Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006
FETUS FARMING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - July 17, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Iowa not only for yielding but also for being the leader on our side of the aisle on this issue, with Senator Specter on the Republican side. I am glad this day has finally come. This matter has been on the calendar for over a year.
For over a year, millions of Americans have been wondering when the Senate will take this up. Finally, it has been scheduled. A lot of people outside this Chamber had a lot to do with it being scheduled. First Lady Nancy Reagan stood up and spoke up when she saw the late President suffering from Alzheimer's. Her voice has made a difference. I salute her for that. Christopher and Dana Reeve, both gone now, in their lifetime, the dedication and energy they put on this issue made all the difference in the world.
There are three votes tomorrow. There is only one that gets to the heart of the issue. There are some that are going to address a lot of different issues from different perspectives, but there is only one that counts when it comes to stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is the only bill that expands Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the type that holds out so much promise.
The other two bills are well intentioned. I am not going to say anything negative about them. I will vote for them because, frankly, they make little or no difference. One of them bans practices that presently are not being used. I guess that is a good thing to do. I will vote for that bill.
The other one, by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, won't accomplish much. This was the question I asked of Dr. James Battey of the National Institutes of Health about the Santorum bill: Can you tell me whether S. 2754 authorizes research on stem cells at the NIH that currently is not permissible or legal?
He answered: No, it does not.
So it does not give new authority to NIH, and it does not expand research. It has some motive other than medical for being offered.
William Neaves, a leading stem cell researcher, has it right:
This is not a contest between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Instead, it is a contest between society and disease.
I have listened to some of the arguments in the Senate. Some of the arguments are that adult stem cell research has great potential. I believe that is true. I believe we should pursue it aggressively. However, the argument seems to be that if that is the case, then we do not have to concern ourselves with embryonic stem cell research.
I am a liberal arts lawyer and do not profess to know about medical research, but why foreclose a whole area of research with embryonic stem cells that the greatest minds in America tell us is so promising? Why wouldn't we do both, both adult stem cell research, as well as embryonic stem cell research? From that point of view, I cannot follow the logic in opposing this bill.
Former Senator John Danforth is another person who has thought about this issue. I respect him a lot. He is an ordained Episcopal minister and a longtime opponent of abortion. Like tens of millions of Americans, he comes from a family that knows the pain of disease. He lost one of his brothers to Lou Gehrig's disease. He wrote this in the St. Louis-Post Dispatch:
A choice between two understandings of human life. On one hand, we have millions of people who suffer from ALS, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and cancer--and the loved ones who care for them and suffer by their sides. On the other hand, we have tiny bundles of unfertilized cells existing in petri dishes.
He went on to write, the people who oppose stem cell research:
should explain to the afflicted and their loved ones why they care more about those cell bundles than they do about the people.
This Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act has been supported by so many groups. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have the names of some of those groups printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Who Supports H.R. 810
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is supported by more than 200 patient groups, scientists and medical research groups. They include: American Medical Association, American Association for Cancer, American Diabetes Association, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, American Pediatric Society, March of Dimes, the ALS Association, Parkinsons Action Network, Alzheimer's Association, Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, Kidney Cancer Association, Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis, and the Society for Neuroscience Research.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say that all of the big names in medical research in America support this bill. They understand this is the real deal. This is the bill that will make a difference. The other two may not.
Among the other groups supporting the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act are the Republican Main Street Partnership, the B'nai B'rith International, and a long list of people representing religious organizations from almost every denomination in America.
Why do we need this? We need it because President Bush decided in 2001 to take a position on medical research. I do not think there is a precedent in American history for what he did. He basically said we were going to cut off Federal funding for those who were involved in embryonic stem cell research, except for a limited number of lines. He identified 78 stem cell lines on the day of his speech and said that scientists who received any Federal funding at all could work only on those stem cell lines.
As Senator Harkin has pointed out over and over, not only were the 78 lines reduced to 22, they are all contaminated. They cannot be used for this research anymore. So President Bush is not offering any hope when it comes to this area of research. I do not want to get into the moral argument here because it is almost religious. It is moral and theological here. But if the President could rationalize 78 stem cell lines as being appropriate and all right for research, then he has fundamentally decided the research is permissible, I suppose. I do not follow his logic. And I do not follow the logic of some who oppose it who say that because this is a product of in vitro fertilization and has the potential for life that we should not do research. We know that in that process, some of these fertilized eggs will end up being implanted in the womb of an expectant mother in the hope she becomes pregnant, and others will not be used. It is the nature of the process. They make more of these fertilized eggs than they will need in the hopes that one will work.
Then what happens to the rest? Well, they are going to be discarded. They are not used to find cures for diseases. But for those who find it immoral to use the product of that process for medical research, I still am troubled by the notion that they have not come to the floor asking that we ban in vitro fertilization, because we know that is a natural consequence of this process. And if it is permissible and moral and legal to have a process which results in these extra cells, I do not understand the moral question about using these fertilized cells to give people a chance to live and to live their lives better. I just do not understand that.
To measure the impact of President Bush's policy, Stanford University looked at peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals. They found that embryonic stem cell research in the United States made up one-third of the papers published in 2002 but only a fourth of those published in 2004. Research is slowing down. President Bush's decision is reducing the number of opportunities for embryonic stem cell research.
The world's best and most respected scientists--our own NIH leadership--tell us that this area of scientific research could lead to treatments and cures. Dr. James Battey chairs the NIH working group on stem cells. This is what he said before the Senate Labor, HHS Subcommittee:
There's no scientist that I know who would argue that more stem cell lines wouldn't accelerate the pace of scientific research. ..... Cell lines offer scientific opportunities that are right now beyond the reach of federal funds.
Other things have changed since President Bush's decision in 2001 as well. We have learned more about the potential of stem cell research. Dr. John Kessler is the chair of the neurology department at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, which I am honored to represent. He is also the father of a 20-year-old daughter who is paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord injury. He told me personally that he finds the current administration policy ``unconscionable'' in light of everything we have learned since 2001.
H.R. 810--the real bill, the one that is important, and the one that will make the difference--would loosen the handcuffs on America's scientists. It would allow scientists to receive Federal funding to use embryonic stem cell lines in their research if--and only if--two very specific conditions are met. First, the stem cell lines must be derived from eggs that were produced for in vitro fertilization but are going to be discarded. The choice is research or destruction of these potential means of creating medical opportunities. Second, both adults to whom the eggs belong must provide written consent that the eggs be donated to science.
It is estimated 400,000 excess eggs are being stored now in clinics around the country, stored in petri dishes at 300 degrees below zero. Opponents of this research say it is unethical to use them for research. But if they are not used, they will be destroyed. How in the world can that be the right ethical, moral choice to destroy the opportunity for research to cure disease?
I see my colleague from Washington is here, and I know she wants to speak. I will close by saying this: I have met some of the children who are victims of juvenile diabetes. I guess it comes home personally when you sit down with these kids and their mothers, and the mothers say: I wake my daughter up twice in the midst of the night to take a blood test to see how she is doing. Think about that for that poor little girl being awakened twice each night. And think about the mother and her worries that that little girl, who she loves so much, may go blind or lose a limb or die. And think about the hope they have in their hearts that this research will go forward.
I have met the victims of ALS and diabetes and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. I know they are praying we do the right thing tomorrow. I hope we pass this bill. I am not certain it will pass, but I am hopeful it will. It will have strong support on this side of the aisle, and I hope there will be enough votes on both sides of the aisle to enact it. Then the bill will go to President Bush, and he will have a moment in the history of this country to make a momentous decision. If he decides to go forward and veto the stem cell research bill, it will be the first veto of the Bush Presidency.
President Bush described himself politically when he ran for office as a compassionate conservative. His decision on the future of this bill will be the test of his compassion. If he has compassion for those who are suffering across America, who are praying for the hope this research can bring, I hope he will pray over his decision long and hard. And if we pass this bill, I hope he will sign it and give these Americans a chance for a better tomorrow.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/