Summary

Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
United States Senate 1100-1200
04/10/2007
ABC
OSBB10579B
THE SENATE The Senate meets for 1 hour of morning business followed by the start of up to 20 hours of debate on 2 stem cell bills 11:07:00.0 ms. landrieu: mr. president? 11:07:00.9 the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to ask unanimous consent for the quorum call to be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i rise today as if in morning 11:07:16.3 business to speak about the passing of an extraordinary man. today in baton rouge, in the capital, the son of a 11:07:31.8 sharecropper will lie in state. it is a fitting tribute to coach eddie robinson, the winningest coach in the history of football, but a man who excelled beyond the playing field, a man 11:07:49.0 whose life touched hundreds and thousands of athletes on the field and off and millions of lives in a positive way around the world. 11:08:03.0 i rise to pay him tribute today. he is a true american hero. he began coaching in 1941, at grambling state university. 11:08:22.2 during his 57-year coaching tenure, he won more than 400 football games, more than any other coach before him, and 17 championships in the southwestern athletic conference. 11:08:37.8 coach robinson shattered the glass ceiling that had always held back the true potential of african-american players and coaches. he did it with a strong and indomitable spirit and 11:08:55.6 determination and love of country. in a time before the civil rights movement, when overt and state-sponsored racism was the order of the day and permeated both college and professional 11:09:12.6 sports, coach robinson proved that all athletes deserve to compete on the same playing field. throughout years, more than 200 of his players have played in the nfl, including paul tank 11:09:31.1 younger, the first envelope nfl, from a predominantly african-american college. coach robinson was personally responsible for paving the way 11:09:43.6 for hundreds of african-american players to have the opportunity to play in the nfl and as well to play in majority white colleges and universities throughout the country. his legacy includes one of the most exciting annual matchups in college sports held every year, 11:10:02.8 the thanksgiving bayou classic, usually in new orleans, louisiana, between granbling state, his beloved university, and southern university of baton rouge. 11:10:16.2 buzz his achievements or -- but his achievements are not limited to athletic victories. he taught his team the meaning of patriotism and self-respect and hard work. he provided them with the real lessons of life that extended far beyond the playing fields. and after their experience at 11:10:39.2 grambling, i know how proud he was to see his young athletes excel and move all over the world, impacting the wider community in business and in athletics as well and in general 11:10:53.9 community service in multiple ways. he leaves behind a vibrant legacy. he leaves behind a legacy of mentorship that is truly unmatched. he leaves behind a loving and wonderful family, a faith that 11:11:11.5 permeated his entire life and had impact throughout the community. he leaves behind a life well lived and a model for all. one of his former players said it best when he said, "everyone wanted to be like eddie." 11:11:30.7 mr. president, i close these remarks today by saying that i, like most everyone in louisiana, knew coach robinson. we had been in his presence, we had watched him coach, we had heard him laugh, and i had the great privilege of spending some 11:11:47.3 time with him recently in his home in grambling, with his wife doris, and some of the family members. i cannot help to be, even at his late eighth of 88, impress -- 11:12:02.0 late age of 88, impressed with his strong and wonderful spirit. when he was just a few years younger and as he walked into the room, you could feel that spirit immediately. so it is with great sadness that we say goodbye to coach eddie robinson, but it is with great 11:12:16.0 joy that we share with the world this man, the son of a sharecropper, a man who refused to let the limits of even the laws of his time and the limits of the culture in which he lived to stop him or to stop his 11:12:32.1 belief in the young men and women that he coached and he served. so we say goodbye today, but he is getting a proper tribute laying in state at our state capital in baton rouge, and we are confident that his legacy 11:12:47.2 will live on. in my last visit with his family, i hoped and suggested that we could build a museum in his honor. i'm hoping that it's something that members of this congress will join with our leaders at home not just any museum, but a museum that will honor his life 11:13:02.7 and legacy, a place where fleets -- where athletes, professional and amateur, could receive ongoing training and support, both scholastically, as well as in terms of general leadership, so that this legacy could live 11:13:19.5 on and perhaps this place or the center of learning and leadership should be located either on or somewhere very near the grambling campus where he served for so many years. so again, it is with great sadness that we say goodbye, but 11:13:36.2 with great pride of a true american hero, eddie robinson. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the chair 11:13:53.4 recognizes the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to yield back the remaining time of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the 11:14:08.8 consideration of s. res. 140, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 140, to authorize legal representation in the matter of application of committee on finance. the presiding officer: without 11:14:25.0 objection, we will proceed to the measure. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that a statement by the majority leader be inserted in the record with no intervening action. the presiding officer: without 11:14:40.3 objection, it is so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, that today, tuesday, that debate with respect to the stem cell bills be in alternating segments of 60 minutes as follows: 60 minutes under the control of senator 11:14:55.9 harkin or his designee, the next 60 minutes under the control of the republican leader's designee, senator coleman, the next 60 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee, and then the next 60 minutes under the control of senator brownback, 11:15:12.0 and continuing in that alternating fashion until 9:00 p.m. on tuesday.pthe presit objection of. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that any coal and grant gustafson be 11:15:29.3 granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration en bloc of s. 5 and s. 30, which the clerk will 11:15:43.9 report. the clerk: calendar number 3, s. 5, a bill to amend the public health service act, to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. s. 30, a bill to intensify research to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines. 11:16:04.9 the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: well, mr. president, i just noted that as the clerk reported the bill, reported it as an amendment to the public health service act, and that's what this debate is 11:16:20.1 all about. and that's what this vote going to be about. it is going to be about the public health of people in this country and around the world and whether or not they're going to have hope that they will see a future in which modern medical science can actually overcome 11:16:39.1 and cure things like parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, spinal cord disease and a host of other illnesses. that's what this debate is about. 11:16:51.2 it is about hope. it's about health. and so today begins 20 hours of senate debate on a bill to lift 11:16:59.2 the administration's restrictions on stem cell research and bring hope to millions of people in this country who are suffering from things like a.l.s., juvenile diabetes, parkinson's, spinal diseases and other diseases. 11:17:17.0 most americans still find it hard to believe that we're arguing about this issue. they've listened to the scientists. they watched the house and senate vote overwhelmingly during the last congress to 11:17:30.8 expand the administration's policy. then they went to the polls in november and more often than not elected candidates who support stem cell ref. so why are we still debating this? well, the answer unfortunately is simple. president bush used his first 11:17:47.5 and so far only veto of his administration to reject last year's stem cell bill and dash the hopes of millions of americans. so we're back here once again. i want to thank my colleagues in 11:18:02.1 the senate who've worked together on this issue, starting of course with my colleague, senator arlen specter of pennsylvania. he chaired the very first hearing in congress on embryonic stem cells in december of 1998. in all, our labor, health, human 11:18:20.1 services and education appropriations subcommittee has held 20 hearings on this research since then under the chairman of senator specter. -- under the chairmanship of senator speck templt i also want to thank the leaders on stem 11:18:37.0 cell, senator hatch, senator kennedy, senator smith, senator feinstein. so counting senator specter and me, there are three republicans and three democrats on that list. that's truly been a bipartisan effort all the way. 11:18:50.6 i want to thank our majority leader, senator reid bes for scheduling this debate and making sure the ea one of the first issues that we vote on in pentagon 110th congress. i also want to thank our republican leader, senator mcconnell, for working with us to schedule this debate and this vote tomorrow. 11:19:08.8 but i guess most of all i want to 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 s. 5 sent to the president's desk. they have kept the faith. 11:19:25.1 now it is our job to see that they're not disappointed. now, there's probably one other entity that i should thank and that's the house of representatives under the able leadership of senator pelosi who passed this bill earlier this week and sent it over to the 11:19:41.7 senate. i will talk a little bit later about how our bill differs from theirs, but nonetheless, the bill that they passed is a bill that mirrors the same thing that we're doing here and that's to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. 11:19:58.5 so under this unanimous consent agreement that we have for information we'll debate on vote on two bills. make no mistake, however. the only one that really matters is s. 5rbg the stem cell research enhancement afnlght the other bill is s. 30. 11:20:14.1 this is the one bill that at long last will unleash some of the most promising and exciting research of modern times. s. 5rbg the bill that we'll be debating in and voting on, will take the handcuffs off of off of our scientists. 11:20:28.7 take the handcuffs off so that they can now begin to do the research that will lead to miraculous cures and interventions. so it is a good time to step back and ask, why is there so much support for s. 5? well, i've got a letter signed by 525 groups endorsing this 11:20:49.6 bill, patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups. 525 groups in all, and they all gley congress should pass s. 5 11:21:05.8 -- and they all agree that congress should pass s. 5. why is that? well, mr. president, because it offers hope. embryonic stem cells -- i have a series of charts here which i will point to. s. 5 offers hope. 11:21:20.2 and i think that this i will strait straition kind of illustrates many -- not all, but many of the items in which scientists tell us that embryonic stem cells could lead to the interventions and cures. lou gehrig's disease, 11:21:37.7 alzheimer's, parkinson z disease, muscular disclow trophy, bone marrow disorders, diabetes, immune deficiencies, spinal cord injuries. 11:21:53.8 that's adjust to name a few. you get the idea of how 11:21:59.5 all-encompassing the approach would be if we were to get into embryonic stem cell research. it's not just focused on one thing. it's broader than that. and it enexases so many illnesses and afflictions. all tolled, more unanimous 100 11:22:14.6 million americans have diseases that one day could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research. but it is not just us members of congress saying that. no one should take our word alone. three weeks ago dr. elliott sorhuniment, the director of the 11:22:30.8 national institutes of health, appeared before our appropriations subcommittee. i asked him whether scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the administration's current cree he restrictions on embryonic stem cell research was lifted. 11:22:46.1 the doctor said, unequivocally, yes. now the doctor is the federal government's top scientists in the area of research. president bush appointed him to be the director of the n.i.h. so it took great courage for him 11:23:03.7 to say that we need to change direction on stem cell research. but he did so because it's the truth. and this was his quote. this is what dr. zerhouni said before our subcommittee, the 11:23:18.8 director of the national institutes of health. "it's clear today that american science would be better served and the nation would be better serve fundamental we let our sign tfts have access to more cell lines..." it is not just n.i.h. scientist 11:23:37.6 whose believe this way. dr. jay michael bishop who won the nobel prize in medicine wrote "the vast majority of the biomedical research community believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key discoveries 11:23:53.5 righted to many debilitating diseases." dr. harold var must, the former director of the national institutes of health, who just preceded dr. zerhouni wrote in the letter dated yesterday, "s. 11:24:11.2 5 represents an important step forward for human embryonic stem cell research, a new field that offers great promise for the replacement of damaged cells, the understanding of the mechanics of disease, and the 11:24:25.0 development and testing of new drugs. unfortunately, current federal policy has not kept pace with the speed of scientific discovery and is today of limited value to the scientific community." 11:24:44.5 well, i could go on and on. we have a lot of scientists all over this country and the world who agree that we should be pursuing embryonic stem cell research because it offers 11:24:58.3 enormous hope to easing human suffering. now, some may ask, i thought the federal government already supports embryonic stem cell research? well, here we have an interesting situation here in terms of the -- of federal 11:25:14.9 funding for embryonic stem cell research. i have to take you back in time to august the 9th of 2001. in an evening address, starting at:00 p.m., on august 9, 2001, 11:25:32.4 the president in an address to the nation said that we were going to permit federal funding for embryonic stem cells only if they were derived prior to 9:00 11:25:47.3 p.m. august the 9th of 2001. any that were derived after that, we could not fund research on. well, at that time it was said 11:26:01.4 there were 78 lines, 78 stem cell lines, that we could use. well, we now know that's less than 21 now and many of these are in bad shape and every single one of them contam 11:26:16.2 naughted on mouse feeder sevments which i'll talk about in a moment. but it also -- i always thought it was kind of interesting, very curious, that we had this hypocrisy. i call it stem cell parliamentary inquiry po 11:26:31.6 chrissie, that before 9:00 p.m. on august 9, 2001, it is morally acceptable to use taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. so if the stem cells were derived before 9:00 perjures utah ea morally acceptable. 11:26:48.5 but if they were derived after 9:00 p.m. on august 9, it's morally unacceptable. well, i ask, what is so significant about 9:00 p.m. on 11:26:58.1 august 9? why couldn't it have been 8:30 p.m.? 9:15 p.m.? midnight? 10:00 p.m.? well, i think you get the point. 11:27:13.0 it's totally arbitrary. totally, totally arbitrary. you have to ask yourself, why is it that federal tax dollars could be used on embryonic stem cells derived before 9:00 p.m. -- that's okay -- but after 9:00 11:27:28.6 p.m., it's not okay. please, someone tell me why 9:00 p.m. august 9 is the moral dividing line. toltly arbitrary. well, we had hoped -- even with 11:27:45.4 that, we had hoped that the president's policy had worked. but it hasn't. and here's why. at that date the president said that there were 78 stem cell lines available. we now know that only 21 are eligible. 11:27:59.0 that's not nearly enough to redplekt the genetic diversity that scientists need to develop treatments for everyone in the country. what's more, every single one -- every single one of these approved lines are contaminated by mouse feeder cells. 11:28:19.0 well, what that means is that when you take these stem cells and you propagate them -- you get them to flow grow -- you do them in a medium. you grow them in things. they were groanl in mouse feeder cells. 11:28:34.1 so they're all contaminated. ask yourself, would you like to take the possibility that somehow mouse cells were getting into your body because of stem cells? no. and many of the 21 lines are just too uneliminatey. they've degeneral ratted. 11:28:50.5 they're unhealthy. i've been told we're down to about right now only four. dr. elizabeth navel, the director of the heart, lung, and blood institute said that only four of the 21 federal lei 11:29:05.5 proved lines are in common use by n.i.h.-funded scientists. only four. dr. jerry burg, another n.i.h. director said really there are six lines in common use. four or circumstance you get the picture. 11:29:20.3 it is not 78. it is owl four or sismghts and there again they're conat that con--they're contaminated with e feeder sells cells. so some stem cell research is take place. but our top scientists are working with one arm tied behind 11:29:37.9 their backs. it is having a chilling impact on scientists who are thinking about interght field. according to the director of the n.i.h. drug abuse institute, the administration's policy is discouraging scientists from applying for n.i.h. funding. 11:29:55.8 in a letter last year she wrote -- quote -- "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."p 11:30:12.9 so the president's policy, which we've had in effect since 9:00 p.m. of august 9, 2001, is not a way forward. it's an absolute dead end for research. it only offers false hope to the millions of people across 11:30:28.0 america and the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated through embryonic stem cell research. meanwhile, meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the president's arbitrary time of august the 9th of 2001. 11:30:45.3 the n.i.h. estimates there are about 400 worldwide, 400 different stem cell lines been derived. many of those lines are uncontaminated, they're healthy, but they're totally off-limits to federally funded scientists. scientists in many other 11:31:04.3 countries around the world don't face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. when you talk to researchers in england, for example, our policy makes no sense to them. they can't understand why stem cell lines derived on one date are fine to use, but if they're derived on another date, they're 11:31:20.1 off-limits. i don't understand that either. i've wrestled with that since 9:00 p.m. of august the 9th, 2001. i mean if you're going to take the position that this is totally morally unacceptable and there should be no federal 11:31:37.4 funding, then we should have no federal funding. there's those four or five that are now being examined and studied and shouldn't be allowed either. but i haven't seep any amendments -- seen any amendments from anyone here that 11:31:52.7 would even overturn that president's policy. 11:31:57.0 well, it's a shame that we don't open up these stem cell lines. i think about it this way: we don't require astronomers to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. we don't tell our geologists to 11:32:12.4 study the earth with tape measures. if we're serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available. again, don't take my word for 11:32:31.9 it. dr. storiy landis runs the stem cell task force at n.i.h. in january, she appeared before a joint hearing of the "help" committee chaired by senator committee and my subcommittee. 11:32:45.8 senator kennedy asked her whether scientists are missing out on possible breakthroughs under the administration's current policy and this was her answer -- quote -- "yes, we are missing out on possible breakthroughs, from a purely scientific perspective, federal 11:33:01.8 funding of additional cell lines is necessary to advance the field." this is dr. landis, the head of the stem cell task force at n.i.h. so what we need is a stem cell policy in this country that offers true meaningful hope to 11:33:17.4 patients and their loved ones, and that's what s. 5 would provide. under our bill, federal funded researchers could study any stem cell line regardless of the date it was derived as long as strict ethical guidelines are met. 11:33:33.1 i think it's important to emphasize this, that we have very strict ethical guidelines. first, stem cells must come from embryos that would otherwise be 11:33:48.4 discarded. there are more than 400,000 embryos right now in the united states left over from fertility treatments that are currently sitting frozen in liquid nitrogen in storage, 400,000. the contributors of those 11:34:05.9 embryos, the parents, the moms and dads have had all the children they want. they no longer need any more of their embryos. so what happens to them? under the policy we have now, there's only two things. you can keep them frozen for the next 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 11:34:22.6 years or however long, or you discard them. and that's what's happening every day at in vitro fertilization clinics across the country. embryos are being discarded as hospital waste. 11:34:40.4 now, you might be a couple that says, well, gee, you know, we've had all our children, we don't want any more and we don't really want to keep paying forever and ever to have them frozen, we would like to donate them to stem cell research maybe 11:34:55.7 to help some young person with -- with juvenile diabetes, maybe, or someone with a spinal cord injury. we would like to do that. we would like to contribute those embryos for that kind of stem cell research. 11:35:11.7 you can't do it today. can't do it. it would seem to me that at least we ought to allow couples to donate them if they wish. so the real question is throw 11:35:27.0 them away or use them to ease suffering? throw them or allow them to be used with these strict ethical guidelines. well, i think it's the second choice that's the truly moral and truly respectful of human life. 11:35:42.4 you might even think about it this way: people say, well, embryos will be destroyed. the embryo itself, which, by the way, i keep pointing out to people, there's a lot of 11:35:59.1 misconception that's gone on -- i didn't listen to it, but i read the debate in the house last year. and one of the speakers, i think he was the former minority leader, mr. delay, went on talking about fetuses, about the protection of fetuses. and a lot of times people get the idea that we're talking 11:36:16.1 about fetuses. we're not. we're talking about embryos. i always put a little do the on a piece of paper and say can anyone see what i put on that piece of paper? that's just how big an embryo is. it contains a few dozen cells. well, so we've got to get over 11:36:35.0 this idea that somehow it's a fully formed fetus existing in a womb. that's not it at all. so you think of an embryo and you say well, it's alive. ok, it's got life, yes, it does. you shouldn't destroy that life. 11:36:52.1 well, you might destroy the embryo itself, but in taking the 11:36:57.7 stem cells out it's the cells that are in the embryo that give the embryo life. so if you take those cells out and you propagate them and you examine them and then maybe use those stem cell lines for curing 11:37:12.0 diseases in the future, it seems to me that you're really propagating life, you're saving lives, you're enhancing life by doing that. so that's why i think that giving people the choice of 11:37:28.9 voluntarily contributing them is the truly moral and respectful of human life. now, the second ethical requirement in s. 5 is that couples have to provide written informed consent, written 11:37:48.6 informed consent. now, i might point out that some of the 21 federally-approved lines that are now in existence, especially the ones from other countries, don't immediate that requirement. 11:38:02.9 so we need to pass s. 5 to tighten the ethical guidelines on stem cell research so there's no question that the embryos were donated properly. so think of it this way: we have federal money right now that could be going -- that probably 11:38:17.1 is going for research on some stem cells that were provided without written informed consent. well, we need to tighten down on that, and that's what s. 5 does. now you'll hear a lot of talk 11:38:32.5 about -- and i read the debates of last year here on the floor of the senate, debates in the house, a lot of talk about setting up embryo farms. we're not going to have embryo farming so that women will have -- take their eggs, they'll 11:38:49.8 connect a sperm, they'll create the embryos and they'll embryo farms, i've heard that a number of times. well, s. 5, our bill, prohibits women from being paid to donate, to donate embryos. 11:39:04.1 there's no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go through the donation process against their will. now, i want to point out that under our bill, couples can't receive money or other inducements to donate embryos. under the present guidelines 11:39:21.6 that now exist from the white house, it just says you can't receive money. well, there might be other inducements that might be provided to you to get you to donate them. 11:39:34.5 we want to cut all that off. we want to say it has to be purely voluntary. purely voluntary. you can't receive money or any other inducement. you must have written informed consent, and it can only come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. very strict ethical guidelines. 11:39:56.1 so again, this year's bill, s. 5, has one significant change from last year's bill that we passed, and we passed that bill overwhelmingly here, 63 votes, 11:40:11.6 but this bill has one difference. it now includes the text of last year's specter-santorum bill, which passed the senate unanimously but got tied up in the house and died at the end of the 109th congress. that bill, which president bush 11:40:26.3 strongly endorsed, encouraged n.i.h. to pursue alternative ways of deriving stem cells in addition to our current method. as i've made clear, going clear back to december of 1998, i support any ethical means to 11:40:43.6 improve the lives of human beings who are suffering, so that we should open every door we can in the support and the pursuit of cures. so what we've done in the new version of s. 5 is combine the 11:40:59.0 two bills that the senate passed overwhelmingly last year, but did not become law, that was h.r. 810, and the specter-santorum bill. so by voting for s. 5, s. 5, the bill before us now, snoorps can show that they -- senators can show that they support all forms 11:41:14.6 of stem cell research. now, again, the specter-santorum bill just says open it up, find out all other alternative forms of stem cell research. that's fine. that would be amniotic, placental stem cells, adult stem cells, whatever. 11:41:32.5 i have no problem with that. in fact, i think we ought to pursue all of them, but that's the key difference now between s. 5 and s. 30. now, that's the other bill that we'll vote on tomorrow night, s. 11:41:48.6 30. s. 30 puts all its hopes and theories, alternative ways of 11:41:54.8 derising stem cells that might work or might not -- deriving stem cells that might work or might not, at this point, no one knows. now, we do know how to derive stem cells, we do know how to propagate them. 11:42:07.4 already research in some other countries and private research has already led to stem cells developing into nerve cells and things like that. but we don't know about what s. 30 does. s. 30 says to scientists -- that's the other bill that's before us -- it says, don't use 11:42:24.4 any of the 400 existing stem cell lines already derived. instead, put all your effort in figuring out some new way of derising stem cells that might take -- deriving stem cells that might take 10 years to pan out or even more, or maybe even not 11:42:40.6 at all. for example, the proponents of s. 30 will talk a lot over the next -- today and tomorrow about stem cells that could allegedly be derived from quote, "dead embryos," embryos that aren't 11:42:56.8 healthy and have stopped growing. i've got to tell you, the idea that we could cure juvenile diabetes, a.l.s. and, parkinson's with something called dead embryos doesn't 11:43:09.7 exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence. think about it. if you were treating someone with embryonic stem cells, would you rather use stem cells that came from a healthy embryo, healthy, vibrant, growing, or would you rather have them coming from a dead embryo? just ask yourself that simple 11:43:26.2 question. now, the dead embryo died for a reason. there was something wrong with it. chances are the stem cells that come from that dead embryo aren't so great either. so why does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to curing a.l.s. or juvenile 11:43:42.3 diabetes? s. 5, our bill, by contrast would immediately make those hundreds of new lines eligible for federal research, again, as long as they were derived under the strict ethical guidelines that we have in our bill. 11:44:00.8 so s. 30, the other bill, that might not do any harm, but i don't think it does any good either. again, it's why we have to keep our focus on s. 5. and if this year's debate goes like last year's, we'll expect 11:44:16.1 opponents of our bill to make a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells. and i'll listen closely and i'll try to correct those -- those mistakes that people might make about adult stem cells. 11:44:30.3 there's a lot of stuff out there, but our committee has looked at this and we've had a lot of testimony from a lot of scientists at n.i.h. so there will be a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells. now, as i have said for the last several years, i'm all for adult stem cell research and use. 11:44:49.0 adult stem cells are already being used successfully in treating several blood-related diseases, and that's great. i'm all for it. and let's continue this area of research. but as we now know, and as 11:45:05.1 scientists tell us, adult stem cells have limits. they can't do everything that embryonic stem cells can do. so, again, don't take my word for it. listen to what dr. zerhouni, the nation's highest ranking medical 11:45:21.8 researcher, has to say about adult stem cells. and this is what he said before our committee. he said "the presentations about adult stem cells having as much or more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not hold scientific water. 11:45:38.7 i think they are overstated. my point of view is that all angles in stem cell research should be pursued." and that's what s. 5 will allow us to do.xmost people couldn't s which cells were developed to 11:45:56.3 create a cure. they just want a cure. so i say let's examine them all. and i might add, by the way, s. 30, the other bill that we'll be debating here that focuses on derifling stem cells from naturally dead embryos, that can 11:46:12.6 be done under s. 5 also. or under the bill -- the addition. specter-santorum bill. s. 5, our bill, says we'll open 11:46:29.9 up the 400 lines as loaning as they meet the ethical guidelines that we've established. we'll open them up for federally funded ref and everything else, too. they can look at stem cells from naturally dead embryos. they can look at them from adult stem cells or placental or 11:46:46.7 amniotic fluid or umbilical cord, whatever. look at them all. 11:46:52.9 as long as they meet ethical guidelines. lastly, mr. president, we talk all about research and about science and about stem cells and using all the quotes from scientists, everything. what it's really about, it's 11:47:09.2 about giving hope to people. it's about health. it's about helping people who have devastating, devastating illnesses. this is a picture of carly from ankony, iowa. 11:47:28.0 carly is one of the millions of americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. i just met carly for the first time last fall with her mother, her sisters. she just celebrated her 12th birthday, and she has type-1 11:47:45.7 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes. well, when people have this disease, their body stops making insulin. so they have to inject it either through needles or pumps. 11:47:57.6 so here is a picture of carly, age 12, ancony, iowa, with one month's supply of needles. look at them. one month. you just ask yourself, how would you like to give yourself four shots a day, age 12? 11:48:17.8 imagine that, four times a day. as carly said, she never gets a vacation from juvenile diabetes. it is with her wherever she goes, at home, at school, on field trirngs holidays. 11:48:30.6 she told me that my dream is that one day we'll find a cure for juvenile diabetes. if adult stem cells could bring her a cure, she'd gladly take it. but scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years 11:48:47.3 and they still haven't provided the answer for juvenile diabetes. we can't keep telling people like carly, embryonic stem cells might bring you a cure but sorry the federal government is not interested. our premier institution, n.i.h., can't be involved. 11:49:04.9 we can't keep telling the millions of americans who have parkinson's and a.l.s. and spinal card injure ritz, so, we know that embryonic stem cell research might ease your suffering but we'd rather do nothing about it. 11:49:19.0 now is our chance to change that. i urge senators to think about carly and all the people in their lives who could benefit from stem cell research and vote "yes" emphatically on s. 5 tomorrow. 11:49:36.9 mr. president, i yield the floor to my good friend -- and i say again, the person who started all of our hearings on this in december of 1998, the chairmanship of senator specter, 11:49:52.3 our committee had the first hearing on embryonic stem cells one month after they were derived. there hasn't been a more stalwart, informed person in either body here on the hill about embryonic stem cell 11:50:08.7 research than senator specter. mr. specter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: parliamentary inquiry. is it correct that i have 20 minutes allocated at this time? mr. president, i thank my 11:50:24.7 distinguished colleague, senator harkin, for his leadership on this very important issue. i thank him for his very generous comments, and it is true that he and i have worked together on the subcommittee of labor, health, human services, 11:50:41.2 and education for more than 20 years. he now chairs the subcommittee, and i am ranking, and in the past i have chaired it and he has been ranking. we have very close bipartisan cooperation, as we frequently say, there has been a seamless 11:50:57.4 transfer of the gavel, looking out for the interests of the american people. senator harkin accurately notes that when stem cells first burst upon the american scene in november of 1998, our subcommittee moved immediately. 11:51:14.2 it was actually december 2 of 1998. we have since had a total of 20 hearings on this important subject. and today i am speaking for 110 million americans who suffer 11:51:30.7 directly or indirectly, personal little or through their families, loved ones, from debilitating diseases such as parkinson's, alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and i also 11:51:45.7 speak for myself. in 1970, president nixon declared war on cancer and had 11:51:54.0 that war been prosecuted with the same diligence of other wars, my former chief of staff carey lackland, a beautiful young woman of 48, would not have died of breast cancer, one 11:52:08.5 of my very best friends, a very distinguished federal judge, edward r. becker, would not have died of prostate cancer; and all of us know people who have been stricken by cancer who have been incapacitated with parkinson's 11:52:26.3 or alzheimer's, who have been victims of heart disease or many other maladies. we now have an opportunity with the breakthrough on stem cell research 10 to have the 11:52:39.5 potential of curing these maladies. i sustained an episode with hodgkin's lymphoma cancer two years ago and that trauma and that illness, i think, could have been prevented had that war 11:52:56.7 on cancer declared by the president of the united states in 1970 been prosecuted with sufficient intensity. well, we now know about stem cells. we now know from the leading 11:53:11.2 scientists of the united states and the leading scientists of the world the potential of stem cells to deal with the dreaded maladies. the leader of the national institutes of health, 11:53:26.4 dr. zerhouni, has said, "imrek stem cell research holds great-- --embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for treating, imriewflg our understanding of disease and well asvealing important basic mechanisms involved in stem cell 11:53:43.0 differentiation and development." i now ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to introduce to the record at the conclusion of my remarks the testimonials from the directors of the national 11:54:00.3 institutes of health, who have spoken out vigorously in support of embryonic stem cell research. the presiding officer: without objection, they will be includedin the record. mr. specter: there are some 400,000 of these embryos which 11:54:16.0 have been frozen and which will either be used potentially to cure disease or will be discarted carded. embryos are created for in vitro fertilization. a few of them are used and the others are frozen. 11:54:31.8 and if any of these embryonic stem cells could be used to produce life, none of us would advocate the research, but they will not be used to produce life. 11:54:46.6 our subcommittee took the lead in providing $2 million for embryonic stem cell adoption. as of april 5 of this year, the night life christian adoption 11:55:04.6 service report that embryo adoption has resulted in the birth of some 135 so-called snowflake children and 20 babies are currently due. so it is obvious on these statistics that we have enormous 11:55:22.5 resources available to be used for scientific research without in any way impacting on limiting any lifestyle. i have in my hand, 11:55:37.2 mr. president, an hourglass. this hourglass was referenced by one of my constituents, a man named jim cordy, who suffers from parkinson's in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, and when i was in 11:55:54.0 pittsburgh years ago, jim cordy approached me with an hourglass and he said, senator, the sands are slipping through this hourglass like my life is slipping away. 11:56:11.8 and there is the potential for curing parkinson's andz you ought to be doing something about it. well, we have tried mightily. senator harkin, senator kennedy, senator hatch, senator smith, 11:56:28.3 senator feinstein, many of us have tried mightily. last year we passed a bill for stem cell research which would liberate the use of federal funds for research, and i think it important to note, 11:56:42.5 mr. president, that the federal funds will not be used to kill embryos but would be used to conduct research on 400 existing 11:56:53.3 lines. but that bill, as we all know, was vetoed. the senate passed the bill by 63 votes. i believe it is accurate to say there are more than 63 affirmative votes in the senate 11:57:08.1 today. whether there are 67 remains to be seen. i think it is also accurate to say that in the house of representatives we're not close to a veto override based upon the votes in the house of 11:57:26.5 representatives last year. but we're not too far -- we're not too far away either. and it is my view that if we had sufficient mobilization of public opinion, with that public 11:57:41.0 opinion and that political pressure, which is the appropriate process in a democracy, could provide enough votes for an override. as i see it, it is not a matter of whether there will be federal 11:57:57.2 funding for embryonic stem cell research but when that federal funding will be present. and the longer it is delayed, the more people will suffer and die from these maladies. 11:58:15.3 i have encouraged the groups which come to washington in large numbers to stage a massive march on the mall. if we put a million people on the mall, they would be within
Tape
}