Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Don't get me started on that because those have all been contaminated on mouse feeder cells. My friend from Oklahoma said that was not true the other day, but it is true. They have been growing on mouse feeder cells, every one of them. Again, we don't know if they will ever be able to be used for any kind of human therapies. Maybe yes, maybe no. We do know that the 400-some stem cell lines derived since then privately, or by State involvement, or whatever, have not been used on mouse feeder cells. We know those, more than likely, will have the capacity of being used in human therapy. I respect people's morality, but I just don't know that I like it when somebody imposes their self-imposed morality on all of the American people. I respect the President's moral views, I really do. But I have a hard time understanding how the President can say Federal funding should not be used for embryonic stem cell research if they were derived after 9 p.m., August 9, 2001, and before that it is morally OK. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand that. If it is morally unacceptable to use Federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, then it ought not to be used for these 21 lines either.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. We have to do what we can do sometimes here. Certainly, we have been funding adult stem cell research. Senator Specter and I have made certain of that in our Appropriations Committee.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, it is a good debate. We should have more of these kinds of exchanges on the Senate floor. I respect my friend, and I respect his approach. Again, we have our differences in the way we approach things. I picked up on one word my friend just said--the ``environment'' in which we are operating. I assume he means the environment being the Presidential declaration of August 9, 2001, that only Federal funding could be used for stem cells derived prior to 9 p.m. but none after that. I assume that is the environment we are talking about.

Mr. HARKIN. I wish we could do more of this on the Senate floor. By having respect for one another's opinions and thought processes and sources of information, I think we can get a clearer understanding of where people are coming from. Lots of times we give our speech and leave and nobody is around discussing anything. Some of the best times I have had on the Senate floor were debating Phil Gramm of Texas. We used to get into some good debates. He was always willing to give and take and talk back and forth in a congenial manner. We need more of that on the floor of the Senate. That is just my opinion. Mr. President, I want to say one other thing that came up. Again, it has to do with understanding these kinds of moral lines, so to speak. It is true that we all started out as an embryo. I want to remind people what an embryo is. It is a blastocyst that has between 100 and 200 cells. The embryos we are talking about in S. 5 are sitting in in vitro fertilization clinics and are frozen in liquid nitrogen. They are smaller than a period at the end of a sentence, and they are stored in tiny straws like this. What I am holding up here is one of the devices used to store embryonic stem cells in liquid nitrogen. They take this top off here, if I can get it off. They have a little tube like this. In this tube, the opening of which is about as big as the end of a period at the end of a sentence, they would put in that little tube an embryo. Then they would put it in this enclosure and put it in liquid nitrogen in a tank and freeze it. Then if the couple who donated the embryos were unsuccessful in having children--I have a couple friends of mine who are now doing that, and their first pregnancy wasn't successful. They were going back for a second. They get one of these frozen embryos, thaw it out, and it is implanted in utero. So that is what these tiny little straws are. An embryo will never become a human being unless and until it is implanted into a uterus, takes hold, and develops. Sometimes they are implanted and they don't take hold; they are discharged. So an embryo is what I think we can rightfully call potential life-- potential in that if it is implanted and takes hold, it could become a human being. Therefore, it is potential. Let's look at another chart. This is Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. She is 12 years old and has type 1 diabetes. These are all the needles she uses in 1 month, 120. Think: How would you like to give yourself four shots every day? Look at all those needles she goes through every month at 12 years of age. Karli has juvenile diabetes, as I said. She knows what will happen if she is not cured. At some point in her life, she will probably become blind. She will probably lose a foot, a leg, or one or more of her limbs. At some point in her life, diabetes will take her. This is not potential life. This is real life--a human being living right now. That embryo stored in liquid nitrogen, is it alive? Of course. It is not dead, it is alive. Is it a human being? No. It is a potential human being. Karli Borcherding is a real human being. So read S. 5. Under the ethical guidelines of this bill, NIH can fund research only on those embryos which are left over from in vitro fertilization and which would otherwise be discarded. Every day, fertility clinics discard unwanted embryos. Last year, 50,000 babies were born to couples who wanted to have a baby, couldn't, and wanted in vitro fertilization. Out of those 50,000, a lot of embryos are left over. When a couple has had one child, two, three--however many they decide--and they have leftover embryos, what happens to them? The clinic calls them up and says: If you want to keep them, you have to pay us every month. Parents may say: We don't want them anymore, we have had all our children. And if you are not willing to pay to keep them frozen for the next 200, 300, 400, 500, 1,000 years or however long, they are discarded. It happens every day of every week of every year. What we are saying and what the real question is, as long as we have leftover embryos, is it better to have them discarded and flushed down the drain or used for the kind of scientific research that would one day cure Karli Borcherding? What we are talking about is potential life, potential life frozen in nitrogen, or we are talking about real life. That is really the difference--potential life that would otherwise be flushed down the drain versus Karli Borcherding and her real life. That is why I think Senator Hatch had it correct. He said the real pro-life position is S. 5. That is the real pro-life position. As I have said before, once an embryo is discarded in an in vitro fertilization clinic, it is discarded. It is dead. But if that embryo was taken and the stem cells are taken out and those stem cells are propagated, they are alive. They don't die; they are alive. They continue to be alive. They are developed into nerve tissue, bone tissue, heart muscle tissue that some day--or they could be developed into the kinds of cells that would help Karli Borcherding become insulin free. That is what this debate is about. It seems to me, if this is a moral problem for the President or anybody else, we ought to have legislation that would shut down every IVF clinic in this country. Shut them down and ban the procedure in the United States because there are leftover embryos. If it is immoral to take those embryos, even with the written, informed consent of the donors, with no money changing hands, and if they are going to be discarded anyway, if that is immoral, wouldn't it be immoral to just discard them? But you have to do one or the other. Senator Brownback talked about adoption. I am all for that. That is fine. If couples want to adopt babies from in vitro fertilization clinics, that is fine. But as I said, we have 400,000 frozen embryos right now; 50,000 babies born every year from IVF. I think we have had, what, 135 adoptions. That is fine. They can be adopted, and there may be a lot of donors who have donated embryos. They have had their children, but they really don't want to have other people having their children. That raises other kinds of ethical questions. They might want to say: We would rather donate that for stem cell research to save Karli Borcherding's life. We have to come to grips with this issue. Is it OK to have IVF clinics, is it OK to have in vitro fertilization? If that is the case, then we have to take it step by step and confront reality. The reality is in vitro fertilization is legal, it is acceptable. It provides couples with children they otherwise could not have, and the reality is that there are leftover embryos. We have to confront that reality. What do you do with them? They are not all going to be adopted. We have to agree that is an impossibility. So are they going to be discarded or with the consent of the donors be used for embryonic stem cell research? That is really the question. I think there is really only one answer, and that is what all the scientists--I say all, the vast majority of scientists, Nobel laureates, the head of NIH, the former head of NIH, 525 advocacy groups representing all diseases and injuries in the United States that you can imagine, why they all say that S. 5 is the bill we have to pass, that we have to enact into law to take the handcuffs off our scientists. That is why it is so important we have a good solid vote for this bill tomorrow. With that, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his patience and his kindness. I yield back whatever time we have remaining on our side for today's purpose.

Mr. HARKIN. Quite frankly, that is why I don't have any problems with this line of research. All I can say to my friend is that all of the scientists who write me letters and who have weighed in on this issue, and the groups that rely upon scientists and Nobel laureates, they all say that this might be an area of interest, but it doesn't substitute for lifting the ban. I am hopeful. I guess I am a hopeful person. I am hopeful that the President will understand that we are not asking him to cross his moral line. He said repeatedly through his spokespeople, very recently, that the one bright line the President will not cross is using Federal funds to destroy embryos. I wish they would read the bill. S. 5 doesn't provide money for the destruction of embryos. We don't do that now. We have not done it in the past. So, therefore, this bill should be able to be signed because it doesn't provide one single cent of taxpayer dollars for the destruction of embryos. Of course, neither does the bill of the Senator from Georgia; of course not. So that is why I am a hopeful person, thinking that the President or his people will read this and say: You are right. We have stricter ethical guidelines in this bill than exist right now. So I am hopeful. I am hopeful that we can get this job done. Anyway, I just wanted to make one other point tonight before I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure, but why is 9 p.m. of August 9 the moral dividing line that Federal funds can be used on stem cell lines? Before that it is moral, but after that it is immoral. I cannot understand that.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on our side, Mr. President?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take about 10 minutes or so, I suppose--maybe 15 at the most. Then I will yield back the remainder of my time for anyone who is interested in what is happening on the floor. I think Senator Isakson will follow up and close off the debate for the remainder of today. But I want to respond to a couple things that have been said that I was listening to both on the floor and off the floor so people understand that sometimes things are not as clear cut as perhaps they are presented. There are always two sides to every story, as we know. But I heard my good friend from Kansas talking about the type 1 diabetes research that was conducted in Brazil. Indeed, the JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported today they had some success with this. I just want to read, though, from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation that obviously has been following this issue very closely. They said that today's report underscores the need for continued work across a range of important scientific areas. They said: For that reason, we continue to strongly support passage of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will allow scientists to more fully explore this critical area of research. I will not go into all of the things they are saying about the procedure. It is a risky procedure that happened in Brazil. They do not know at this point whether the people are really cured. Will their symptoms--diabetes symptoms--come back after a few months? No one really knows. But it is promising. Again, I am hopeful that research pans out. But I want to point out, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation says that is fine, but still, let's get S. 5 passed so we can continue on with this needed research in embryonic stem cells. I also want to talk for a little bit about two or three issues. One is just the broader issue of why embryonic stem cell research has not yet led to human treatments. Well, scientists have been doing research on adult stem cells for over 30 years. There are no--I repeat, no-- arbitrary restrictions on research with adult stem cells. Scientists and private companies do not have to be skittish about doing this research. They do not have to worry about that all of a sudden the Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it. Now, compare that situation with embryonic stem cells. First of all, scientists did not even know how to extract them until November of 1998. The first Federal grant for these stem cells was not awarded until 2002, and again on a limited number of lines that are available. Even now only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for stem cell research is used for embryonic stem cells. The vast majority still goes for adult stem cells. Here is a chart I have in the Chamber that shows that. Embryonic research lags far behind adult stem cells. For fiscal year 2006, the National Institutes of Health funding for embryonic stem cells, $38.3 million; for adult stem cells, $200.3 million. So, again, people say: Well, why isn't embryonic stem cells doing more? You can see it is being totally underfunded as compared with adult stem cells. Again, we have not had the 30 years of research. There has been more than five times as much funding for adult stem cell research as for embryonic stem cells. So, again, scientists are studying embryonic stem cells with one arm tied behind their back. The fact is, it does not matter what many of the Senators think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. What matters is what scientists think. What is their view, those who know this area, who are studying it, Nobel prize laureates, the head of NIH? Let's look at what the head of NIH--this is a man appointed by President Bush. He heads, as Senator Specter has often said, the crown jewel of the Federal Government; that is, the National Institute of Health. Here is what 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. . . .I think they are overstated. . . .My point of view is that all angles in stem cell research should be pursued. That was Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the head of NIH. Breakthroughs are coming, but they take time. To clamp down on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance shows a total lack of understanding about how science works. More importantly, it denies hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, ALS, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and other treatable diseases and conditions. Secondly, I want to respond to an issue that is presented in the Isakson-Coleman bill, S. 30--this whole idea of the promise of extracting embryonic stem cells from dead embryos. I must say--and I say to my good friend from Georgia--this still kind of mystifies me. As I said earlier, when something is dead, it is dead. I do not know anybody who can extract and bring back to life something that is dead. So we have to get over the idea we are talking about dead embryos. They are not dead; they are alive. They are living. They are living organisms. They are not dead. So again, an embryo dies or gets sick or ill for a reason. There is 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, say, curing juvenile diabetes? Here is what three top scientists wrote about dead embryos: There is no proof that dead embryos will work. Beyond the fact that scientists haven't developed a reliable method for determining an embryo's ``death,'' there is no scientific evidence that stem cells derived from these embryos would have the required properties or be safe for human therapies. Paul Berg of Stanford, George Daley of Harvard, and Lawrence S. B. Goldstein of the University of California at San Diego, these three people have been involved in embryonic stem cell extraction research. They say there is no evidence this will have the required properties or be safe for human therapies. I want to read from the bill, S. 30. This is the definition of naturally dead: The term ``naturally dead'' means having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state. Well, I have a hard time understanding that, but then this is not a scientific definition. I submit there is no scientific test to determine when an embryo reaches this state where they can say it won't differentiate or grow. It is an eyeball test. I have been told when people get in vitro fertilization and they produce embryos, the embryologist, if I can use that term, will look at them and some exhibit better signs than others. Some look healthier than others, have more activity than others. These are the ones they will implant. The other ones that look healthy, they freeze. If there are some that don't look very healthy, they are discarded. I assume these are the ones we are talking about in S. 30; is that right?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend for further clarification. Is it not true that some of these after 7 days could be implantable?

Mr. HARKIN. No, no. I would ask my friend as we engage in this--and I have obviously been talking to scientists and others about this--we get into another problem, and I will read something from a scientist who wrote me a letter on this. Who decides? Who decides when that embryo is not implantable? How is that decided? I am told there is no scientific dividing line on that. It is sort of an eyeball test. One scientist might say no, another scientist may say yes. Your bill, with all due respect, does not give any clear delineation.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me read, though, from a letter from George Daley, who is one of the foremost researchers on embryonic stem cell research at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute at the Harvard Medical School. Mr. Daley has testified, and I think he testified that day we were there. I wrote him a letter asking him about his views on using embryonic stem cells that have been called ``naturally dead.'' He said: Though some Senators might be persuaded to vote for expanded funding for human embryonic stem cells derived from ``naturally dead'' stem cells, this would be a step backwards for embryonic stem cell research. The definition of a ``naturally dead'' embryo as required in the alternative bill is highly problematic. S. 5 remains the greatest hope for advancing embryonic stem cell research in this country. The concept that human embryonic stem cells might be derived from a ``naturally dead'' embryo originated in an article authored by Landry and Zucker in the Journal of Clinical Investigation 2004. The article contained the following passage: ``For a developed human organism, brain death marks the irreversible loss of the capacity for all ongoing and integrated organic function . . .'' As we just mentioned. We propose-- Get this: We propose that the defining capacity of a 4 or 8 cell human embryo is continued and integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation. We further propose that an embryo that has irreversibly lost its capacity, even as its individual cells are alive, is properly considered organismically dead. Even at its earliest stages, the life of the developing organism is more than the sum of the lives of its constituent cells. So again, they propose this. It is not an accepted scientific principle. The cessation of brain waves is, on the living organism, an accepted scientific fact, but this is only a proposal.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback's list of 72 diseases includes Parkinson's disease. I have a letter from six Parkinson's groups: The American Parkinson's Disease Association, the Parkinson's Action Network, the Michael J. Fox Parkinson's Research Foundation, the National Parkinson Foundation, the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, and the Parkinson's Alliance & Unity Walk. Here is what they say: Opponents of S. 5 are using as ammunition the assertion that embryonic stem cell research is not needed in this country because many diseases, 72 of them, including Parkinson's, have been treated or cured with adult stem cells. This assertion is an absolute falsehood. If there were a therapy to adequately treat the symptoms or halt the progression of this unrelenting disease, the millions of Parkinson's patients, caregivers and their physicians would be pursuing that treatment right now. . . . The Parkinson's community asks that you and your colleagues pass S. 5 and not accept any substitutes. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. How much time does our side have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for a very eloquent and poignant presentation of his position on embryonic stem cell research. I think what the Senator reflected is, again, the hopes of so many families in America who have a loved one suffering from Alzheimer's or juvenile diabetes, or a young person who has had an accident and is a paraplegic for life with a spinal cord injury. You say: What can we do to help? How can we help? Well, it is one thing to be sympathetic--and we are sympathetic to those who suffer from illnesses or injuries--but if we have it within our grasp, as the Senator from New Jersey said, to open some doors and see what is behind those doors, it seems to me we are compelled to do that. We don't know where the scientific research may lead. But we do know if we don't do it, it is not going to lead anywhere. We know that. As I said earlier, the foundations are there to give hope to people that embryonic stem cell research will lead to great discoveries and treatments and interventions. I can only say to my friend from New Jersey that, in all of my meetings with scientists over the last dozen years or more--and especially since Gerhardt and Thompson isolated stem cells in 1998--the scientific community's enthusiasm for this is almost boundless because they realize that harnessing the power of embryonic stem cells that can develop into any form of a cell in the body could lead to interventions and cures that are now beyond our grasp. I listened to the Senator from New Jersey, especially when he talked about opening doors. I have often likened biomedical research, scientific research, to saying if there are 10 doors, and you don't know what is behind any of those doors, if you are only going to open one door, what are your odds of finding the right answer? Well, if you open two doors, the odds get better. If you open five doors, you know it is 50-50. So the more doors we open, the better our chances are of finding these discoveries. The Senator is right. If we open one door at a time, the odds are always going to be 10 to 1--or I guess it would be 9 to 1. It would be 9 to 1 that you are not going to find the right answer. If we start opening all these doors and get the scientists talking with one another and looking at things, well, that means the span of time that it would take to find these cures is collapsed. Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They collaborate. They talk with one another. They read one another's papers. They find out what other scientists are doing. They find out if a scientist has opened a different door and collaborate on that. That is why it is necessary to begin to open these doors. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for talking about that point. Earlier I was responding to the comments of my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback. He was talking about 72 diseases being treated with adult stem cells. I pointed out his list included several types of leukemia and lymphomas, but I had printed in the Record earlier a letter from George Dahlman of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society saying they support S. 5. Senator Brownback's list also included testicular cancer. I have a letter from Craig Nichols, M.D., board member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Here is what he says: As a member of the Lance Armstrong Foundation Board of Directors, I am writing in response to assertions that adult stem cells have treated or cured the disease of testicular cancer. . . . I feel it is important to set the record straight on this issue. . . . There is not an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment generally available to treat testicular cancer. Rather, adult stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease. We support exploring every avenue of research, including embryonic stem cell research within specified ethical limits, until a cure is found. The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your colleagues pass S. 5, and not accept any substitutes. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback's list also included spinal cord injury. Here is a letter from the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation: While there are indeed a number of promising avenues now being investigated that address paralysis and spinal cord injuries through rehabilitation, cellular therapies and pharmaceuticals, there simply is no merit to any claim that adult stem cells have successfully treated or cured spinal cord injuries. . . . The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation strongly endorses the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5, and thanks you for your leadership in bringing this vital legislation to the Senate floor. Signed by Peter Wilderotter, President. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remaining time in morning business.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, or today, the debate with respect to the stem cell bills be in alternating segments of 60 minutes as follows: Sixty minutes under the control of Senator 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; and continuing in that alternating fashion until 9 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 140, submitted earlier today.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 3 p.m., in both closed and open sessions, to receive testimony on overseas basing plans, military installation, environmental and base closure programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years Defense program.