A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide that certain tax planning inventions are not patentable, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Human- Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act, joined by Senator Landrieu and 15 other cosponsors.

A healthy imagination is a good thing in a young child. Children may dream of becoming a firefighter or an astronaut. In the case of really young children--especially when they love animals--they may even imagine being a horse or a dog. I don't see any harm in this . . . as long as there is a general attachment to reality as the child matures.

However, today, we are starting to see such wildly imaginative dreams being transformed into reality in a few rogue science labs in this country and abroad. Efforts are being marshaled to push us in the direction of experiments to create human-animal hybrids. Amazingly, here at the dawn of the 21st century, the Island of Dr. Moreau is becoming more than a fiction.

The legislation that we introduce today is very modest in scope. Though a few researchers may argue that it goes too far, there are many more who argue that it does not go far enough. I believe that the legislation that we offer today, hits just the right chord to be in tune with our society's needs. We do not want to stifle legitimate science. We only want to stop the efforts of mad scientists. In short, this bill only bans the creation of organisms that truly blur the line between humans and animals.

For instance, the legislation is so modest that it does not view all human-animal mixes as ``hybrids.'' This is because we recognize that some procedures--which currently use such techniques--do not blur the line between species. For example, a human with a replacement pig heart valve--such as our former colleague, Senator Jesse Helms is not considered a hybrid under this bill. Additionally, mixes that do not blur the line between human and animal--such as a mouse created with a human immune system, on which drugs could be tested for AIDS patients would not be banned. Again, this is because there is no blurring of the identity of the creatures involved.

What is banned is the creation of hybrid creatures that blur the line between species. For instance, creating an animal with human reproductive organs or a primarily human brain would be prohibited because such a creature blurs the lines between the species. Additionally banned are the creation of hybrids through experimental cloning techniques and/or the fusion of human and animal gametes. With this common sense bipartisan legislation, we are basically going with the most modest of bans in order to ensure that we do not infringe upon legitimate scientific research.

This ban would only hinder the efforts of mad scientists and rogue researchers. Legitimate scientists should have nothing to fear from the enactment of this legislative proposal.

There are many different reasons to support this legislation. This is reflected in the diverse groups that support this bill. On the right are groups such as the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; on the left are groups like Friends of the Earth and the International Center for Technology Assessment. Both sides have different but equally valid reasons for supporting the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act.

For now though, I would like to focus my attention on what I believe is the central ethical question: Why should we be opposed to human- animal hybrids?

I would submit that it is much more than what some have termed, ``the Yuck Factor.'' Rather, the reason to oppose human-animal hybrids is embedded in our very fabric as human beings. The reason to oppose the creation of human-animal hybrids is that the creation of such entities is a grave violation of human dignity and a defilement of the human person.

Human beings have a fundamental right to be born fully human. To create a human-animal hybrid whose identity as a member of the species Homo sapiens is in doubt is a violation of that human dignity and a grave injustice.

Think about this for a minute. What if--beyond your control--some mad scientist were to have created you as only 80-percent or 50-percent human. That would not be fair to you, but it would be something that you could not change and it would be something that you would have to live with for the whole of your existence on earth.

The fundamental issue is the dignity of the human person, but it does quickly move into other issues, such as the creation of a sub-human servant class, or maybe even a super-human class that comes to dominate humanity.

In the year 2000, one of the first attempts at human-animal hybrids was made. It was a vanguard attempt, which was shamed back into the silence of the mad scientist laboratory from which it came; but now as some scientists are trying to bring human-animal hybrids more into the mainstream, an essay on the year 2000 attempt is worth considering again. The essay, entitled, ``The Pig-Man Cometh'' appeared in the October 23, 2000, Weekly Standard, and from this piece I will quote extensively. In the piece, J. Bottum wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, it was revealed that biotechnology

researchers had successfully created a hybrid of a human

being and a pig. A man-pig. A pig-man. The reality is so

unspeakable, the words themselves don't want to go together.

Extracting the nuclei of cells from a human fetus and

inserting them into a pig's egg cells, scientists from an

Australian company called Stem Cell Sciences and an American

company called Biotransplant grew two of the pig-men to 32-

cell embryos before destroying them. The embryos would have

grown further, the scientists admitted, if they had been

implanted in the womb of either a sow or a woman. Either a

sow or a woman. A woman or a sow.

There has been some suggestion from the creators that their

purpose in designing this human pig is to build a new race of

subhuman creatures for scientific and medical use. . . .

But what difference does it make whether the researchers'

intention is to create subhumans or superhumans? Either they

want to make a race of slaves, or they want to make a race of

masters. And either way, it means the end of our humanity.

You can't say we weren't warned. This is the island of Dr.

Moreau. This is the brave new world. This is Dr.

Frankenstein's chamber. This is Dr. Jekyll's room. This is

Satan's Pandemonium, the city of self-destruction the rebel

angels wrought in their all-consuming pride.

But now that it has actually come--manifest, inescapable,

real--there don't seem to be words that can describe its

horror sufficiently to halt it. May God have mercy on us, for

our modern Dr. Moreaus--our proud biotechnicians, our most

advanced genetic scientists--have already announced that they

will have no mercy.

It's true that Stem Cell Sciences and Biotransplant have

now, under the weight of adverse publicity, decided to

withdraw their European patent application and modify their

American application. But they made no promise to stop their

investigations into the procedure. We simply have to rely

upon their sense of what is, as Mountford put it, ``ethically

immoral''--a sense sufficiently attenuated that they could

undertake the design of the pig-man in the first place. The

elimination of the human race has loomed into clear sight at

last.

It used to be that even the imagination of this sort of

thing existed only to underscore a moral in a story. . . .

But we live at a moment in which British newspapers can

report on 19 families who have created test-tube babies

solely for the purpose of serving as tissue donors for their

relatives--some brought to birth, some merely harvested as

embryos and fetuses. A moment in which Harper's Bazaar can

advise women to keep their faces unwrinkled by having

themselves injected with fat culled from human cadavers. A

moment in which the Australian philosopher Peter Singer can

receive a chair at Princeton University for advocating the

destruction of infants after birth if their lives are likely

to be a burden. A moment in which the brains of late-term

aborted babies can be vacuumed out and gleaned for stem

cells.

In the midst of all this, the creation of a human-pig

arrives like a thing expected. We have reached the logical

end, at last. We have become the people that, once upon a

time, our ancestors used fairy tales to warn their children

against--and we will reap exactly the consequences those

tales foretold.

This was a grim philosophical essay, but the questions that it poses are worth reflecting upon--even if those questions make us cringe.

Will society exercise some responsibility, or will it be led, mindlessly going wherever the mad scientists want to go? Every week, it seems that there are new developments. Yesterday, the science journal Nature published an article on advances in cloning technology using monkeys. This is a slightly different issue than human-animal hybrids, but it further illustrates the rapid changes, developments, and surprises occurring in science. Such developments must be harnessed by society and directed toward good and ethical ends; and if the developments cannot be directed to good ends, then they should be abandoned to the scrap heap of morally bankrupt ideas. If we neglect to direct our course, we will be led to the brink of destruction.

I am more optimistic than the tone embodied in the Weekly Standard essay. I believe in the goodness of the American people and their elected representatives. I think that we can rise to the challenge to ensure that the marvels of science are properly channeled to serve humanity and human dignity.

Consideration and passage of the ``Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act,'' which we introduce today, would be a wonderful step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague Senator Brownback of Kansas as a co-sponsor of S. 2358, the Human- Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act. As stem cell research has progressed in recent years, Federal law has remained troublingly silent over its proliferation. This bill would place a ban on the creation, transfer, or transportation of a human-animal hybrid. Human-animal hybrids are defined as: a human embryo into which animal cells or genes are introduced, making its humanity uncertain; a hybrid embryo created by fertilizing a human egg with non-human sperm; a hybrid embryo created by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm; a hybrid embryo created by introducing a non-human nucleus into a human egg; a hybrid embryo created by introducing a non-human egg with human sperm; an embryo containing mixed sets of chromosomes from both a human and animal; an animal with human reproductive organs; an animal with a whole or predominantly human brain.

In August of 2001, President Bush issued an executive order, allowing for Federal funding for stem cell research on the then-existing stem cell lines. In November of that same year, he appointed a council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. To date, this council has issued numerous reports on the bioethics issues involved in stem cell research.

Meanwhile, the scientific community has moved forward in its research. Just this morning, researchers from Oregon announced that they successfully used cloning to produce monkey embryos and then extract stem cells from the embryos. The National Academies of Science released guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research in 2005 and again in 2007. Everyday we, as Members of Congress, are faced with a fundamental question: How far we should go in the name of science?

There is no doubt that embryonic stem cell research holds the promise of curing diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer. Even President Bush stressed the importance of federally-funded research in approving the original stem cell lines in 2001--he explicitly stated that Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists and help ensure that new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities.

Federal funding not only allows us to encourage and financially support this research, it allows us to use the power of the purse to be sure it is done in the most safe and ethical way possible. I support Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research provided that the embryos used in these studies are those that are in excess from the fertility process and are knowingly donated for this purpose. I have met with many constituents suffering from life altering and fatal diseases and they have told me the impact that this research may have on their lives.

But what Senator Brownback and I come forward with today is not about stem cell research with existing embryos. This is about a practice that has far-reaching ethical implications and brings into question our notion of humanity. Scientists have begun experimenting with injecting human neural stem cells into the brain of an animal. They are looking to insert a human nucleus into the egg of an animal and vice versa. They are looking to fertilize human eggs with non-human sperm and vice versa. They are on the verge of creating human-animal hybrids that truly blur the line between species. While the stated purpose may be a noble one--to advance medical research--the outcome is deplorable. At what point is scientific research going too far?

We believe we have reached that point. Creating human-animal hybrids opens the door to a host of concerns. It is a violation of basic human dignity. It also has the potential to threaten human health by introducing infections from animal populations.

The human body is not a product to be mass produced and stripped for parts, even in the earliest stages of its development. Assembly lines, patents, and warehouses are appropriate terms when talking about cars or computers, but not people. If we allow the creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes, the end result will be a system of ``hatcheries'' where such ambiguous embryos are grown in mass. We hold a certain value for the uniqueness of humans. To challenge that in the name of science will have consequences we cannot begin to predict or understand.

A ban on this procedure helps to redirect science to equally promising areas. In addition, such a ban does not ban cloning and nuclear transfer techniques for the production of DNA, molecules, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants and animals. The type of ban that I support does nothing to restrict the vast majority of medical advancements that have and will continue to pave the way for potential cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and cancer.

But as elected officials, we must take action on matters of such grave importance. Our legislative leadership is badly needed in this area. For this reason, I ask for your support for the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Colleague Senator Grassley in introducing legislation to provide that certain tax planning inventions cannot be patented.

America's patent system promotes innovation and competitiveness in all industries.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to establish a patent system. That system is meant to protect inventors and promote the progress of science and ``useful arts.'' Today, we refer to this as technological innovation.

In the Patent Act of 1793, Congress enacted a broad definition for inventions that can be patented. But conditions were included. The definition for what could be patented in 1793 is remarkably similar to the definition in the United States Code today. And not every process or discovery is patentable.

In 17th century England, the Crown would grant a monopoly over a particular business line. Peter Meinhardt, in his book, ``Inventions, Patents and Monopoly,'' described these ``letters-patent'' that provided exclusive manufacturing rights as enriching ``the grantee at the expense of the community.'' This is what our Founders and Congress sought to avoid.

Today, a number of attorneys and accountants have begun applying for and obtaining tax patents. These involve financial products, banking, estate and gift, and tax preparation software.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted at least 60 of these tax patents. About 90 applications are pending.

I have heard from tax practitioners, including those in Montana, who fear that tax patents will impede their ability to provide advice to their clients. They are concerned that even obvious applications of the tax law may become protected by tax patents. They also tell me that some tax strategy patent applications appear to be for tax shelters and other tax-motivated transactions.

The Treasury is also concerned about patent protection for tax planning methods. In September, Treasury issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of transactions that use a patented tax strategy.

While this is a step in the right direction, these rules do not go far enough to fix the real problem.

A taxpayer shouldn't be in the position of choosing to file a return and pay a patent holder a fee for using a tax strategy in the return. No one should have to pay a toll charge to comply with the tax laws.

They also should not have to conduct a due diligence check every time that they comply with the tax laws to see if they are infringing a tax patent.

As I understand it, a taxpayer might use a tax strategy based on advice from a tax practitioner. The practitioner would prepare and file a tax return using the patented strategy. The tax practitioner's advice, the taxpayer's use of the transaction, and the preparation and filing of the tax return could all be considered patent infringement.

These tax patents can also create traps for the unwary. If taxpayers used a patented strategy, not knowing that it is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, they could be subject to additional taxes, penalties and interest.

Congress has previously enacted laws to limit what can be patented. Limiting patentability for tax patents is another situation where Congress must act.

I introduce our bill today with Senator Grassley. There are a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

It would provide that the Patent Trademark Office could not issue patents for tax planning inventions.

Tax planning inventions are generally tax plans, strategies, techniques, schemes, processes, or systems that are designed to reduce, minimize, avoid, or defer a taxpayer's Federal or State tax liability.

There is an important exception. This change would not affect the use of tax preparation software to help practitioners and taxpayers prepare tax or information returns.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code contains the Internal Revenue Code, a public law that is available to everyone. No one should have the capability to monopolize the tax law through the patenting of tax strategies. This is why I believe that these tax planning inventions should not be granted patent protection.

I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today we are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with congressional intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner. It is our hope that we can move this package of technicals in December if possible.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Colleague Senator Grassley in introducing legislation to provide that certain tax planning inventions cannot be patented.

America's patent system promotes innovation and competitiveness in all industries.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to establish a patent system. That system is meant to protect inventors and promote the progress of science and ``useful arts.'' Today, we refer to this as technological innovation.

In the Patent Act of 1793, Congress enacted a broad definition for inventions that can be patented. But conditions were included. The definition for what could be patented in 1793 is remarkably similar to the definition in the United States Code today. And not every process or discovery is patentable.

In 17th century England, the Crown would grant a monopoly over a particular business line. Peter Meinhardt, in his book, ``Inventions, Patents and Monopoly,'' described these ``letters-patent'' that provided exclusive manufacturing rights as enriching ``the grantee at the expense of the community.'' This is what our Founders and Congress sought to avoid.

Today, a number of attorneys and accountants have begun applying for and obtaining tax patents. These involve financial products, banking, estate and gift, and tax preparation software.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted at least 60 of these tax patents. About 90 applications are pending.

I have heard from tax practitioners, including those in Montana, who fear that tax patents will impede their ability to provide advice to their clients. They are concerned that even obvious applications of the tax law may become protected by tax patents. They also tell me that some tax strategy patent applications appear to be for tax shelters and other tax-motivated transactions.

The Treasury is also concerned about patent protection for tax planning methods. In September, Treasury issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of transactions that use a patented tax strategy.

While this is a step in the right direction, these rules do not go far enough to fix the real problem.

A taxpayer shouldn't be in the position of choosing to file a return and pay a patent holder a fee for using a tax strategy in the return. No one should have to pay a toll charge to comply with the tax laws.

They also should not have to conduct a due diligence check every time that they comply with the tax laws to see if they are infringing a tax patent.

As I understand it, a taxpayer might use a tax strategy based on advice from a tax practitioner. The practitioner would prepare and file a tax return using the patented strategy. The tax practitioner's advice, the taxpayer's use of the transaction, and the preparation and filing of the tax return could all be considered patent infringement.

These tax patents can also create traps for the unwary. If taxpayers used a patented strategy, not knowing that it is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, they could be subject to additional taxes, penalties and interest.

Congress has previously enacted laws to limit what can be patented. Limiting patentability for tax patents is another situation where Congress must act.

I introduce our bill today with Senator Grassley. There are a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

It would provide that the Patent Trademark Office could not issue patents for tax planning inventions.

Tax planning inventions are generally tax plans, strategies, techniques, schemes, processes, or systems that are designed to reduce, minimize, avoid, or defer a taxpayer's Federal or State tax liability.

There is an important exception. This change would not affect the use of tax preparation software to help practitioners and taxpayers prepare tax or information returns.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code contains the Internal Revenue Code, a public law that is available to everyone. No one should have the capability to monopolize the tax law through the patenting of tax strategies. This is why I believe that these tax planning inventions should not be granted patent protection.

I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. A slightly different version of this bill passed the Senate during the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congress. We are introducing this legislation again in hopes of assisting the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico clear title to several parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the city will be free to proceed with plans to improve the properties as part of a biological park project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.

The biological park project has been in the works since 1987 when the city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the city purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the city since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the city's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the city dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is unnecessarily complicating the city's progress in developing the biological park project. If the matter is left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. In fact, the record indicates that Reclamation once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is tailored to address this local interest by disclaiming any Federal interest in the two properties at issue. To avoid future complications, the bill also disclaims any Federal interest in several other parcels associated with the BioPark. The general dispute concerning title to Middle Rio Grande Project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to resolve this issue. This bill represents a simple solution to a local problem caused by Federal action. I urge my colleagues to once again support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.