Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. From what I understood of that agreement, I think the Senator from Kansas would have 7\1/2\ minutes, then the Senator from Iowa would have 15, then I would have 7\1/2\. Is that fair?

Mr. ISAKSON. I acknowledge the patience of the Presiding Officer. I know the Presiding Officer was in the chair last night when the Senator from Iowa and I had an exchange. I want to repeat some of what was said, so I apologize to the distinguished Presiding Officer, but in the end I want to try to synthesize what got me to the point of being a part of S. 30. In August 2001, when the directive came down, I started learning about stem cells. When the veto took place last year, I wondered what more I needed to know to try to find a way to deal with the concerns of some but the compassion of everyone. I stumbled upon a professor at the University of Georgia, Dr. Steven Stice. I really didn't stumble upon him; one of my interns, an honor student, directed me to him. He said he was doing research in this area. As it turned out, he was operating three stem cell lines, lines BGO1, BGO2, and BGO3. So I went to the university and spent 2 days going through what their research team was doing and the way in which they were derived. I came to learn that Dr. Stice and his team, like teams in California, Wisconsin, and other States that have since derived embryonic stem cells this way, derived them from what is known as naturally dead or arrested embryos. Those are embryos that after 7 days following in vitro fertilization stopped cellular division. The embryo itself is clinically dead, as is a human being who is brain dead, although all their other organs are working. But contained within that embryo are stem cells. So it has gone through a natural death, not one at the hands of a doctor or anyone else, and it produces these stem cells. After reading everything I could on it, I want to read one sentence from just one study which verified the pluripotency, the undifferentiation, and the independence of those lines: Lines BGO1, BGO2, and BGO3, human embryonic stem cells are, therefore, independent, undifferentiated and pluripotent lines that can be maintained without an accumulation of karyotypic abnormalities. It took a long time to practice those last two words and say them right, but what that practically means is exactly what we all seek. That is, embryonic stem cells that have the full potential for research, to answer the hope all of us in this room have expressed today, can, in fact, be derived from embryos that are not destroyed by the human hand but through the natural process of the life cycle. So I asked myself this question: Well, if this is a legitimate debate--which it is a legitimate debate--if science has found there is a way to derive these stem cells without the destruction of the embryo, and if--which is true--5 of the 21 lines currently exempted by the Presidential order of 2001, are, in fact, 5\1/2\ years of study side by side with stem cells derived by destroying the embryo, and if we have clear evidence they are undifferentiated, they are pluripotent, and they do not have abnormalities, then this is the answer to thread the needle to solve the problem. The White House has acknowledged they will sign the bill. So with respect for every Member of this Senate who has eloquently spoken on behalf of the hope of furthering research, I do not know what the results of the research are going to be, but I know this: If we do not do it, we will never know, and if there is a way to do it and accelerate it and thread the needle, which this does, then I submit we should do it. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support S. 30. I acknowledge the tremendous work of the Senator from Minnesota and others who have helped. I appreciate the time allotted to us in this debate. In the end, I think the most used word in the last 2 days has been ``hope.'' There is now a hope that we actually bring about the reality of scientific development for the cure of deadly and terrible diseases and do so in a way that recognizes the natural process of the life cycle and the advancement of the science. With that, I yield back our time in this cycle. Mr. President, my understanding is--I am going to repeat this--it is my understanding that we now have a period of 30 minutes that is open, at which time, following that, each of the four designees will have a closing 10 minutes. I see the distinguished Senator from Kansas is on the Senate floor. My understanding of that 30-minute division, Senator Brownback, is you would have up to 7\1/2\ minutes of that 30, and if--I would ask--I am going to try this. I ask unanimous consent that the next 30 minutes be divided, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator Harkin, 7\1/2\ under the control of Senator Brownback, 7\1/2\ under the control of myself and Senator Coleman, and then the remaining 40 minutes would be equally divided between the four designees: Senator Harkin from Iowa, myself and Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback, and Senator Reid, and then lastly, the leaders will have 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. ISAKSON. I will acknowledge, given the agreement we previously made, I think I will only take 5 of those. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.

Mr. ISAKSON. How much of our time remains?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I yield up to 15 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Mr. ISAKSON. With all due respect, Mr. President, we reached an agreement at the end of the previous time that we would equally divide 2 hours 30 minutes between Senator Harkin, Senator Brownback, Senator Coleman, and Senator Reid. We are in the fourth of those 30-minute blocks now, which would be ours, and then we go to four 10-minute blocks equally divided; is that correct? I believe I am correct. How much of our time do we have left of the 30-minute block?

Mr. ISAKSON. Thirty-one minutes?

Mr. ISAKSON. Will the Presiding Officer give us the allocation of time remaining?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time that runs count equally against both sides for the remainder of the debate.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. You have 6 minutes left. I am giving him 5 and I will take a closing. Is that fair?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois will speak next and he told me he needed extra time. In the spirit of cooperation, I will be glad to yield 5 of our minutes to the Senator from Illinois so he will have 11 minutes, and then I will conclude. Is that fair?

Mr. ISAKSON. Will the Chair advise us of how much time remains.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. It is my understanding, if the Senator from Iowa will yield, that the Senator from Kansas is in the cloakroom and about to take a significant portion of that. That is my understanding. That would be a significant portion of his time, not yours and mine.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I wish to commend Senator Coleman and Senator Dorgan for the two speeches that have preceded my remarks because both of them eloquently expressed what is, in fact, the case; that is, that everybody in this Chamber, including the distinguished Senator from Iowa and myself, wants more hope for Americans who suffer. Both bills offer a path to do that. We may have our differences on those paths but no difference in the hope that it offers. I commend Senator Coleman for his very articulate explanation of that. I join with the Senator from Iowa, I think, in encouraging our colleagues who may be listening, we have some time this morning that can be filled. If we have Members who want to come to the floor and speak, they should contact the cloakroom and let us know, from both parties and from both sides of every issue, because we want to fill every minute. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, who has worked countless hours on this very important subject.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. The difference, with all due respect--and I have great respect for the Senator and the character and the quantity and the content of this debate--if you ultimately want to further embryonic stem cell research in the environment that we have, the Gardner principle division in in vitro fertilization for level 3 for the natural death of the embryo, that bridges the ethical question on the destruction of an embryo that was otherwise viable and would be something the White House would sign. So it would further embryonic stem cell research under a proven method which exists today, and NIH, in five different cases, is invested in in terms of BG01, 02 and 03, which happen to be the lines with which I am familiar. With all due respect, since we both prohibit the fertilization of eggs for the purpose of deriving cells for scientific research, it is a matter of how you draw that line. I appreciate the Senator giving me the time to make that explanation.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am very grateful for the opportunity. The Senator from Iowa is exactly right, because he is describing in layman's terms what is known as the Gardner principles of in vitro fertilization. After an in vitro fertilization, at the end of 72 hours, clearly transplantable or implantable embryos are formed. Within the next 4 days, up to 7 days, additional viable embryos can actually be developed. At the end of the seventh day, the cellular division process stops. That is called Level III Gardner principles. To try and use layman's terms to answer the question, because the Senator from Iowa is a great Iowan and I am a Georgian, but I am not a scientist and he isn't either, and we are down here talking about some pretty complicated stuff, the best analogy to make in terms of a naturally dead embryo is the same description you have of death when someone donates their organs after a traumatic brain injury that causes an irreversible cessation of brain waves. By definition in all 50 States, the individual is clinically dead and a living will or a durable power of attorney can direct what is done with the rest of their life in terms of transplanting organs or whatever. The same thing is true in the Gardner principles. After that seventh day, the cellular division stops. The embryo is not sick. The embryo is not handicapped. It is not transplantable and it can't become a fetus, but you can derive stem cells. I won't take any more of the Senator's time except to say one other thing. There are 21 lines grandfathered in the August 2001 order of the President that still have NIH money being invested. Five of those 21 lines are lines which were derived from naturally dead embryos. For 5\1/2\ years, the NIH has invested money in those lines that were derived from embryos that were destroyed and invested money in those that were derived from embryos that were naturally dead. I don't have the paper in front of me so I can't read it verbatim, but to go back to my opening remarks today, in each case they have found, in comparing those studies, of those lines over the last 5\1/2\ years, since August of 2001, that they are pluripotent, undifferentiated cells in lines BG01, 02, and 03, which are three of the five lines derived that way. So we have the NIH for 5 years investing in it. We have a clear scientific definition of what an embryo is, which is not a sick embryo, but it is a natural process in Gardner Level III principles of in vitro fertilization. What it does do is it allows you to address the ability to expand stem cell research without crossing the line or destroying a viable embryo. I yield back.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we are going to reverse the order for a second. Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished Senators from Iowa and Pennsylvania on their passion for stem cell research, which is shared by virtually all the people whom I know. I also wish to ask unanimous consent that Senators Chambliss, Cornyn, and Burr be added as cosponsors of S. 30.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, at the outset of my remarks I thank Tyler Thompson and Brittany Espy for the 2 years she devoted to this issue prior to Tyler taking over and Joan Kirchner and Chris Carr of my staff for their invaluable work and an intern and distinguished scholar from the University of Georgia named Nick Chammoun who introduced me to a man for whom I have the greatest admiration, Dr. Steven Stice, an eminent scholar and eminent stem cell researcher at the University of Georgia. I have introduced, in concert with Senator Coleman, S. 30, which has been referred to by the Senator from Ohio as containing theories--and I know he is getting ready to leave, but I want him to hear one part before he leaves.

Mr. ISAKSON. The Senator from Iowa, I sincerely apologize. His man just won the Masters in Augusta. I should remember that. This bill is not about a theory when it comes to naturally dead embryos. Five of the existing 21 lines funded by NIH, grandfathered under the President's directive in August 2001, were derived, and are active today, from naturally dead embryos. So we are not talking about a theory, we are not talking about hope, and we are not talking about speculation. We are talking about a way to address the concern of the ethics of destruction of viable embryos with the promises and the hope of embryonic stem cell research. Now, I was a real estate broker before I was elected to Congress, and since I have been in Congress, I have been anything but a scientist or anyone knowledgeable of medicine, but I care deeply and compassionately about those who suffer, and I share the concerns of not the question of ``when'' but the question of ``if'' that was expressed by Senator Specter. So I began researching this entire issue to see if there wasn't a way, and that is when I stumbled onto the fact that there were already ways that embryonic stem cells were being derived without the destruction of viable embryos. I went to the University of Georgia and I met Dr. Stice for the first time and he walked me through that process. For the edification of all those here, as well as those who are concerned about that issue, I wish to talk about it for a second because it is clear and it is precise and it threads the ethical needle and addresses the concern for the furtherance of scientific research. In the process of in vitro fertilization, there are three principles, known as the Gardner principles, by which physicians and doctors grade embryonic byproducts of the fertilization to determine the embryos that are implantable, the embryos that are freezable, and the embryos that are clinically or naturally dead. Level I embryos, after in vitro fertilization, are created within the first 3 days. They are viable embryos with a cluster of eight cells ready for implantation and can develop into a human being. After 4 additional days, additional embryos develop that contain the essential eight cells, and they are viable for freezing or for implantation. But after 7 days, the natural process of the cells dividing no longer takes place, and there are level III Gardner principle materials that are left that contain embryonic stem cells but cannot be implanted and cannot become a human being. Five of those lines were in existence in 2001 and were invested in by NIH and are active today. So it is absolutely possible for further embryonic stem cell research to take place today without destroying a viable embryo and to have a plethora of available stem cells for researchers and for scientists. That, by the way, has been certified by any number of learned doctors and physicians and researchers and I wish to share some of those quotes at this time. There was an article written, ``A Comparison of National Institute of Health-Approved Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines,'' by Carol Ware, Angelique Nelson, and Anthony Blau. In that, they compared 15 of the 22 lines that at the time were active under the August 2001 Presidential executive directive, and I quote: They compare stem cell markers, and growth characteristics of and ease of genetic manipulation of all lines. Only 10 of the lines were easily tested and our 3 lines again were one of those 10 lines derived from naturally dead embryos. None of the 10 lines were statistically different in any way when 7 different growth and characteristics experiments were conducted. The take home message is that there is no difference between our 3 lines, the 3 lines derived from naturally dead embryos, and the other 7 lines which were derived from donated embryos. So there you have it clearly and precisely stated that we have active embryonic stem cell lines under research and funded by the NIH derived from a naturally dead embryo that did not involve the destruction of a viable embryo. With the passage of S. 30, you immediately have the opportunity, and NIH is directed, to develop those guidelines for the furtherance of additional embryonic stem cell research on stem cells derived from those lines. Now, there are a number of other distinguished and learned people who have written extensively about these lines and their viability, among them Sandii Brimble and Yongquan Luo. Mr. Luo is at the Laboratory of Neuroscience, National Institute of Aging, Department of Health and Human Services, in Baltimore, MD, who wrote: Lines BG01, BG02, and BG03, which are the three lines NIH currently is investing in that were derived from naturally dead embryos, are therefore independent, undifferentiated, and pluripotent lines that can be maintained without accumulation of karyotypic abnormalities. It took me a long time to practice saying those last two words, but I finally got through it. The point being that they are equally as viable as pluripotent and as rich for scientific research as those cells that would have been derived from a destroyed embryo. In addition, I wish to quote from an article called Embryonic Death and the Creation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, written by Dr. Donald W. Landry and Howard A. Zucker of Columbia University. I read as follows: We propose herein a paradigm for research involving embryos that protects human life, is consistent with Federal policy, and yet advances the interests of biomedical science and therapeutic innovation. That is precisely quoting the definition of natural death for embryos as the threshold for which that should go forward. In terms of making ``naturally dead'' a term that is understandable, this bill defines ``natural death'' in regard to embryos as the same acceptable way that death is defined in all 50 States of the United States of America. In my 30 years of public life, I have been through a number of ethical debates--the ``living will'' debates of the 1970s and the ``durable power of attorney,'' where we tried to legislate how you, Mr. President, or I could give an advanced directive of what a doctor could or could not do to me when I came to be in an incapacitated state, and we finally decided that an irreversible cessation of brain waves would be a clinical definition upon which that threshold can take place. A ``naturally dead'' embryo is an embryo that, after the seventh day, has a cessation of the division of cells. It no longer can be implanted and become an embryo, but the cells that remain are viable, just as my heart, liver, kidneys, or lungs remain alive while I have an irreversible cessation of brain waves. It is that precedent which established all the organ transplants we do in America today--the gift of life that is given after the loss of life and the irreversible cessation of brain waves. This is, clinically, as Dr. Landry and Dr. Zucker have said, precisely the exact way to deal with the ethics and the morality of embryonic stem cell research because it is the same thing for that embryo that cannot become a human being to donate cells to become pluripotent embryonic stem cells as it is for a predirective to determine that organs can be transplanted from someone who has suffered an irreversible cessation of brain waves. It is scientific. It is ethical. And it is precise. I submit the President of the United States has said he would-- actually did last year--veto a bill similar to the one introduced by Senator Harkin. The President said he will veto it again. Senator Specter, in his compassionate remarks and passionate remarks, acknowledged that the number of votes necessary to override a veto did not exist in the U.S. House of Representatives. If, in fact, it is a matter of not if but when, with the adoption of S. 30, we can make the when now. We can see to it that the promise of embryonic stem cell research goes forward and the ethical lines that cause the dilemma that exists today in the United States of America are not crossed. There is a human face on the desire to further that research. It is the face like that of a friend of mine, like former Senator Kip Klein, who suffers from Parkinson's and who has been an inspiration to me to find methods like this; and Cindy Donald, a beautiful lady who tragically was injured in an automobile accident and lost her ability to walk. There is hope and promise in centers such as the Shepherd Spinal Center in Atlanta which deals with those terrible injuries to the spinal cord. There is the hope to see to it that those who suffer from diabetes and juvenile diabetes can, in fact, find a cure that is possible and within our reach. To that end, at the University of Georgia today, which I have already referred to a number of times, that research on embryonic stem cell research for the curing of diabetes is taking place. It is taking place in a laboratory and under the direction of eminent scholars, one of whom is Dr. Steven Stice, one of America's leading scholars today and one of the embryonic researchers who himself introduced to me this method, given his recognition of the ethical considerations and his desire and hope to bring promise and hope to the future of those who suffer. I submit that the Coleman-Isakson bill, S. 30, is a road for us to walk proudly down, that enhances and advances, immediately, research into embryonic stem cell cures while at the same time respecting the ethical, scientific, and moral concerns that exist in the medical community today. It is not always possible in the body politic for solutions to be win-win, but I submit that S. 30, the Coleman-Isakson bill, is a win-win. It is a win for hope, it is a win for research, and it is a win for promise. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Norm Coleman.

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