Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

Floor Speech

STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - April 10, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to explain to my colleagues why I will vote against S. 5 in its present form, and I believe it will probably be in its present form as we vote on it.

We in Congress are petitioned every day by individuals, by families, by companies, by interest groups, and other entities that have a stake in what the Federal Government does. We were elected to this great body to represent people back home, and to provide reasonable solutions to everyday problems that we confront here in the Congress.

I meet people in Iowa every week who seek cures for different diseases and different disorders. They seek results, and we fight to provide them results so that life is better, life expectancy is longer. Americans want Congress to fund medical research, and we do it in a big way. That is why we provided nearly $30 billion annually for the National Institutes of Health, which is the leading organization on health-related research.

We all know and love someone who has suffered from a devastating disease or disorder. My wife is a breast cancer survivor; my brother died of a stroke; my sister died of an aortic aneurysm. I have friends with diabetes, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's disease. I have known many who have lost a battle to cancer, and others who face a long struggle with Alzheimer's disease.

I want cures as well as everybody else wanting cures. I want to believe that the pain and suffering will end as much as anyone wants it to end. But I cannot in good conscience support a bill that forces American taxpayers to fund research that requires the destruction of innocent human life. This is a slippery slope.

I wish to address six key points that have been put forward by Robert George and by Thomas Berg. They were made in an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal on March 13, this year.

These authors state that responsible and productive debate is often lost amidst confusion and misperceptions surrounding the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Both sides of this debate have reasonable arguments. But these authors, including this Senator, believe embryonic-destructive research cannot be morally justified.

First, Professor George and Reverend Berg rightly point out there is not a ban on human embryonic stem cell research in the United States. Yet I believe people in this body leave that impression. More importantly, it has left
the impression--whether from Members of Congress or other people in our society--there is a Federal ban on human embryonic stem cell research. They leave out the fact we are already doing some through the Federal Government. They leave out the fact that the private sector and State governments are doing a lot of embryonic stem cell research as well. So there is embryonic stem cell research going on. The issue is whether the Federal taxpayers ought to be paying for something that would destroy life at the beginning.

What people have forgotten in this debate, then, is George W. Bush was, in fact, the first President to provide Federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Throughout the Clinton administration, not one penny of taxpayer dollars was allowed for this sort of research. So there is no Federal ban. In fact, companies and researchers can and are doing it now. There is no legal barrier to prohibit the private financing of it. In fact, we will continue to fund the lines President Bush authorized in 2001. Since the President announced his decision in August 2001, the Federal Government has provided almost $130 million for embryonic stem cell research. Eighty-five percent of the embryonic stem cell research studies in the world use these lines that President Bush's decision in August 2001 allowed.

Because of this funding and the investment in the National Institutes of Health, America, our country, remains one of the global leaders in medical research. Why then do some generate the false impression that the Federal Government is not involved in stem cell research?

Well, that brings me to the second point. The authors say we are a long way away from seeing the therapies the other side promises. Embryonic stem cell research may not be the magic potion many make it out to be. Even the most ardent pro-embryonic stem cell research experts have stated its benefits are years, if not generations, away. George and Berg quote a prominent British expert who is not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in his life and possibly anyone's lifetime, be holding quite the promise that some desperately hope they will.

One expert from the University of Wisconsin fears a backlash because the cures the public expects could be decades away. I know many of my colleagues and many of my constituents believe embryonic stem cell research holds potential. They believe the hope and the promise of this research will save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. But I cannot support the expanded use of taxpayer dollars to invest in something that is generations away--even if possible--when proven therapies through adult stem cell research, with no moral strings being attached, no lives being taken, are right in front of us.

Third, the authors explain that a human embryo is deserving of at least some degree of special moral status. Most people would agree the embryo being destroyed has the potential to be developed into human life. It is a fact. Therefore, it is only right that a heightened degree of sensitivity and consideration be paid to this life at this stage of development, the embryo.

This bill then plays with human life. The other side's promise of cures disregards the fact that this bill will allow researchers to kill embryos, and pay for that killing, with American taxpayer dollars.

The bill before us says we should fund research using embryos that were on the brink of being thrown away anyway. Thrown away? What about the many children who have been adopted through this process? They were not thrown away or they obviously would not have been here to be adopted.

What about making sure that couples are not exploited and forced to create extra embryos so that industry can make a profit? Think how China makes a profit from harvesting organs from prisoners that they execute, or who knows how they die? Tourist medicine is what it is called. Do we want that sort of ethic in our research? I do not think so.

What about ensuring those so-called leftover embryos are not being created through cloning? How do we ensure human cloning is not made more attractive, and that researchers are limited to how they create and destroy life? Where do we draw the line?

Point number four: There are noncontroversial methods that are worth exploring if you want to do something for curing maladies with stem cells. Other noncontroversial methods of cutting-edge research, those which do not destroy human embryos, offer near equal promise for future medical benefit. Those methods are treating people this very day. Stem cells derived from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, have opened the doors to many therapies. Adult stem cells have already proven effective in treating over 70 diseases and disorders, not something anybody interested in embryonic stem cells can point to. This alternative research has proven effective. We are investing taxpayers' money in research that people are reaping benefits in today.

Last year, I talked about an acquaintance of mine by the name of David Foege whom I happen to know from the years when he was a page in the Iowa Legislature in the 1960s. He grew up in Iowa and now resides in Florida. Four years ago, David Foege was told that he had little chance of survival. His heart was losing all function, and there was little that doctors could do. David turned to stem cell therapy. He found doctors in Bangkok who would harvest his own stem cells and inject them back into his own heart. This year, 25 million of his own stem cells were taken from his blood and injected into his heart. He went from a life-threatening situation to a nearly normal heart function. He went from a life expectancy of 90 days to 10 or 15 more years. He is fighting that death warrant that he received years ago. David Foege is evidence that adult stem cells work, that the investment we have made in adult stem cells is paying off, and it is evidence that we ought to put our money where product is received as opposed to the quandary of when will we get therapies or when will we get maladies fixed by the research in adult stem cells.

I wish I could list the advances with embryonic stem cell research, but I cannot. There aren't any. There are no treatments for human patients derived from embryonic stem cells. So there is no evidence on which to argue that this research should be expanded with public resources; in other words, tax dollars being used. We in Congress have to realize that there is a difference between hope and hype.

The fifth point these authors make, moral concerns are not exclusively religious in nature. Everybody thinks that anyone who is fighting this research is some religious fanatic.

Nobody says it better than Charles Krauthammer, a highly regarded columnist and former member of the President's Council on Bioethics. Mr. Krauthammer doesn't believe that life begins at conception, as many who have a feeling about embryonic stem cells and the destruction of life at that stage. But Mr. Krauthammer says that ``many secularly''--I emphasize secularly; I didn't say religious--``inclined people have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation''--to the point of dismemberment--``of human embryos.'' Mr. Krauthammer says that we don't need religion to simply ``have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in the pursuit of doing good.''

Mr. Krauthammer knows firsthand what it is like to live with a debilitating disease. He suffers from spinal cord injury. He spends every day of his life in a wheelchair. Even he knows that it is cruel to play on the hearts of those who suffer by saying that a cure is within reach. He said:

There's nothing less compassionate than to construct a political constituency of sufferers by falsely and cruelly intimating that their disease is on the very cusp of cure if only the President would stop playing politics with the issue.

We aren't playing politics. Reasonable people can disagree on the moral or fiscal consequences of this bill without being labeled religiously minded obstructionists.

The sixth and final point that Berg and George make is that medical advancements are not the only interest of stem cell researchers. Because the benefit of embryonic stem cell research is only speculative and many years from producing results, most scientists have acknowledged that the primary interest of this type of research is to enhance the basic knowledge of early
human development. S. 5 does not ban human cloning, and it doesn't help draw the line on what researchers should or should not do with so-called leftover embryos. This puts us on a very slippery slope. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this issue before casting their vote.

S. 5 disregards respect for human life at the expense of prolonging the pain of those who seek a cure. We in Congress and across the country need to think rationally and to make tough choices. The right choice is to invest in what works. I have spent a great deal of time explaining that I thought that was adult stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to join in defeating S. 5 and supporting the proven and noncontroversial field of adult stem cell research.

I thank the Chair.

Source