Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I have heard this argument before. I am not a scientist. I don't know all of the nuances, I would be the first to admit. I do know, however, that every time that has come up, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Association disagrees that this is a viable pathway toward curing all of those with juvenile diabetes.

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

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. Have any of these findings been published?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that one of the cosponsors of the bill, one of the great leaders in the Senate on stem cell research, has arrived on the floor to speak. I know the Chair will be recognizing her shortly. I wanted, again, to just take a moment to sort of repeat for emphasis sake what has been said before. I think the distinguished majority leader referred to that also. It is just that here we have an instance where so many leading scientists around, U.S. Nobel Prize winners, and all the disease groups--I submitted a compendium of about 205, and I think that may soar to 500 or 600 by the end of the day--are supporting H.R. 810. Lest one thinks that, A, either they have all been hoodwinked into thinking this bill is something it is not or, B, that these are malevolent people who want to just destroy embryos without any thought about the morality or the ethics of it, they are simply mistaken. First of all, none of these people have been hoodwinked, and most of these scientists are as ethical and moral a people as you could find anywhere. They are saying let's use these blastocysts, embryos, or however you want to define them to enhance life, cure disease and illness, rather than having them be discarded, and to do it in a very ethical manner. That is what this bill provides. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of a Senator on our side to speak on the stem cell issues. Until that happens, I will take a couple of minutes to talk about something my friend from Kansas brought up earlier today about adult stem cell treatments. I am reading a letter from Scienceexpress, a publication of Science magazine. It is entitled, ``Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?'' Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list created by David A. prentice, an employee of the Family Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) and other opponents of ES cell research. Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients''. On 4 May, Senator Brownback stated, ``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells''. In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65. Again, it exposed most of these as kind of being bogus. One of those listed was testicular cancer. Testicular cancer is not being treated with adult stem cells, at least not successfully. In fact, according to the Sciencexpress article, the study that is supposed to be the basis for that claim is actually a study on how to isolate adult stem cells. The Senator from Kansas also has a list that included several leukemias and lymphomas. Let's hear what George Dahlman of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has to say about that. On behalf of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, I am writing in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated or cured several blood cancers, including several leukemias, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. As a representative of more than 700,000 patients and their caregivers in this country that battle blood cancers on a daily basis, our organization would like to emphasize as the Senate debates H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, that we exist today because we have not found cures for these devastating diseases. Furthermore, the claim that treatment of blood cancers with cord blood, blood or marrow stem cells--known as hematopoietic stem cells-- demonstrates the potential of `adult stem cell' research or is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research is misleading and disingenuous. Mr. Dahlman concludes: The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society asks that you and your colleagues pass H.R. 810, and not accept any substitutes. All in all, according to the science journal, only nine diseases of the 65 examined have proved to even respond to treatment with adult stem cells. The authors of the analysis conclude that claims about stem cells being in general use for 65 diseases are false. Such claims ``mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients.'' Again, we are going to hear a lot of talk about all we can do other than embryonic stem cell research. This should not be a debate about whether we do adult stem cells, cord blood, or all these other things. They are all worthy of research. Those that are for adult stem cell research, cord blood, bone marrow research, that type of thing, all say they want to do that to the exclusion of embryonic stem cells. Those who are in support of H.R. 810 say let's do them all and do them all in an ethically acceptable manner. Again, we have strong ethical guidelines. One, we do not create any embryos with this bill. You can only use the embryos that are already existing in IVF clinics that are left over that will be discarded. Second, we must have written informed consent of the donors. Third, no one can get paid; no money can change hands. You cannot entice someone to donate these embryos with money. We have strong ethical guidelines. Lastly, I have heard comments today time and time again about how this bill, H.R. 810, involves the destruction of embryos. I challenge anyone to show me where in H.R. 810 it provides for the destruction of any embryos. Under the Dickey-Wicker amendment that is now existing, no Federal funds can be used to destroy embryos. All H.R. 8l0 says is that once stem cells are derived through private means or whatever, then Federal funds can be used to go to universities or to other researchers to study these embryonic stem cells. There is nothing in this bill, and I challenge anyone to show me in H.R. 810 where it provides for the destruction of any embryos; it does not. To say otherwise is being disingenuous. The Dickey-Wicker amendment still applies. No Federal money can be used for the destruction of embryos, plain and simple. I see my colleague from Illinois is here. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Washington is here to make her statement on this bill, and I would yield the floor to Senator Murray for her comments.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator from Kansas--I will even do it on my time. I guess our next speaker is not here right now. If the Senator from Kansas would perhaps engage me in a colloquy, I would ask about the gentleman whose picture he has up there. How is he doing now? I understand that, frankly, while his Parkinson's was relieved for a while, it has reverted and he is back in his previous state. Does the Senator know about that?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural Cooperative Renewable Fuel Stations Act of 2006. This legislation closes a gap in the existing tax incentive for installing alternative refueling stations. The bill extends the existing alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit to patrons of agricultural cooperatives. Our continued dependence on foreign oil is extremely worrisome. Today, about 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Last year, Americans imported almost 5 billion barrels of oil. Our Nation's overreliance on oil-derived gasoline poses a threat to National security and places a heavy economic burden on the citizens of our Nation. In addition, this heavy dependence on oil negatively impacts the environment. That is why Senator Lugar and I, with strong bipartisan support, have pushed to replace foreign oil with more home-grown biofuels and biobased products. We recently introduced the Biofuels Security Act to aggressively ramp up the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel, ensure greater E-85 availability as well as what are known as flex-fuel cars, those that can run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Last year I authored critically important biomass research, development and deployment provisions to the energy bill. This new measure complements such efforts. Cooperatives play an important role in the marketing of agricultural products. According to the USDA, there are over 3,000 agricultural cooperatives in America today representing millions of American farmers and investors. The production and distribution of bioenergy offers a new and lucrative economic opportunity for these organizations. This year the ethanol industry alone will add more than 5 billion gallons of clean burning, renewable fuel to our energy supply. Between now and 2012 ethanol is expected to contribute $200 billion to the GDP. Not surprisingly, many cooperatives are eager to participate in the budding bioeconomy. One way for them to do this is to offer E-85 to their customers. This is a natural fit for farmer cooperatives, given that they already often produce the feedstocks as well as the ethanol itself that goes into E-85. Section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. Sec. 30C-- provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties up to $30,000. This legislation would simply allow agricultural cooperatives to pass the section 30C tax credit through to their members. It parallels pass- through provisions we have enacted previously, such as the small- producer ethanol tax credit and the wind power tax credit of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The section 30C credit is fostering the creation and expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure and this legislation would bolster its effectiveness. The benefits of this legislation are clear. By supporting the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels such as E-85 we can help reduce pollution, increase farm income, create jobs, bolster economic growth and promote energy and national security. Farmer owned agricultural cooperatives can and will be leading the way in the months and years ahead.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Safe and Fair Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food--SAFER--Act. This legislation will protect consumers from contaminated meat and poultry by giving the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration, FDA, greater authority to remove unsafe products from the market. If enacted, the bill would give USDA and FDA the following three key tools in keeping food safe for consumers: authority to mandate that a company recall unsafe meat, poultry, and food products if a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe or unwholesome food; require companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is adulterated or misbranded; and authority to USDA and FDA to levy civil penalties if a company violates federal meat, poultry, or food laws. USDA and FDA are lacking fundamental authorities to maintain a safe and secure food supply. This legislation would change that. Foodborne illness continues to be a far too common problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that each year 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 1,800 deaths can be attributed to foodborne diseases. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that the cost of foodborne illness is $6.9 billion a year in medical costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths. Even in the face of such numbers, companies say USDA and FDA do not need more effective tools to enforce food safety standards. They say the food industry is compliant with voluntary recalls. It is true most companies do comply, but there have been problems and delays in recalls. The problem is, USDA and FDA have no backup authority to order a recall if the company refuses. What happens then? Without this legislation, USDA and FDA have to lose precious time to get unsafe product off the shelves. Another criticism of this legislation is that it would give USDA too much power to mandate recalls, and may even push the Department to go too far. However, the bill has a procedure for due process, so that if a company has evidence that a recall or civil penalties are unjustified, they are appealable before an administrative law judge. In addition to mandatory recall authority, the authority to levy a financial penalty if a company does not comply with our food safety laws is crucial to enforcing the standards. Civil penalties are an effective deterrent to stop violators and are already used to enforce analogous federal safety standards. Currently, USDA and FDA can only withdraw inspectors and shut down a plant that repeatedly or willfully violates our meat, poultry and food laws, which can often be a lengthy and costly process. Such drastic action is very seldom even taken. The ability to levy civil penalties gives USDA and FDA a much-needed tool for ensuring compliance with our food safety laws. USDA recently proposed a rule to provide the public with valuable information about meat and poultry that is voluntarily recalled. The rule will disclose the names and locations of stores where such products have been sold. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, it is not enough to protect consumers. This USDA rule does little more than place the burden on consumers to protect their families or themselves from foodborne illnesses. The SAFER Meat, Poultry, and Food Act would act as a complement to this USDA proposal, and would give USDA, as well as FDA, the power to enforce the food safety standards they have set. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the American consumer.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Safe and Fair Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food--SAFER--Act. This legislation will protect consumers from contaminated meat and poultry by giving the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Department of Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration, FDA, greater authority to remove unsafe products from the market. If enacted, the bill would give USDA and FDA the following three key tools in keeping food safe for consumers: authority to mandate that a company recall unsafe meat, poultry, and food products if a company fails to voluntarily recall unsafe or unwholesome food; require companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is adulterated or misbranded; and authority to USDA and FDA to levy civil penalties if a company violates federal meat, poultry, or food laws. USDA and FDA are lacking fundamental authorities to maintain a safe and secure food supply. This legislation would change that. Foodborne illness continues to be a far too common problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that each year 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 1,800 deaths can be attributed to foodborne diseases. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that the cost of foodborne illness is $6.9 billion a year in medical costs, productivity losses, and premature deaths. Even in the face of such numbers, companies say USDA and FDA do not need more effective tools to enforce food safety standards. They say the food industry is compliant with voluntary recalls. It is true most companies do comply, but there have been problems and delays in recalls. The problem is, USDA and FDA have no backup authority to order a recall if the company refuses. What happens then? Without this legislation, USDA and FDA have to lose precious time to get unsafe product off the shelves. Another criticism of this legislation is that it would give USDA too much power to mandate recalls, and may even push the Department to go too far. However, the bill has a procedure for due process, so that if a company has evidence that a recall or civil penalties are unjustified, they are appealable before an administrative law judge. In addition to mandatory recall authority, the authority to levy a financial penalty if a company does not comply with our food safety laws is crucial to enforcing the standards. Civil penalties are an effective deterrent to stop violators and are already used to enforce analogous federal safety standards. Currently, USDA and FDA can only withdraw inspectors and shut down a plant that repeatedly or willfully violates our meat, poultry and food laws, which can often be a lengthy and costly process. Such drastic action is very seldom even taken. The ability to levy civil penalties gives USDA and FDA a much-needed tool for ensuring compliance with our food safety laws. USDA recently proposed a rule to provide the public with valuable information about meat and poultry that is voluntarily recalled. The rule will disclose the names and locations of stores where such products have been sold. While I believe this is a step in the right direction, it is not enough to protect consumers. This USDA rule does little more than place the burden on consumers to protect their families or themselves from foodborne illnesses. The SAFER Meat, Poultry, and Food Act would act as a complement to this USDA proposal, and would give USDA, as well as FDA, the power to enforce the food safety standards they have set. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the American consumer.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural Cooperative Renewable Fuel Stations Act of 2006. This legislation closes a gap in the existing tax incentive for installing alternative refueling stations. The bill extends the existing alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit to patrons of agricultural cooperatives. Our continued dependence on foreign oil is extremely worrisome. Today, about 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Last year, Americans imported almost 5 billion barrels of oil. Our Nation's overreliance on oil-derived gasoline poses a threat to National security and places a heavy economic burden on the citizens of our Nation. In addition, this heavy dependence on oil negatively impacts the environment. That is why Senator Lugar and I, with strong bipartisan support, have pushed to replace foreign oil with more home-grown biofuels and biobased products. We recently introduced the Biofuels Security Act to aggressively ramp up the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel, ensure greater E-85 availability as well as what are known as flex-fuel cars, those that can run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Last year I authored critically important biomass research, development and deployment provisions to the energy bill. This new measure complements such efforts. Cooperatives play an important role in the marketing of agricultural products. According to the USDA, there are over 3,000 agricultural cooperatives in America today representing millions of American farmers and investors. The production and distribution of bioenergy offers a new and lucrative economic opportunity for these organizations. This year the ethanol industry alone will add more than 5 billion gallons of clean burning, renewable fuel to our energy supply. Between now and 2012 ethanol is expected to contribute $200 billion to the GDP. Not surprisingly, many cooperatives are eager to participate in the budding bioeconomy. One way for them to do this is to offer E-85 to their customers. This is a natural fit for farmer cooperatives, given that they already often produce the feedstocks as well as the ethanol itself that goes into E-85. Section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. Sec. 30C-- provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties up to $30,000. This legislation would simply allow agricultural cooperatives to pass the section 30C tax credit through to their members. It parallels pass- through provisions we have enacted previously, such as the small- producer ethanol tax credit and the wind power tax credit of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The section 30C credit is fostering the creation and expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure and this legislation would bolster its effectiveness. The benefits of this legislation are clear. By supporting the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels such as E-85 we can help reduce pollution, increase farm income, create jobs, bolster economic growth and promote energy and national security. Farmer owned agricultural cooperatives can and will be leading the way in the months and years ahead.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we sit in the Senate, quorum call after quorum call. Not much is happening. We just had our meeting of Democratic leaders for lunch, and we are wondering what is going on here. Here we sit. Nothing is happening. Over a year ago, the House of Representatives voted on and passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Act, and sent it over to the Senate. It is pending at the desk. That was over a year ago. We have asked repeatedly--repeatedly--for the majority leader to bring up this bill so that we can debate it--I am sure under a time agreement--and pass it and send it to the President. The bill is supported by a majority of Senators on a bipartisan basis. It enjoys large majorities in every public opinion poll, which is hardly surprising because stem cell research holds tremendous promise for curing illnesses and saving lives. One obstacle stands in the way of moving ahead aggressively in stem cell research. The Senate has squandered over a year waiting for the majority leader to make good on his pledge to bring H.R. 810 to the floor for a vote. So here we sit. Why aren't we bringing up H.R. 810? Families with children with juvenile diabetes, families with members who are stricken by Alzheimer's, people with spinal cord injuries either from birth or from an accident or other illnesses, and people with other neurological disorders and diseases--these are the ones scientists tell us can be helped the most and the fastest through the application of stem cell therapy, which would be the result of stem cell research. We just had a Health Week here, too. We had a Health Week about a month ago, and we didn't bring up H.R. 810 then. Everybody talked a lot about everything, but we didn't do anything. The fact is, I said H.R. 810 has support on both sides. I just mention that Senators Specter, Hatch, and Smith in particular have urged the majority leader to bring up the bill. As a matter of fact, last year, Senator Frist himself gave a speech on the floor and endorsed H.R. 810. But again the majority leader has refused to bring it up for a vote. We have written him letters. I have taken the floor numerous times, especially in lulls such as this when nothing is happening. It looks as if we will go all through today and tomorrow and, of course, then we won't be here on Friday. No wonder the American people have such a low opinion of this place. No wonder. They don't think we are doing anything, and they are right, we are not doing anything. Especially we are not attending to the urgent business of the American people. People are suffering from incurable illnesses. People are hoping we will move ahead aggressively in embryonic stem cell research and in all areas of stem cell research, but we still sit here and dawdle, take our time, and don't do anything. I don't mean to make it a partisan issue because it has never been a partisan issue. As I said, we have a number of Republicans supporting this bill in this body, and it was passed in the House with both Republican and Democratic support. I will say this: If the Democrats were in charge of this Senate, we would have had H.R. 810 up by now and would have passed it and would have sent it to the President.

Mr. HARKIN. Right.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am aware, I say to my friend from New Jersey. In fact, under the President's budget this year, as we are now giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthy, there is a cut in funding for the National Cancer Institute. For the first time in my career, since I have been here, we are actually cutting funding under the President's budget for the National Cancer Institute. Now, we here are going to try to put that money back in sometime this year, but I am just saying that the President's budget, what he sent to us, cuts money from the National Cancer Institute. I say to my friend from Illinois, he is right on target. On August 9, 2001, President Bush got on television, national television--I remember watching him--and it was shortly after 9 p.m., and he made this executive finding that stem cells derived by our Federal researchers prior to 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, were OK. We could use those for research. That was OK. That was ethical, moral, legitimate. But any stem cells derived after 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001 were not ethical; they were immoral, not legitimate, and could not be funded by the Federal Government. I thought about that. I thought, why did he pick 9 p.m.? Why didn't he pick 9:15? Why wasn't it 10 p.m.? Or 8:52? Why 9? It was just plucked out of thin air. It seems to me if it was wrong before, it was wrong after. Or if it was correct and good before, it was correct and good after 9 p.m. It was totally arbitrary. I say to my friend from Illinois, the other thing we found out is, out of these so-called 75 lines which supposedly we had--which we thought at the time we had enough--it is now down to 21 cell lines. And here is the kicker: Every single one of those cell lines that were derived have been contaminated with mouse cells. They have been grown on mouse feeder cells, so not one of them will probably ever be useful for human therapy. Not a one of them. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. If it had not been for President Bush's announcement on August 9, 2001, right after 9 p.m.--if it had not been for that, we would have had 5 more years, that have now gone by, of good science, good research under the ethical kinds of guidelines, as the Senator from Illinois just outlined. And we would be much further down the road toward saying to those families with diabetes, kids with juvenile diabetes, people who have ALS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's--we would be closer to saying hope is there because we are doing the research and we are going to find the cures. It will not happen unless and until we get over that Presidential proclamation of August 9, 2001. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I will. Let me just say that a friend of mine recently passed away from ALS--Lou Gehrig's disease. If anyone has seen anyone get Lou Gehrig's disease and die of it, it is the worst. It is the worst. It is a death sentence as soon as you are told you have it, as soon as you are diagnosed with it. No one lives, and usually death occurs within a year to 2 years. As your muscles deteriorate and your lungs give out and you are no longer able to walk, to write, to speak, the mind continues on. You are aware of every second until the day, the minute you die. ALS--one of the most horrible diseases which afflicts mankind, humankind, and the scientists tell us one of the diseases which is in the target zone for embryonic stem cell research. Think about that. Yet we are told it is better to throw these away, take these in vitro fertilization leftover cells, throw them down the drain, but don't use them for life-giving research. I say to my friend from New Jersey, it is the same as those who want to stop women from getting vaccinations for cervical cancer because they think that, somehow, women will be more sexually promiscuous because of it. I don't understand that way of thinking. I yield to my friend from Illinois who was at the hearing yesterday for any comments he would like to make.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. So you could take it as a young girl. And what are we doing right now? Nothing. We should be moving ahead aggressively in this country and in other countries where cervical cancer is a killer. As the Senator knows, it is a killer. Yet we are not doing anything. We sit here doing nothing. It is in that spirit which I thank the Senator for bringing that up. I yield to him.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, sign me up.

Mr. HARKIN

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