Hope Offered Through Principled And Ethical Stem Cell Research Act--Continued

Floor Speech

HOPE OFFERED THROUGH PRINCIPLED AND ETHICAL STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT--Continued -- (Senate - April 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we live in an age when medical miracles are occurring every day, many in my home State of Arizona. Breakthroughs are treating and curing children and adults who could have died from their diseases just a few years ago. And some of these cures and treatments are the result of stem cell research.

For example, thanks to the Cord Blood Registry located in Tucson, children and adults are being treated, and often cured, of once terminal diseases such as leukemia, aplastic anemia, cerebral palsy, and sickle-cell anemia. And these are just a handful of the 72 diseases that have undergone clinical trials or been treated using stem cells obtained from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood.

I favor the broadest possible effort to pursue promising medical technologies within appropriate ethical limits. Scientists have derived stem cells from two principal sources: the tissues, fluids, and organs of adults, and cells from human embryos. Human embryonic stem cells have only been obtained through a process that destroys the embryo.

In the last Congress, we passed, and the President signed into law, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. This legislation was intended to spur additional advances by establishing an infrastructure to facilitate the collection and dissemination of two of the most promising categories of adult stem cells: those derived from bone marrow and those derived from umbilical cord blood. Based on reports in the media over the past 2 weeks, I would say this bill has been a success.

For example, the New York Times reported on a coming revolution to sports medicine from adult stem cells that could be able to heal and rehabilitate tendons, ligaments, muscle and cartilage.

More significantly, ABC News reported that adult stem cells are being shown to be useful in repairing damaged heart muscle. While this has been known for some time in other countries, U.S. doctors and scientists are now embarking on the first human clinical trials. This may turn out to be one of the most significant breakthroughs in recent history for treating the most deadly disease in the United States--heart disease--which last year claimed the lives of almost 500,000 Americans.

What's more, a recent study conducted by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine promisingly resulted in scientists harvesting stem cells from amniotic fluid, which is the fluid that surrounds a baby before it is born. These amniotic stem cells offer many of the benefits found in embryonic stem cells, and without its ethical complications, demonstrating just how much faster science is moving than politics. Those researchers at Wake Forest found that amniotic-fluid stem cells proved successful in producing bone, heart muscles, fat, nerve, and liver tissues. All of this was possible without destroying the nascent life in an embryo.

By contrast, embryonic stem cell experiments have not yielded any treatments for human patients. Nevertheless, researchers believe there is much potential there, so a great deal of private and public money has been raised to pursue it.

In 2001, the President issued an Executive order that made available for the first time Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using embryos that had already been destroyed. In the subsequent 6 years, the Federal Government has spent more than $130 million on this type of stem cell research and has spent more than $2.5 billion on all stem cell-related research.

In 2006, the Senate considered legislation that would have overturned a key element of the current policy: the stipulation that Federal taxpayers' money cannot provide an incentive for the further destruction of human embryos. While this bill was approved by Congress, it was later vetoed by the President.

I voted against this legislation because I believe that taxpayers should not have to subsidize the destruction of nascent human life, especially when a number of State governments and large universities have directed significant resources to embryonic stem cell research. Since there are already billions of dollars available for embryonic stem cell research on lines from newly destroyed embryos, increases in Federal funding and a change in the Federal policy are not necessary.

S. 5, which we are debating today, and which is similar to legislation already passed by the House, is essentially the same legislation as that the President vetoed last year. There is one difference: added to S. 5 is legislation that was passed unanimously by this body last year--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. I supported that legislation, which was not passed by the other body. However, that very positive legislation is attached to legislation I cannot support because it would force taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of nascent life.

Thankfully, S. 30 is also being considered today. I fully support this legislation offered by Senators Coleman and Isakson. Their leadership has brought to the floor a bill that would build on the research that is treating patients now. This legislation would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to seek out alternative sources of stem cells and to study the possibility of establishing an amniotic and placental stem cell bank, similar to the bone marrow and cord blood stem cell bank, while reaffirming a policy that prohibits research that destroys human life.

We can all agree: stem cell research holds promise and has already provided life-saving treatments and cures. And we should continue to support that research within appropriate ethical restrictions. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 5 and support S. 30.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source