PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION July 17, 2006
Posted by TheraVitae in : VesCell in the News , trackbackCongressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 152 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, JULY 17,2006 No. 93
Senate
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as everybody is doing, I want to discuss the three stem-cell-research-related bills before the Senate. I have been in the Senate for 26 years now. Every day, we make decisions that impact Americans. It becomes difficult, however, when we debate bills that involve the lives of women and families, especially those who are sick and dying. We must be cognizant of their plights, but we cannot forget about those who don’t have a voice.
Tomorrow, I will vote in favor of those who are not yet brought into this world. I will vote for those who don’t have a chance to speak against legislation that doesn’t give them a chance at life.
First, I intend to support S. 3504, the ban on fetus farming. This bill states that a person cannot solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of fetal tissue or an embryo if the pregnancy was initiated to provide such material. This bill will reduce the likelihood that women will be used solely for their production of embryos. We have to draw the line, and we have to prevent the corruption that could occur.
Second, I intend to support a bill numbered S. 2754, which directs the National Institute of Health to fund alternative techniques for stem cell research. It will allow researchers to use different techniques to derive pluripotent stem cells without destroying human life. This research could be done under current law, but a vote in support of this bill will send a signal to the NIH that we want to see even more of this research.
Finally, I will oppose H.R. 810 because it would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Some of my colleagues will characterize the bill, H.R. 810. as a lifesaving opportunity for many people with diseases. The focus will be on promises, hopes, and dreams. This focus disregards that this bill will allow researchers to use and abuse embryos. And there are enormous moral and ethical consequences associated with that research.
You cannot mess with the facts. An embryo is life. No senator can disagree with that assertion. Once you realize that fact-that an embryo is life - you have to realize that this bill takes life and plays with it.
In addition, this bill doesn’t prohibit cloning. In fact, it will make cloning even more attractive. Why would we want to go down this road of unethical research when we have a method that already works?
We all know that adult stem cell research has been proven effective. We are investing the taxpayers’ money in research that benefits the American people. We in Congress have to realize that there is a difference between hope and hype. I, for one, will not be misled.
Adult stem cells have already proven effective for over 72 treatments, I will not list them all, but some of them relate to adult stem cells being used to treat brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and Parkinson’s disease. Peripheral blood stem cells have treated testicular cancer, lymphoma, and breast cancer, Cord blood stem cells have treated leukemia. Olfactory stem cells from the nose can develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells, muscle cells, brain cells, and nerve cells. Bone marrow stem cells and cells from fat have the ability to differentiate and form other body tissues.
I wish I could list the advances with embryonic stem cell research, but I cannot; there are none. There are no treatments for human patients, so there is no evidence on which to argue that this research should be expanded with public resources.
I have a story about a person that I have known for 44 years, David Foege. I have known him since he was a page at the Iowa State Legislature back in 1962. He is originally from Waverly, IA, so even though he lives in Florida, I still consider him a constituent. There is evidence, then, through David Foege that we should continue supporting adult stem cell research.
Just 2 weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet David, who is now 61 years old and living in Florida. This is the story he told me. David was given a life sentence because of heart failure. Three years ago, David was told that he had little chance of surviving. His heart was losing all function and there was little that doctors could do. David then turned to stem cell therapy. He found doctors in Bangkok that would harvest his own stem cells and then inject them back into his own heart. His own stem cells – his adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells – cured him. His heart function has improved by 70 percent. David is alive and well, playing golf, and currently taking a cruise in Belize. Without adult stem cell therapy, David would not be here.
Embryonic stem cell research, on the contrary, has not yielded this kind of success that we have from adult stem cells. It makes sense to direct public resources to what works. Prioritizing resources: It makes sense for public resources to help those with heart disease, the No. 1 killer in the United States. It makes sense to encourage research that will work for those with Parkinson’s, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. Why would we want to desert patients in the United States by spending dollars on research that has not been proven?
I will oppose H.R. 810 not only, because of the ethical consequences but because it doesn’t prioritize our use of fiscal resources.
Let’s be clear. There is no current policy in place that bans embryonic stem cell research. Everybody knows that we are doing some through the Federal Government because, being perfectly legal in the United States, President Bush, in 2001, allowed taxpayer dollars to be used for that research. This debate in the Senate today and tomorrow is not whether we want to ban or allow research, it is whether we want to send our dollars on embryo creation an destruction.
Today, the Congress appropriates nearly $30 billion for medical research through the National Institutes of Health. Every year, hundreds of advocates come to my office to say that $30 billion is not enough. They say these funds are important to continue research and trials that are already started. So what would happen to those arguments if there was a higher priority placed through passage of H.R. 810? Will we have to double the budget again for NIH like we did between 1998 and 2003? I don’t think that is possible given that was already done starting in the year 1998. So it makes me wonder whether we are prioritizing the use of Federal research dollars through the National Institutes of Health that way we should.
We don’t have an infinite amount of Federal funding. We cannot pretend there is enough money to go around. We do have to prioritize. So I urge my colleagues to realize that Congress can only disburse so many funds. We can only fix so many problems. Therefore, we need to think atonally. We need to make tough choices. One of those tough choices might be to pursue what is proven to work, which is greater use of adult stem cells. The right choice, then, is to invest in what works. Let’s keep the ball rolling with research that has been prove.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
