephrology; American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene; American Surgical Association; American Surgical Association Foundation. American Thoracic Society; American Thyroid Association; American Transplant Foundation; Americans for Medical Progress; amFAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research; Arizona State University College of Nursing; Arthritis Foundation; Arthritis Foundation, Rocky Mountain Chapter; Association for Clinical Research Training; Association for Medical School Pharmacology Chairs; Association for Prevention Teaching and Research; Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc.; Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine; Association of Academic Departments of Otolaryngology; Association of Academic Health Centers; Association of Academic Physiatrists; Association of American Medical Colleges; Association of American Physicians; Association of American Universities; Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges. Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology Chairs; Association of Anesthesiology Program Directors; Association of Black Cardiologists; Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology; Association of Independent Research Institutes; Association of Medical School Microbiology and Immunology Chairs; Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs; Association of Medical School Pharmacology Chairs; Association of Professors of Dermatology; Association of Professors of Human and Medical Genetics; Association of Professors of Medicine; Association of Public Health Laboratories; Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry; Association of Specialty Professors; Association of University Anesthesiologists; Assurant Health; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Athena Diagnostics; Aurora Economic Development Council. Axion Research Foundation; B'nai B'rith International; Baylor College of Medicine; Baylor College of Medicine Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences; Biotechnology Industry Organization; BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Foundation on Health Care; Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Boston University School of Dental Medicine; Boston University School of Public Health; Brigham and Women's Hospital; Bristol- Myers Squibb Company; Broadened Horizons, LLC; Brown Medical School; Buck Institute for Age Research; Bums & Allen Research Institute; Burrill & Company; Burroughs Wellcome Fund; C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition; California Biomedical Research Association. California Institute of Technology; California Institute for Regenerative Medicine; California Wellness Foundation; Californians for Cures; Campaign for Medical Research; Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation; Canon U.S. Life Sciences, Inc.; Case Western Reserve University School of Dentistry; Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine; Cedars- Sinai Health System; Center for the Advancement of Health; Central Conference of American Rabbis; CFIDS Association of America; Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science; Charles River Laboratories; Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation; Children's Memorial Research Center; Children's Neurobiological Solutions Foundation; Children's Research Institute (Columbus); Children's Research Institute (Washington). Children's Tumor Foundation; Childrens Hospital Boston; Christopher Reeve Foundation; City and County of Denver; City of Hope National Medical Center; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities, University of Colorado System; Colfax Marathon Partnership, Inc.; Colorado Bioscience Association; Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade; Colorado State University; Columbia University; Columbia University College of Dental Medicine; Columbia University Medical Center; Community Health Partnership; Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals; Connecticut United for Research Excellence, Inc.; Conquer Fragile X Foundation; Cornell University; Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science (CANS). Creighton University School of Medicine; CURE (Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy); Cure Alzheimer's Fund; Cure Paralysis Now; CuresNow; Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dartmouth Medical School; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; DENTSPLY International; Digene Corporation; Discovery Partners International; Doheny Eye Institute; Drexel University College of Medicine; Drexel University School of Public Health; Duke University Medical Center; Dystonia Medical Research Foundation; East Tennessee State University James H. Quillen College of Medicine; Eli Lilly and Company; Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Emory University; Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing; Emory University Rollins School of Public Health; Emory University School of Medicine; FasterCures; FD Hope Foundation; Federation of American Scientists; Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB); Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc.; Fertile Hope; Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority; Florida Atlantic University Division of Research; Ford Finance, Inc.; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Friends of Cancer Research, Friends of the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research, Friends of the National Institute of Nursing Research; Friends of the National Library of Medicine; Genetic Alliance. Genetics Policy Institute; George Mason University; Georgetown University Medical Center; Guillain Barre Syndrome Foundation International; Gynecologic Cancer Foundation; Hadassah; Harvard University; Harvard University School of Dental Medicine; Harvard University School of Public Health; Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, Inc.; Hereditary Disease Foundation, HHT Foundation International, Inc.; Home Safety Council; Howard University College of Dentistry; Howard University College of Medicine; Huntington's Disease Society of America; IBM Life Sciences Division; Illinois State University Mennonite College of Nursing; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Indiana University School of Dentistry. Indiana University School of Medicine; Indiana University School of Nursing; Infectious Diseases Society of America; Institute for African American Health, Inc.; Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus; International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery (IFADD); International Longevity Center--USA; International Society for Stem Cell Research; Invitrogen Corporation; Iraq Veterans for Cures; Iris Alliance Fund; Iron Disorders Institute; Jacobs Institute of Women's Health; Jeffrey Modell Foundation; Johns Hopkins; Johnson & Johnson; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO); Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California. Kennedy Krieger Institute; Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology; KID Foundation; Kidney Cancer Association; La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology; Lance Armstrong Foundation; Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Dentistry; Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Loyola University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine; Lung Cancer Alliance; Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.; Lupus Foundation of Colorado, Inc.; Lupus Research Institute; Lymphatic Research Foundation; Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University. Malecare Prostate Cancer Support; March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; Marine Biological Laboratory; Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource Center; Masonic Medical Research Laboratory; Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; Massachusetts General Hospital; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MaxCyte, Inc.; McLaughlin Research Institute; Medical College of Georgia; Medical University of South Carolina; Medical University of South Carolina College of Nursing; MedStar Research Institute (MRI); Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Memory Pharmaceuticals; Mercer University; Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation; Miami Children's Hospital. Midwest Nursing Research Society; Morehouse School of Medicine; Mount Sinai Medical Center; Mount Sinai School of Medicine; National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research; National Alliance for Hispanic Health; National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression; National Alliance on Mental Illness; National Alopecia Areata Foundation; National Asian Women's Health Organization; National Association for Biomedical Research; National Association of Hepatitis Task Forces; National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs; National Coalition for Cancer Research; National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease; National Committee for Quality Health Care; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Spinal Cord Injury; National Down Syndrome Society. National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias; National Health Council; National Hemophilia Foundation; National Hispanic Health Foundation; National Jewish Medical and Research Center; National Marfan Foundation; National Medical Association; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Pharmaceutical Council; National Prostate Cancer Coalition; National Quality Forum; National Spinal Cord Injury Association; National Venture Capital Association; Nebraskans for Research; Nemours; New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research; New Jersey Dental School. New York Blood Center; New York College of Osteopathic Medicine; New York State Association of County Health Officials; New York Stem Cell Foundation; New York University College of Dentistry; New York University School of Medicine; New York-Presbyterian Hospital; North American Brain Tumor Coalition; North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research; Northwest Association for Biomedical Research; Northwestern University; Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine; Nova Southeastern University College of Dental Medicine; Novartis Pharmaceuticals; Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation; Oral Health America; Oregon Health & Science University; Oregon Health & Science University School of Nursing; Oregon Research Institute; Oxford Bioscience Partners. Pacific Health Research Institute; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; Parkinson's Action Network; Parkinson's Disease Foundation; Partnership for Prevention; Pennsylvania Society for Biomedical Research; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Pittsburgh Development Center; Princeton University; Project A.L.S.; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum International; Quest for the Cure; RAND Health; Research! America; Resolve: The National Infertility Association; RetireSafe; Rett Syndrome Research Foundation; Rice University. Robert Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins; Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science; Rush University Medical Center; Rutgers University; Salk Institute for Biological Studies; sanofi-aventis; Scleroderma Research Foundation; Secular Coalition for America; Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Inc.; Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research (SAVIR); Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Society for Education in Anesthesia; Society for Male Reproduction and Urology; Society for Neuroscience; Society for Pediatric Research; Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; Society for Women's Health Research; Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs; Society of General Internal Medicine; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Society of Reproductive Surgeons; Society of University Otolaryngologists; South Alabama Medical Science Foundation; South Dakota State University; Southern Illinois University School of Medicine; Spina Bifida Association of America; Stanford University; State University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine; State University of New York Downstate Medical Center College of Medicine at Brooklyn; State University of New York Upstate Medical University; Stem Cell Action Network; Stem Cell Research Foundation; Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation; Stony Brook University, State University of New York; Strategic Health Policy International, Inc.; Student Society for Stem Cell Research; Suicide Prevention Action Network- USA (SPAN); Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's, Inc.; Targacept, Inc.; Temple University School of Dentistry; Texans for Advancement of Medical Research; Texas A&M University Health Science Center; Texas Medical Center; Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center; The Arc of the United States; The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology; The Biophysical Society; The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University; The Burnham Institute; The CJD Foundation; The Critical Path Institute (C-Path); The Endocrine Society; The FAIR Foundation; The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network; The Food Allergy Project, Inc.; The Forsyth Institute; The Foundation Fighting Blindness; The George Washington University Medical Center. The Georgetown University Center for the Study of Sex Difference in Health, Aging and Disease. The Gerontological Society of America; The J. David Gladstone Institutes; The Jackson Laboratory; The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health; The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing; The Medical College of Wisconsin; The Medical Foundation, Inc., The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research; The Ohio State University College of Dentistry; The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health; The Ohio State University School of Public Health; The Parkinson Alliance and Unity Walk; The Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.; The Rockefeller University; The Schepens Eye Research Institute; The Scientist; The Scripps Research Institute; The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute; The Society for Investigative Dermatology; The Spiral Foundation. The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine; The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine; The University of Iowa College of Dentistry; The University of Iowa College of Public Health; The University of Mississippi Medical Center; The University of Mississippi Medical Center School of Dentistry; The University of Oklahoma College of Dentistry; The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; The University of Tennessee HSC College of Nursing; The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston; The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of Medicine; The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; The University of Toledo Academic Health Science Center; Tourette Syndrome Association; Travis Roy Foundation; Tufts University School of Dental Medicine; Tulane University. Tulane University Health Sciences Center; Union for Reformed Judaism; Union of Concerned Scientists; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Spinal Association; University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Nursing; University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health; University of Arizona College of Medicine; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; University of Buffalo; University of California System; University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health; University of California, Davis; University of California, Irvine; University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Los Angeles School of Dentistry; University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine; University of California, San Diego. University of California, San Francisco; University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry; University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing; University of California, Santa Cruz; University of Chicago; University of Cincinnati Medical Center; University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; University of Colorado at Denver and HSC School of Dentistry; University of Colorado at Denver and HSC School of Nursing; University of Connecticut School of Medicine; University of Florida; University of Florida College of Dentistry; University of Georgia; University of Illinois; University of Illinois at Chicago; University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry; University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing; University of Iowa; University of Kansas; University of Kansas Medical Center. University of Kansas Medical Center School of Nursing; University of Kentucky; University of Kentucky College of Dentistry; University of Louisville; University of Louisville School of Dentistry; University of Maryland at Baltimore; University of Maryland at Baltimore College of Dental Surgery; University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Nursing; University of Miami; University of Michigan; University of Michigan College of Pharmacy; University of Michigan Medical School; University of Michigan School of Dentistry; University of Michigan School of Nursing; University of Michigan School of Public Health; University of Minnesota; University of Minnesota School of Public Health; University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Dentistry; University of Montana School of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences; University of Nebraska Medical Center. University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Dentistry; University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Dental Medicine; University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health; University of North Dakota; University of North Texas Health Science Center; University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing; University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; University of Rochester Medical Center; University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry; University of Rochester School of Nursing; University of South Carolina Office of Research and Health Sciences; University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of South Florida; University of South Florida College of Nursing; University of Southern California; University of Southern California School of Dentistry; University of Utah HSC School of Medicine; University of Vermont College of Medicine; University of Washington; University of Washington School of Dentistry; University of Washington School of Nursing; University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Van Andel Research Institute; Vanderbilt University and Medical Center; Vanderbilt University School of Nursing; Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry; Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine; Wake Forest University School of Medicine; Washington University in St. Louis; Washington University in St. Louis Center for Health Policy; Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. WE MOVE; Weill Medical College of Cornell University; Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research; WiCell Research Institution; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research and Education; Woodruff Health Sciences Center at Emory University; Wright State University; School of Medicine; Yale University; Yale University School of Medicine; Yale University School of Nursing.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator would yield, I understand the Senator from Virginia wanted 10 minutes. I said I didn't intend to speak for half an hour; I just wanted to speak for about 5 minutes at 8 o'clock and yield back the remainder of my time and he could speak as long as he wanted to at that time. It is only 15 minutes from now. I thought the Senator from Kansas was probably going to use up most of the time.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. If I might, as a manager, we are on strict time limits. At 5 o'clock, Senator Kennedy gets 25 minutes and then 5 minutes goes to Senator Reed. At 5:30, it goes back to the other side. If we take time here and there, it spills over, and someone is going to lose time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her very eloquent statement, and I thank all of the Senators who have come over here today to speak on this important issue. We have about 20 minutes left in this half hour. I don't have any other Senators right now, but if there are other Senators on our side who wish to take a few minutes to speak on this bill, I would be glad to yield to them. However, I would like to take this time to sum up, if I can, what we have heard today. We have come to the end of our first day of debate on stem cell research, and I think it has been a very enlightening debate and a very good exposition of the different sides of this issue. I hope the American people who have tuned in to watch this have learned a great deal about why we need to pass H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As we know, that bill passed the House by a bipartisan majority over a year ago, and I think it has a strong bipartisan majority here in the Senate. Certainly the bill itself is sponsored bipartisanly. If we can pass it tomorrow--and I am confident we can and we will--H.R. 810 can go straight to the President's desk. I would like to reiterate a few things we have heard today. First, H.R. 810 has enormous popular support. I have here a letter that was just transmitted to me, and it is a list of different advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups, and other interested institutions and associations representing millions of patients, scientists, health care providers, and advocates, writing in strong support for H.R. 810. They point out in this letter that this is the bill which holds promise for expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, are not substitutes for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 810. This letter is signed by 590 advocacy groups. I have been on this Senate floor now 21 years. We all get letters and things that come in expressing support, but I daresay I have never seen anything as overwhelming as this: 590 different groups. Earlier this year, I submitted a list of 205 different groups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my comments on this portion, this list of 590 groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't know. I am a little confused. Is the Senator saying, if a stem cell has been introduced and is undifferentiated, it causes cancer or teratoma?

Mr. HARKIN. But the fact is the inference from some of the statements, I think, is that thus far stem cells, when introduced, cause cancer. That is not so. That has not been proven. That has not been proven at all.

Mr. HARKIN. Tumors but not cancer.

Mr. HARKIN. They are tumors. That is what I heard the Senator say.

Mr. HARKIN. We have gone down a lot of blind alleys in medical research in the past. I have often said that one of the reasons for basic research is that you have 11 doors that are closed. The answer to the problem and the answer to your endeavor may be behind one of those doors. When you have enough funding to open one door, you know what the odds are against you finding it. Or if you have funding for half, then you know what the odds are against you opening the right door. A lot of doors don't lead to anything. A lot of basic research goes down the path, and they find out that is not the answer. So they have to shift to something else. That happens all the time. That is what basic research is all about. I do not know the specific thing. I am not surprised that many things in the past that scientists have gone down the road on have not led to something curative or therapeutic or something like that which helps us. That doesn't mean that we have tried something before with devastating effects which doesn't say that we can't then do embryonic stem cell research. I get back to the point that when you have almost every disease group in this country supporting the bill that is before us, H.R. 810, you have Nobel laureates, scientists, doctors, and you have 19 Directors of NIH saying that thi has great potential, then I say, again, to my friends that you have to make either one of two assumptions. Either all of these people have been hoodwinked and they do not know what they are talking about or they have no care or concern about ethics or morals or anything else. I think both assumptions are wrong. I think these people know. They are informed. They may not know every little thing medical doctors might know, but they know the potential. Second, I think they are vastly ethical and moral people. I hope we will have some further colloquies on this later.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has been very kind. I think we can engage at some other point. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from Virginia, go ahead and take your time. I will speak later. That is fine. (The remarks of Mr. Warner are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take the entire 25 minutes that are left, but I did want to close out a little bit today before we proceed into tomorrow by just responding to a few of the things that were said today to try to clear up a couple of issues. The Senator from Kansas, my good friend, was going on and on about stem cells, as he has most of the day, and about how all these treatments and everything are out there. I could respond to every one of them, but I think what we have to keep in mind is that if all of these diseases that the Senator from Kansas talked about have been treated with adult stem cells, how come all of the patient advocacy groups for these diseases support H.R. 810? One has to wonder, when you listen to the Senator from Kansas outline all these diseases that are being helped by adult stem cells. He brings up the picture of the guy who had Parkinson's. He was helped with adult stem cells. But, again, he has now gone back and he is where he was before. Well, if adult stem cells are doing so much, why is the Parkinson's group, the Parkinson's Action Network, supporting H.R. 810? Why are all these advocacy groups supporting H.R. 810 if adult stem cells are so great? Are they just a bunch of stupid people out there? Have they been hoodwinked and misguided? These advocacy groups know. They know what is going on. And they know that S. 2754 is no substitute for H.R. 810. While adult stem cells are fine, as I pointed out earlier, they have been investigating and doing science on adult stem cells for over 30 years. Now, just another little thing that happened: The Senator from Kansas, I heard him say: Well, they have been investigating animal stem cells for 20 years. That might lead you to think: Well, we have been looking at stem cells for 20 years. Not so. We never derived human embryonic stem cells until 1998--8 years ago. So I wanted to make the record clear on that. Now, the Senator also mentioned something about testicular cancer. He made all kinds of claims about adult stem cells helping testicular cancer. Let me read from a letter written by Craig Nichols, MD, a member of the board of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. We all know the Lance Armstrong Foundation is basically focused on testicular cancer because that is what Lance Armstrong had. And he licked it. But let me quote from the letter written on July 14: Dear Senator Frist: As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation's Board of Directors, I am writing in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated or cured the disease of testicular cancer. . . . I feel that it is important to set the record straight on this issue. Testicular cancer is the most common cancer among men ages 15-35 and approximately 8,000 men will be diagnosed with testicular cancer in the United States this year. While testicular cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer, our organization would like to emphasize as the Senate debates H.R. 810 . . . that we have NOT completely eradicated the disease. There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment generally available to treat testicular cancer. The Senator from Kansas kind of, in his comments, led us to think that there might be. Here is what Dr. Nichols said: Rather, adult stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease. The adult stem cells enable patients to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy. Dr. Nichols says: We support exploring every avenue of research, including embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits, until a cure is found. . . . The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the Lance Armstrong Foundation be printed in the Record.

Tom Harkin

Speeches

Manage analytics