Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Again, if the Senator will yield.

Mr. ISAKSON. In the Gardner principles, all the doctors who perform the great science of in vitro fertilization, which has touched my family and many others--it is great research. It has allowed families to have children who couldn't. After the fertilization you have 3 stages: 72 hours where you have clearly implantable embryos, at 7 days where you still can develop those embryos, and then the remainder which are embryos but do not have under the microscope the cellular collection and cluster of the 8 critical cells to make up an implantable embryo that becomes a fetus. That is made through a scientist, not a politician, looking into a microscope and making those decisions. Again, making the analogy to the irreversible cessation of brain waves, how do we scientifically today, when someone has a traumatic brain injury, determine if they are legally dead? It is done by measuring the brain waves, the same way an in vitro fertilization doctor would measure the cellular division and collection in the remaining embryos after the seventh day.

Mr. ISAKSON. The only thing I can tell the Senator is the only doctor in the house, Senator Coburn, when asked that question in committee when we had the hearing--and I was at the hearing and so were you-- said: Any doctor who did that would be out of his mind because they would know the implantation could not result in a viable fetus and ultimately a child. That is my only--I am not a scientist, but that is the quote.

Mr. ISAKSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am going to yield to Senator Coleman. But, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be added as a cosponsor to S. 30.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I quoted from that very study today. Those are two distinguished scientists at Columbia University in New York. That paper proposes a principle in terms of future development and decisions. However, I want to repeat for the Senator, in 2001, in August, when the President signed his directive, 5 of the 21 lines that are currently invested in by NIH are those that were developed from naturally dead embryos. Dr. Steven Stice, the eminent scholar of the Georgia Research Alliance and at the Institute at the University of Georgia operates those three lines today under NIH supervision. They were all derived from naturally dead embryos, and the research they are quite famous for already in terms of addressing diabetes is taking place on those lines. So I agree 100 percent with everything the Senator read. I read that paper and I have quoted from that paper. It was just put in front of me and I don't have my glasses on, so I will not get into the big words either. But you are absolutely correct. That was a proposal made on the premise of for the future, but that does not mean the practice did not already exist. Lastly, the Gardner principles are an accepted principle for in vitro fertilization which have been in existence for decades that clearly delineate the decision between 72 hours, 7 days, and naturally dead embryos. I yield back to the Senator.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of many of the speeches that have been made this afternoon, particularly when Senator Collins of Maine a little while ago talked about whether we should decide--``we'' meaning Members of the Senate-- what the promise of embryonic stem cell research is. We can't. We are not scientists. Mr. Coburn certainly would qualify as a medical doctor, but there are no scientists here of the eminence of people doing this critical work. Ms. Collins made a very good point, and the point I would like to reiterate from the presentation I made this morning is that there is nobody here arguing against furthering science and furthering embryonic stem cell research. The question is which route we take. The proposal in S. 30, which Senator Coleman and myself have brought forward, is an affirmation of the need to expand embryonic stem cell research. It is an affirmation that there is a way to do it. In the course of the last couple of years, we have discovered a lot of new, interesting, and dynamic things, most important of which is that 5 of the 21 lines that exist right now, under the grandfather clause the President issued in August of 2001, are lines derived not from the destruction of a live embryo or an implantable embryo but from a naturally dead embryo. Let me briefly but succinctly go back to that definition. It is very much the same as a clinically dead person with an irreversible cessation of brain waves but the rest of their body still lives on life support so that they are able to donate, through a medical power of attorney, their organs to be transplanted and which can then save a human life. It is the same medical principle, where with that determination of death, although there is still life in the body, that individual is able, through their grant, to donate their organs in order to save another life. This is the same principle in terms of naturally dead embryos. Embryos developed for in vitro fertilization, after 3 days, are implantable viable embryos. In 4 additional days, additional embryos are created with the cell mass necessary to become a viable fetus and ultimately a human being. But after the seventh day, which is called level III, or the Gardner III principle, the embryonic stem cell embryos are clinically dead, although cells within the embryo are alive. That is the same principle as an organ donation from an individual who suffers from an irreversible cessation of brain waves. S. 30, which I stand on the floor today to promote and commend to the Members of the Senate, does exactly and precisely what most of the Members of this body want to do, and that is further the NIH investment in embryonic stem cell research. As I said this morning, three of those lines happen to exist in the State of Georgia. Three lines currently under the grandfather clause issued by the President's Executive order in August of 2001, three lines that currently are continuing to be funded by the National Institutes of Health, three lines that are contributing to the breakthrough or hopefully the steps of the breakthroughs, in terms of any number of cures, but in particular those of diabetes and those of spinal column injury. By adopting S. 30, sending it to the House and the House adopting it, and the President having said he will sign it, then we know we can break through this logjam and we can create additional lines for embryonic stem cell research and exponentially bring forward the public information that is so necessary in the research and medical community. Because the critical benefit the National Institutes of Health investment makes is it makes the discoveries come into the public domain because the NIH is a public entity and it is the taxpayers' money. So I would submit that S. 30 is the right way to enhance what most, if not all, here want to do and that is to enhance the cure of dread diseases, the breakthroughs necessary to solve any number of problems, and do so in a way that clearly respects the viability of an embryo by selecting those lines only from embryos that are clinically dead. You are then not destroying what could become a viable human being, but you are adding to and furthering embryonic stem cell research in the same way that 5 of the existing 21 lines currently being researched are being brought forward. I wish to read one paragraph from Dr. Edward Ferdin, who wrote on the Landry and Zucker report on this very subject, and I quote: Dr. Landry points out a similar standard is invoked at the end of life--meaning this dead embryo standard--in the use of neurological criteria for the determination of death. When the integrative unit of the body ceases because of the loss of brain wave, a patient is declared dead even though the individual cells and tissues of the body may continue to function for some period of time. In the absence of the brain, there is no longer a person presently within the body. The fact that individual cells, tissues, and organs in the brain-dead body continue to live is what enables transplant surgeons to save thousands of lives each year through organ donation. The same could be true if we were to make the same use of cells of deceased embryos in pursuit of the cures for degenerative diseases and further the advancement of embryonic stem cell research. I see my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, has come to the floor to speak, so I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Medical Association dated April 10, 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator is a distinguished member of the Senate and a great debater. I want to make one point. Both the Senator's bill and the bill we have introduced and the added ethical criteria you placed in this year's bill prohibit the fertilization of eggs for the purpose of research.

Mr. ISAKSON. If that is the case, when the Senator made the statement that I was only talking about those used in in vitro, which is different from in utero, which I guess meant implantation, both bills do exactly the same thing. You would never create fertilization farms for research purposes under your legislation, nor under S. 30.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ISAKSON. I would like to address that for a second. This is a letter that does not endorse a particular bill, but it lays out the AMA's support for embryonic stem cell research. I want to make a couple of affirmations quickly, if I can. It says: In general, the AMA supports Federal funding of biomedical research which promises significant scientific benefits. More specifically we, support biomedical research on multipotent stem cells, (including adult and cord blood stem cells); encourage strong public support of federal funding for research involving human pluripotent stem cells (embryonic); and, encourage continued research into scientific issues surrounding the use of umbilical cord blood-derived hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation. Further, AMA research policy supports certain ethical considerations, including donor anonymity, non-coercion of donors, absence of financial inducement and written informed consent of the donor regarding the nature and the scope of the research involved. S. 30, the Coleman-Isakson bill, contains exactly each and every one of those items laid out by the American Medical Association. I might further add, unlike any other legislation, it does not pick a favorite, but it encourages NIE to make investments in all research that has the most imminent promise in terms of benefiting the lives of individuals. So you heard people talking about embryonic, you heard people talking about adult, you heard people talking about cord blood. The Coleman- Isakson bill recognizes the value of all and leaves to the scientists at NIH the prioritization of those investments but ensures those investments are made in the furtherance of the research, just exactly as indicated in the letter from the AMA. I see my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, is on the Senate floor. I yield to Senator Coleman.

Mr. ISAKSON. Those embryos developed in in vitro fertilization would in all cases be eggs fertilized for the purpose of creating a viable embryo.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much of our time remains?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I have also enjoyed today and appreciate the questions, and hopefully we can do it throughout the rest of the debate so when people cast their votes they are informed. By way of interest, when we talked about the embryonic stem cell lines derived from naturally dead embryos, I thought it would be appropriate to end my remarks today by just acknowledging that lines BG01 and 02, which are under NIH funding now, which were grandfathered in the President's directive, and which were derived from naturally dead embryos, were the lines upon which the research was applied that has developed the first product to be marketed from embryonic stem cell research, pending patent, to deliver neural progenitor cells which will be the cells that deliver pharmaceutical and other therapy for spinal column and brain injuries. So it is very important to understand that not only is the process, A, an accepted process, B, currently under funding at NIH, C, covered under the President's directive of 2001, but in that 5\1/2\ years since, research on two of those lines derived from naturally dead embryos is, in fact, producing a remarkable potential product for better health in all of America. With that said, I, too, yield back all of our time and again thank the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ISAKSON. Before the Senator does that, I appreciate the Senator asking the questions and allowing me the opportunity to respond and, hopefully, in some way clear up, if not totally at least say where we are coming from based on the scientists I have talked to. I respect him very much.

Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator makes the point, but if the Senator will yield, I will simply respond. The President issued that directive in August of 2001. He established that date of August 9. The White House has now said that in the case of S. 30, had the stem cells survived from the naturally dead prohibition, they would live. That is not everything the Senator from Iowa would like. I understand and respect that. Acknowledging the nice things you said about the legislation, it is a ray of sunshine in the furtherance of that research. I am grateful to the Senator for the time he has allotted me.

Mr. ISAKSON. And also $132 million for embryonic--those 21 lines.

Mr. ISAKSON. I will never, hopefully, debate or question any individual's judgment and morality. I admire it in everybody, and I admire the Senator from Iowa and his principles. The President has made his statement and has said what he would do. My reference was that if science, in the last 5\1/2\ years, has shown us this is a way to further that science without crossing that line, then with respect for his principles and morals, I am looking to find ways that fit rather than ways to argue. That is my point.

Mr. ISAKSON. May I respond?

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tyler Thompson, of my staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 5 and S. 30.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge a very special occasion that only comes around once in a lifetime. This year Bob and Jan Fraumann will celebrate 50 years of marriage. Bob and Jan are very special members of my church, Mt. Zion United Methodist Church, in Marietta, GA. Bob has been our Director of Music for as long as I can remember. Every Sunday is a musical experience, but Easter, Christmas, and Independence Day are always exceptional. Bob works extremely hard for months to arrange remarkable music programs for those very special celebrations. Bob and Jan are blessed with two sons, Rick and Greg, and four grandchildren. Rick and his wife Laura have two children, Bobbie and Brittany. Greg and his wife Terri have two children, Victoria and Sofia. I am pleased today to join with my pastors, Steve Lyle and Laura Parker, and our entire congregation in congratulating Bob and Jan Fraumann on this truly momentous occasion. It is a privilege to stand here in this Senate and honor this tremendous milestone that embodies the profound love and commitment they have for one another. Their marriage is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I object.