Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural

health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, almost twelve years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Seven years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer).

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, llinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949.) Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations (which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada), and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, many of you know of my continued support and advocacy on the importance of addressing the plight of Filipino World War II veterans. As an American, I believe the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded by Spain, following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10- year

time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines including the right to call military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was called to serve with the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II under President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941 military order. The Filipinos who served were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service with our armed forces. Hundreds were wounded in battle and many hundreds more died in battle. Shortly after Japan's surrender, the Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending Filipino troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. These troops were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of these troops continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.

Despite all of their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, the Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946, now codified as Section 107 of Title 38 of the United States Code. The 1946 Act deemed that the service performed by these Filipino veterans would not be recognized as ``active service'' for the purpose of any U.S. law conferring ``rights, privileges, or benefits.'' Accordingly, Section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for non-service-connected disabilities, and pension benefits. Section 107 also limited service- connected disability and death compensation for Filipino veterans to 50 percent of what their American counterparts receive.

On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which duplicated the language that had eliminated Filipino veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act. Thus, Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II have been precluded from receiving most of the veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

The Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which I introduce today, would restore the benefits due to these veterans by granting full recognition of service for the sacrifices they made during World War II. These benefits include veterans health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits.

Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures to rectify the lack of appreciation America has shown to these gallant men and women who stood in harm's way with our American soldiers and fought the common enemy during World War II. It is time that we as a Nation recognize our long-standing history and friendship with the Philippines. Of the 120,000 that served in the Commonwealth Army during World War II, there are approximately 60,000 Filipino veterans currently residing in the United States and the Philippines. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Filipino veteran population is expected to decrease to approximately 20,000 or roughly one-third of the current population by 2010.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored; let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Let us instead work to replay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans, benefits they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses rely heavily on the business meal to conduct business, even more so than larger corporations. In releasing its study in May 2004, entitled he Impact of Tax Expenditure Policies on Incorporated Small Business, the Small Business Administration, SBA, Office of Advocacy, found that small incorporated businesses benefit more than their larger counterparts from the meal and entertainment tax deduction. According to the study, small firms that take advantage of the business-meal deduction reduce their effective tax rate by 0.75 percent on average, while larger firms only receive a 0.11 percent reduction in the effective tax rate. More importantly, the study strongly suggests that full reinstatement of the business meal and entertainment deduction should be a major policy priority for small businesses.

Small companies often use restaurants as onference space to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best and sometimes only marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small business bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant.

Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association (NRA), State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $8 billion and create a $26 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA State by State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2007.'' This legislation would change Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels.

Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care.

I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--the extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues; Senators Akaka, Kennedy, Conrad and Dorgan, I introduce ``The Wakefield Act,'' also known as the ``Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of 2007.'' Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has become the impetus for improving children's emergency services Nationwide. From specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric sized equipment, EMSC has served as the vehicle for improving survival of our smallest and most vulnerable citizens when accidents or medical emergencies threatened their lives.

It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic, physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall through the gap between adult and pediatric care. The EMSC has bridged that gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency medical technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and pediatricians.

The Institute of Medicine's recently released study on Emergency Care for

Children, indicated that our Nation is not as well prepared as once we thought. Only 6 percent of all emergency departments have the essential pediatric supplies and equipment necessary to manage pediatric emergencies. Many of the providers of emergency care have received fragmented and little training in the skills necessary to resuscitate this specialized population. Even our disaster preparedness plans have not fully addressed the unique needs posed by children injured in such events.

EMSC remains the only federal program dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency settings. Re-authorization of EMSC will ensure that children's needs will be given the due attention they deserve and that coordination and expansion of services for victims of life-threatening illnesses and injuries will be available throughout the United States.

I look forward to re-authorization of this important legislation and the continued advances in our emergency healthcare delivery system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the Nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I have introduced will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

A New York Times article on June 21, 2002, described the financial problems which nonprofit hospitals are facing to modernize their facilities and meet the growing demand for charitable medical care. The problems have grown more urgent since that article appeared.

On November 22, 2006, the Wall Street Journal noted the rising numbers of uninsured patients who fill hospital emergency rooms without paying their bills. In 2005, 46.6 million Americans had no health insurance. Compounding the growing demand for charitable care, new safety and infection-prevention standards require hospitals to undertake massive improvements.

As a result, the article stated, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals, the reporter pointed out, typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, nonprofit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times noted the resulting closures of nonprofit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. As the Times article said, nonprofit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem the nation's nonprofit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine had surveyed hospitals' qualify of care in four areas of treatment. It found that nonprofit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. It also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis. It said that investment in technology and staffing leads to better care. And it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of nonprofit teaching hospitals is evident in the work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 146-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. It serves as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency programs in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, and psychiatry. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. It operates the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital on a rural, economically depressed island. Its medical reference library is the largest in the State. Not the least, it annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Nonprofit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as universities, school, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities, and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital can not buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimate show that the provision with its general application will help a number a teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate several times has acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836 the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7 the CARE Act of 2002 and in S. 476 the CARE Act of 2003 which the Senate passed. In the last Congress S. 6 the Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's recent hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their state practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this nation, few federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition they deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our nation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every State of the Nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns

be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of The American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice (vocational) nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding health care professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, social work, and veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 150 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This legislation, twice passed by the Senate yet unsuccessful in the House, would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute, USMCI, and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, intends to expand research activities to military medical centers across the nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic subpopulations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2004. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multi-disciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last year we made significant improvements to the Nation's transportation security system by enacting the SAFE Port Act, which strengthened the security of our Nation's ports and maritime vessels. Yet, during the conference on this important bill, the Congress failed to seize the opportunity to enact comprehensive transportation security legislation that would have provided real homeland security for our entire transportation system. The Senate- passed version of the SAFE Port Act contained essential provisions that would have strengthened security in all of the surface modes of transportation, including passenger and freight rail, public transit, trucking, intercity bus and pipelines. But jurisdictional infighting and a lack of political will kept the leadership of the House of Representatives from agreeing to, or even attempting to consider, these provisions in conference.

Given the urgent need for surface transportation security improvements, Cochairman Stevens and I are introducing the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007, or STARS Act, to once again offer the Congress an opportunity to enact a comprehensive transportation security bill. We have all seen the possible consequences of an attack on critical surface transportation systems in Madrid and London. We have all heard about possible threats and foiled plots aimed at our rail tunnels and stations here at home. The time has come for us to address these vulnerabilities and risks in a comprehensive and coordinated way that ensures that in the rush to protect one mode of transportation we don't shift vulnerability towards other, less secure, transportation modes.

The STARS Act combines the rail, truck, bus, pipeline and hazardous materials security provisions that were included in the Senate-passed SAFE Port Act into a stand-alone bill, which the Commerce Committee will soon consider. These provisions were endorsed unanimously by the Senate during consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the Conference Report--advice the House leadership declined to accept. Additionally, the rail security portion of this package has already passed the Senate twice in prior Congresses and has been endorsed by railroads and rail labor alike. This kind of support demonstrates both the necessity of these improvements and the distinct possibility that we can finally enact these provisions into law this Congress.

The legislation that we introduce today reflects the Commerce Committee's substantial expertise over the issues of transportation security. The time has come to advance these improvements, and protect the vital surface transportation assets that grant us the quality of life and economic health that we all cherish. Our legislation presents an opportunity to make immediate progress on transportation security, and it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting consideration and passage of this measure as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise to start the discussion on this side regarding stem cells, regarding the major hope and promise of stem cells, stem cell research and adult stem cells, cord blood, amniotic fluid.

I wish to start off with a story of a patient, David Foege. I have a picture of him here. David Foege lives in Florida and has suffered from end-stage heart disease. He experienced shortness of breath, tiredness, and an inability to concentrate and function in a normal fashion. Over 2 years ago, his cardiologist indicated that he should go to hospice, saying he had no other options. ``I would be provided plenty of morphine to ease my way into a `transitional state,' '' was the statement of his treating physician. Hospice does provide great service, but David learned about adult stem cell treatments through a company called TheraVitae.

When I saw David last year, he had just returned from his first stem cell treatment. He has just returned from his second one a matter of weeks ago--just this week, as a matter of fact. We have a progress report from him about this amazing work which has taken place, this therapy which has occurred with adult stem cells. Listen to David's letter. It is really impressive and very interesting.

I am one of 7 people in the world who have experienced 2

stem cell therapies!

Susan and I have just returned from Bangkok, Thailand,

after 45 days of adult stem cell cardiac treatment and

rehabilitation. [One has to wonder why he is in Thailand for

that.] The absolute cutting edge of technology, the

utilization of my own stem cells reinjected into my heart,

allowed the reshaping and a re-functioning of my heart from a

life-threatening situation to a nearly normal heart function

today.

Following my stem cell [treatment] last year I went from a

life expectancy of one day to 90 days to at least one year.

The second stem cell treatment has jumpstarted me into the

range of normal function. I reasonably can expect a normal

life expectancy, which is approximately 10 to 15 more years.

I can't `` tell you how great it is to the back in the

greatest country in the world, the United States of America.

The weather is fabulous here in Florida, and it is wonderful

to sleep on my own soft bed.

I am in awe of the Creator, who amazingly engineered us to

have our own warranty in our body's toolbox with us at all

times . . . our own stem cells! It does not check our

politics, race, religion, or sex.

Some of the diseases in addition to heart diseases which

can be treated in 2008-2009 are the following [projected into

the future]:

Blindness macular degeneration, diabetes, stroke and

Parkinson's disease, paralysis of any part of the body

including back and/or legs, renal failure.

Being one of the world's longest living renal transplant

recipients of 23 years, I can't tell you how thrilled I am

for others that they may not have to endure the hellish

torture of a renal failure. This reasonable treatment is in

the immediate future.

It is an absolutely wonderful time to be alive. The only

letters, or designation, I would like to have behind my name

is David Foege, Alive!

TheraVitae has the technology to soup-up our cells and

differentiate them for maximum effectiveness. I would support

embryonic cells, but they have a 100% certain side effect of

growing cancer tumors. Our own adult stem cells do not.

Best wishes and great health be with you.

This opens a revolutionary door of opportunity to improve

the quality of life like it has for me and cut the spiraling

cost of health care in the USA.

On my way to Costco without cane or wheel chair for 30

minute shopping walk, I remain

Sincerely yours,

David Foege, Ph.D. And alive

That is a good way to start this discussion of these miraculous stem cells. They are beautiful, and they are working in at least 72 different human maladies. David Foege had treatments using two. The problem is, he has had to go to Bangkok, Thailand, for both of them instead of the United States.

Adult stem cell therapy has no ethical problems, no ethical questions. They are his own stem cells. Yet he has had to travel to Bangkok because we don't seem to have enough research funding to be able to support this sort of research into areas that are giving cures--treatments, I want to say, emphasize treatments, not cures--to people to give them an enthusiastic life, to give them a chance to live and to sign off ``David Foege, Ph.D., and alive.''

We have now found these amazing stem cells in many places, not only in cord blood. Thanks to my colleague from Iowa, who worked with me and many others, we established a cord blood bank, and we are now--I just checked these numbers before we came over here--at the end of 2006, there have been 10,000 cord blood transplants to unrelated donors. I got those from the New York Blood Center, which was responsible for 2,500 of these units. That is 10,000 people probably alive who wouldn't be--maybe some would, in other ways or shapes. But still it is taking place.

We now need to bank amniotic fluid. We just found in recent research--I want to show this chart as well. Some of my colleagues may have missed this. This came out in JAMA, February 28, 2007: ``Stem cells obtained from amniotic fluid.'' This is the fluid, of course, surrounding the child in the womb.

Amniotic fluid-derived stem cells--AFS cells--can be coaxed

to become muscle, bone, fat, blood, vessel, nerve and live

cells.

AFS, stem cells, might be capable of repairing damaged

tissues resulting from conditions such as spinal cord

injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and stroke.

I hope one of the efforts we can take on banking, that I could possibly do with my colleague from Iowa and many others, is banking amniotic fluid. This has been traditionally thrown away. It may hold the promise of incredible cures. It is a great source of stem cells. They are very malleable, the pluripotent stem cells that are taking place that are in this as well. That may be another one on which we can join together. There is much news to celebrate on the stem cell front, this being one.

In the placenta, I believe, they are finding a rich source of these pluripotent malleable stem cells as well--here another throwaway, if you will. That is an area we are going to be able to find and probably use more and more into the future for these very malleable, pluripotent stem cells from which we can create--not create but use for additional amazing cures.

I want to recognize the work of my colleagues who are on the other side of this debate, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, Senator Harkin from Iowa--many others who have pushed for a long time in these areas, and much good has happened. In the cord blood banking, that has gone very well. In the adult stem cell research, that work has gone fabulously, as I just read in this opening story of a gentleman just back from Bangkok--although he wished his treatments were taking place in the United States rather than in Thailand. Much good has happened.

We have two major barriers. The first one I believe to be an insurmountable barrier, that first one being, What is the human embryo? If it is a person, as we have discussed many times, then it is entitled to human dignity and should be treated in a dignified fashion and not researched or taxpayer dollars used to research and destroy it. If it is property, it can be done with as its master chooses.

We have discussed and debated this many times. Obviously, here the effort would be to treat the youngest of human beings as property to be researched on, to be destroyed with the use of Federal taxpayer dollars. Yet, if you follow that debate on forward, at what point in time does a human embryo become a person? We know that if you allow it to grow, at some point in time, under everybody's definition, it becomes a person entitled to protection and human dignity. Yet we are saying here: No, at the earliest phases, we are going to treat it as property, and with Federal taxpayer dollars we are going to pay to destroy it and to research on it.

That is the obstacle which cannot be overcome because we believe in human dignity. We believe as a society in human dignity. So our debate, which we have had multiple sets of times, sets of different debates on this here, continues today.

The central question will be, Will we sanction the destruction of nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? That is the central issue. Will we divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research, which is working? See the case of Dr. David Foege--and send these dollars to fund speculative research that likely will never produce any patient treatments? That is the second question with it.

I mentioned the first to be an insurmountable one. I think the second is one of wisdom: Should we be funding something that is working or should we be speculating on something that is not and is producing, indeed, tumors? I will back that up with a number of research papers.

These are the two central questions. These are the two questions we will be debating throughout this period of time.

I doubt there is much surprise left on the vote, on how the votes will take place. It is an important debate. It does frame much of what we move forward with in this country and in places around the world. But these are the two central questions: Will we sanction the destruction of nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? Will we divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research which is working and send these dollars to fund speculative research that likely will never produce any patient treatments?

Central to this debate is the issue of how we treat our fellow man. We would all agree, I hope, that individuals should be treated with respect. We would agree that we should avoid prejudices. We would agree that each individual has an inalienable right to life--my colleagues, my colleague from Iowa, myself, the Presiding Officer, those around, those watching would all agree that we each have an inalienable right to life--to live. We would all hold this for the newborn through the eldest members of our society. But when does that life begin? The question that has vexed this body for some period of

time. Does it begin at birth? Does it begin before birth? When? Biology tells us that life begins much earlier than birth. Here I want to read from the ``Human Embryology'' textbook. It says this:

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a

critical landmark because under ordinary circumstances, a new

genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

Such definitions are helpful in clarifying that human life does begin at the embryonic phase. Indeed, myself, my colleague from Iowa, the Presiding Officer all began at that embryonic phase, whether the embryo comes the old-fashioned way, via IVF or a product of various scientific methods such as SCNT human cloning.

With the scientific fact in hand, we evaluate the facts in light of our ethical framework. For instance, we know that the human embryo is a human life. Then the question is, How should we treat it? Human life has immeasurable value, from the youngest to the oldest. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human as a means to an end. Any time throughout human history when we have done otherwise we have regretted it.

Our value as people is intrinsic. I would say here, I am pro-life, whole life. I believe that all life is sacred, it is beautiful, it is unique, it is the child of a loving God, from beginning to end, it is true here, it is true in the womb, it is true of a child in Darfur, it is true of a lady in poverty, it simply is true.

Yes, we want to treat people and help people who have medical conditions. But we must not trample upon any human to achieve such an end. This is because human beings are distinct and unique amongst all creation. I would note that Ronald Reagan had, I thought, a very folksy way of defining whether this was human life and whether it should be protected. In his 1983 essay on ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation,'' he put this in a very commonsense way.

Anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a

second human life, should clearly give life the benefit of

the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead,

you would never bury it.

I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. Very commonsense, folksy way, but he does hit the point. Will we do what is ethical with respect to our fellow man? This is one of the central questions of this debate.

Now during this debate some will argue that we should proceed with ethical embryonic stem cell research. Here I would distinguish between embryonic and some of the unquestionably ethical alternatives which we can talk about. With respect to embryonic stem cell research, though, as embodied in the guidelines of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5, how is it possible to ethically do something that is completely unethical--destroy another human life, innocent human life-- for research purposes?

Arguments that the bill provides ethical guidelines, though well intended, I believed are misplaced. The ethics of S. 5 have nothing to do with protecting innocent life from destruction. They will fund, with taxpayer dollars, the destruction of innocent human life.

The ethics of S. 5 have to do with the process of how you donate young human embryos for destruction. Mr. President, we have had this debate before. We have had it on the floor on this issue, and we have had it before regarding other issues. We had it with the fetal tissue research from abortions.

I wish to take the body back to 1991, the Coalition for Research Freedom, in a letter signed by many prominent patient advocacy groups who are advocating embryonic stem cell research today, were advocating fetal tissue research in 1991. They wrote this: Fetal tissue transplantation research is widely recognized as one of the most promising research avenues for such disease and disabilities as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Huntington's, leukemia, epilepsy, spinal cord injuries, and many other chronic health conditions.

Doesn't that sound familiar, Congress responding to the emotional outcry with legislation to provide for funding for unethical research, research that can only take place with the trampling of the rights of a fellow human.

That was 1991. Those were the promises. That was the move forward by this body. That is what was pushed on forward. We know what happened. It was on the front page of the New York Times in 2001. The news story began like this:

A carefully controlled study that tried to treat

Parkinson's disease by implanting cells from aborted fetuses

into patient's brains not only failed to show an overall

benefit but also revealed a disastrous side effect,

scientists report.

In about 15 percent of patients, the cells apparently grew

too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls

movement that the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably.

The story continues:

``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their

wrists flex and distend,'' Dr. Greene said. And the patients

writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about.

``It was tragic, catastrophic,'' he said. ``It's a real

nightmare. And we cannot selectively turn it off.''

One man was so badly affected that--

We will see what happens. Hopefully, the sound will come back in a little while.

One man was so badly affected that he could no longer eat

and had to use a feeding tube, Dr. Greene said. In another,

the condition came and went unpredictably throughout the day,

and when it occurred, the man's speech was unintelligible.

For now, Dr. Greene said, his position is clear: ``No more

fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced

that this should be considered for research only.'' The

pattern repeats itself. It is a double tragedy. First, the

young human life is destroyed. Second, it is patients who

will likely be harmed. There are no embryonic human

treatments or applications, despite 25 years of embryonic

work in animal models and a decade of work with human

embryonic stem cells.

I repeat that. Twenty-five years of embryonic work in animal models, there are no human treatments, and a decade of work with human embryonic stem cells, no treatments.

But what we have learned about embryonic stem cells is that these cells are very good at forming tumors, in particular. The literature abounds with such stories. One example is in an area published last year in Stem Cells. You read the article and find: The expression of the insulin gene could be demonstrated only when the cell is differentiated in vivo into teratomas, those are tumors.

This is one example and there are many others. I wish to point this out because this was the same result we saw taking place with fetal tissue research, was that tumors were formed. That is what took place.

I wish to go to several of the articles now that are published articles on the formation of tumors by embryonic stem cells. Note this one on the insulin gene, this was in the publication Stem Cells, published August 2 of 2006--have another one published April 6, 2006.

They noted there as well the potential for teratoma development in embryonic stem cell lines, even after prolonged differentiation. I have a series of articles. Here is one in Neurochem, 2006, June. They were noting there frequent tumor-related deaths in transplanted animals taking place in that one.

Here is one in Stem Cells in June of 2006. There they note that rats grafted with human embryonic stem cells predifferentiated in vitro for 16 days developed severe teratomas--again, tumors.

The literature is full of that work. These are developing tumors. We note in Stem Cells publication, June of 2006, more than 70 percent of mice that received embryonic stem cells neural precursor cells developed teratomas, developed tumors.

I have a series of those publications, all noting the stem cell therapy in animals produced tumors. Strange. That is what we found took place in fetal tissue research when we were dealing with an older set of cells that had been developed, and now when we back it up to a younger set of stem cells or cells we are using, we are seeing this same feature, forming teratomas or tumors throughout each of the research animals and in some cases in almost every circumstance.

That is what we found then, and we are finding the same thing now, consistent on the research. I have, for those who are interested, if any of the offices are interested, 17 different examples of the formation of teratomas

by embryonic stem cell work in lab animals.

Let's not go down this road of unethical, speculative research. I am sure the research is interesting to some. But the Government needs to pursue what is best for Americans suffering from diseases and injuries. That is what our standard should be in this.

We have an enormous ethical hurdle of killing young human life for this research purpose, and we have an area that needs more funding in the adult stem cell, cord blood, amniotic fluid, and that money is being diverted to other places.

Now let us move from that ethical to the practical question: Should we put millions or billions of dollars into interesting, speculative research on tumor-forming embryonic stem cells or should we put our money where we are already getting strong results with adult stem cell work, cord blood, amniotic fluid, other areas where there is no ethical problem?

Adult stem cells have no ethical strings attached. You can get them from an adult patient without causing the patient harm, you can harvest them from the rich cord blood, and as noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association on March 7 of this year, they can be obtained from amniotic fluid, which I previously cited, without causing harm to the unborn child.

Defying the naysayers, who said this could not work or would not work, there are so many confirmed adult pluripotent stem cells, pluripotent cells, that means they can form a number of different types of cell types, previously thought to only exist in the embryos, can turn into virtually any cell in the body.

And here I want to show--first, let us go to the chart of the areas that were having treatments taking place by adult stem cell therapy. I wish to hold this up. I do not think this is a complete set of areas but 72 current human--this is in humans--clinical applications using adult stem cells: blood conditions, autoimmune, bladder disease, cancer, cardiovascular, liver disease, ocular, wounds and injuries, metabolic disorders.

You can see the list of 72 different areas that are being treated with adult stem cells in humans, in human trials. I wish to hold up to my colleagues--I will be happy to provide this to any offices that would like it--it is about an inch-thick binder of ``New Reasons for Hope.'' These are recent developments published since Congress's stem cell debate and vote of 2006 and the adult stem cell research and other alternative to embryonic stem cell work and research.

This is from June 2006 to March of 2007. Here are the number of additional areas that we have gotten successful work taking place in each of those. I wish to show this as a folder--I have shown it before to my colleagues--if anybody would like to see this. These are the recent advances in adult stem cell research and other alternatives. This is a binder about 4 inches thick, full of the front pages, just the first pages of the research in these fields of what is taking place. There needs to be more taking place in this field to get more of the treatments for more people like David Foege.

If people want to go to the Web site of ClinicalTrials.gov and pull up the latest number of trials and studies of places that are recruiting patients or are filled and no longer recruiting, it pulls up 1,422 studies currently ongoing. This is the first of 50 pages from ClinicalTrials.gov of the various areas and uses of adult stem cells that are going on right now.

Let's look at the money chart. Presently, there is no prohibition against anybody developing new embryonic stem cell lines legally. If a private group or a state wants to develop a new embryonic stem cell line, they can. The limitation is on the use of Federal taxpayer dollars in research areas on newly established embryonic stem cell lines. But if a private group wants to develop an embryonic stem cell line or a State, they can do that now.

Let's look at the funding that has gone into embryonic stem cell research, both human and nonhuman. In fiscal year 2006, the last year that we have full data for, human embryonic stem cell research, $37.8 million, nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $110.4 million; for 2002 to 2006, human embryonic stem cell research, $132.1 million, nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $481.7 million; for a total of $613.9 million in embryonic stem cell research. We are putting a lot of money into embryonic stem cell research. Still the scoreboard of where we are getting humans treated after $613.9 million, stem cell research human applications, adult, we have two treatment areas with binders full of information, with 1,422 study trials. We have zero on the embryonic, after 25 years of knowing about this, 10 years of knowing about it in humans, and after $613 million in funding.

After some period of time, should we not think, wouldn't it be better if Dr. David Foege were being treated in the United States instead of Thailand and we had more of that work that is getting him treated taking place here rather than in other places around the world? Wouldn't it be better to take the $613 million that could yield more treatments, if that is what we are after, wouldn't it be better to take that $613 million and say: Let's put more in adult stem cell research where it is yielding results? Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that the right thing to do?

Where we have all of this that is producing results, after 25 years we don't have anything here. That is not fair to say. I am sure we have interesting research information that has come up through that research of that $613 million. I am sure there has been useful research, but it involves the destruction of young human life.

Before people who are watching this think: You have a cure for me in the adult stem cell area, I want to make sure to put forward that many of these are in clinical trials today. Not all of these are widely available yet. However, there has been success in all of these areas using adult stem cells. For some of these treatments adult stem cells were the main component. In others adult stem cells were the part that helped the main component to work. All of these are real and legitimate.

On the eve of last summer's biological debate, some scientists took it upon themselves to criticize this list by publishing a letter in the Journal of Science. In January this year, Science published a response to this initial letter. It is important that we put forward here the context of the adult stem cell treatment that has yielded so many human treatments to date. I want to put this in context.

In their letter ``Adult Stem Cell Treatments for

Diseases?'' S. Smith et al. claim that we misrepresent a list

of adult stem cell treatments benefiting patients.

But it is the Letter's authors who misrepresent our

statements and the published literature, dismissing as

irrelevant the many scientists and patients who have shown

the benefits of adult stem cells.

We have stated that adult stem cell applications have

``helped,'' ``benefited,'' and ``improved'' patient

conditions. Smith et al.'s Supporting Online Material

repeatedly notes patient improvement from these cells. We

have never stated that these treatments are ``generally

available,'' ``cures,'' or ``fully tested in all required

phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA).'' Some studies do not require

prior FDA approval, and even the nine supposedly ``fully

approved'' treatments acknowledged by Smith et al. would not

be considered ``cures'' or ``generally available'' to the

public at this stage of research.

The insistence that no benefit is real until after FDA

approval is misplaced. Such approval is not a medical

standard to evaluate patient benefit, but an agency

determination that benefits outweigh risks in a broad class

of patients.

Physicians and patients use an evidentiary standard. Our

list of 72 applications, [is] compiled from peer-reviewed

articles, documents observable and measurable benefit to

patients, a necessary step toward formal FDA approval and

what is expected of new, cutting-edge medical applications.

As this debate moves forward, I look forward to sharing the stories of some of the real patients who have benefited from ethical adult stem cell research. We need more patients treated. We have more patients who need treatment. We have an area of high-yield Federal dollar investment where it should go, and we don't have the ethical barriers. We should be putting that money there; 72 to 0, that is the score. There are at least 72 human treatments and applications using adult stem cells. There are no human treatments with embryonic stem cells. With the rate of tumor formation which I previously noted, none seemed to be on the horizon soon.

This is acknowledged by some scientists. Notably, Science carried a piece in 2005 in which the authors note:

. . . the clinical benefits of the research are years or

maybe decades away. This is a message that desperate families

and patients will not want to hear.

Yet we do have a message that desperate families and patients do want to hear; that is that we have treatments on the horizon, and we do in the adult and cord blood and amniotic fluid. We need the research money.

Harvard stem cell researcher David Shaywitz wrote in a 2005 Washington Post op-ed:

While stem cell advocates have helped voters connect

embryonic stem cell research with compelling images of

patients who might one day benefit from treatment, such

therapies are unlikely to emerge soon enough to benefit most

current proponents. . . .

. . . scientists must do a better job of articulating the

limitations of our existing acknowledge, taking care to

emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of

these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such

therapies.

Which road will we choose? Will we choose the ethical adult stem cell road that holds great promise and is currently producing treatments, or will we choose the unethical embryonic stem cell road that tramples on human dignity and has produced tumors to date? That is the point of the discussion.

This is not just an academic discussion, nor is it just a policy discussion. It involves real people. I showed you one person who was a real person. I started off with talking about David Foege who is excited about being alive. Let me show you Jacki Rabon, a paraplegic. I met Jacki last year. She has continued to improve. I want to share her story with you.

She lives in central Illinois. She had come to DC last year with her mother and sister because she wanted to tout her successful adult stem cell treatment. The courage of Jacki and many others like her is truly amazing. Years earlier, as an active 16-year-old, she was paralyzed in an automobile accident. As the car was flipping multiple times, Jacki was thrown from the vehicle and landed on her back on a country road. Her dreams of earning a volleyball scholarship for college were shattered.

In a letter sent to me last year, Jacki wrote this:

That day changed my outlook, my future aspirations and my

complete life. Before the accident I was a very active 16-

year-old. I played volleyball in school and was very good. I

had hopes of going to college on a volleyball scholarship. I

truly was living a nightmare after this tragedy. I really

thought my life was over. I couldn't imagine not playing

volleyball anymore, jumping on my trampoline with my young

nephew, chasing after my niece or just taking a walk around

my small community. Not only does something like this change

the victim but it also disrupts and seriously affects your

family.

I spent a little over a month in the hospital. I had back

surgery to stabilize my back. I had a fracture at the T12

area, which made me a paraplegic. I had no feeling below the

belly button. I had to learn to become independent again. I

had to learn to dress, bathe, transfer from place to place,

and take care of my personal hygiene and toiletry issues. It

was so difficult and I struggled with these once simple

tasks. After I accomplished these I was released and allowed

to come home. I was simply told, ``You'll never walk again.''

That was my prognosis!

I got back to school a few months later and that was

another adjustment. Everything looks and works differently

when you are sitting in a wheelchair. I had to deal with a

lot of depression and sadness. But I tried to continue with

my life the best way that I could. I truly believe that my

faith got me through. If it wasn't for this amazing love of

God and my strong will and determination I don't know if I

could have proceeded with what my life had become. But I have

great determination along with the comforting faith and I

didn't intend on giving up that easily. I wanted to give life

another opportunity with my new ``lifestyle.''

Can you imagine the anguish of being a 16-year-old, your whole life in front of you, and then being confronted with this sort of tragedy?

Jacki was very fortunate, however, to have so many people who were looking out for her. Her pastor saw a PBS show called ``The Miracle Cell,'' about a procedure called olfactory mucosa transplantation being done in Portugal by Dr. Carlos Lima. The work involved transplanting adult stem cells from spinal cord patients' own sinus area into their spinal cord at the initial injury site.

This gave Jacki real hope. Continuing her letter, she wrote:

I listened to amazing recovery of returned sensation and

even the ability to walk again with continued rehab from

others after having this surgery. I remember thinking,

``There's my chance!'' I knew I wanted to pursue this

possibility for me.

My mom and I started researching this procedure on the

Internet and collected as much information that we could. We

discovered a Spinal Cord Injury Institute getting ready to

open in Detroit, Michigan, that summer. This institute was

closely associated with Dr. Lima. We called to see if we

could get an appointment to go and meet Dr. Steve Hinderer

and asked about the procedure in depth and inquire about my

chances of getting it done.

I did go to Detroit and was told that I could well be a

good candidate. I was given the guidelines and criteria for

having this done. After many months of additional testing, x-

rays, etc., I was accepted.

This was very exhilarating for me. I had read about the

success stories of the individuals that have gone before me.

Their various success stories gave me so much hope!

I had so much support from my family, friends, church,

community and surrounding areas to raise the $50.000.000

needed to have this surgery. Without this overwhelming

support I could not have gone forward with this incredible

opportunity.

I went to Portugal in October 2005. I had the procedure

done on October 29th. My experience in Portugal was not all

pleasant. My mom and I had to deal with the language barrier

and the unfamiliar culture. I returned to the states on

November 5th. I rested at home for a few weeks then went to

Detroit to the Institute for aggressive rehab. Rehab was very

tiring and indeed very aggressive. It was an exhausting

experience but a very rewarding one. It was there that I

took my first steps on the parallel bars. I was up!

My progress since undergoing this surgery has been amazing!

I have a lot of hip movement, some tingling and heaviness in

my legs. I have continued with my rehab regimen at home. I

have leg braces that were fitted to me. I can walk on

parallel bars and have begun walking with a walker. I am up

on my feet again! That's the most satisfying feeling. Unless

you have been confined in a wheelchair for an extended amount

of time you can't really know how rewarding it is to be

standing again.

This brings me to the ongoing debate over adult stem cell

research. I did not think a lot about this issue before the

accident but now it has sparked a great interest within me.

First, I am very much against embryonic stem cell research

and advancement. I do not support this aspect at all. The

killing of human life is appalling to me. But with adult stem

cell and non-embryonic stem cell research I have become an

advocate. My personal experience with adult stem cell

transplantation should awaken the United States to the

unlimited possibilities. This technique is simply, ``your

body healing itself.'' Medical research in the United States

has always been respected and admired for the advances toward

cure for cancer, arthritis treatments and medication, heart

disease and other well-known diseases and ailments. But when

it comes to spinal cord injuries the U.S. is very much in the

negative category. We as taxpayers pay more money in the

daily care of a spinal cord injury victim than we do on a

cure. Now why is that? The medical society treats the injury

at the onset then teaches the individual to live in a

wheelchair and function accordingly. Then they are sent home

and told, ``You will never walk again.'' I experienced that

first hand.

But I am walking again. I have goals of walking by the end

of the year with my braces and crutches. This was made

possible by the procedure in Portugal--Portugal, not the

United States--and aggressive rehab. But I had to leave the

comfort of my home and country and travel to a foreign area

to get this done. Now that is sad, isn't it?

This tragedy that happened to me can happen to anyone. It

could be your wife, husband, son, daughter or friend. What

would you want for them? Simply a statement, ``You'll never

walk again'' or ``Never give up hope there is a better option

for you.''

Jacki Rabon writes:

Wake up United States! We are missing out. Let's look at

the issue in a more personal level--I can walk again.

Sincerely,

Jacki Rabon,

Waverly, IL.

These are the moving words this courageous young lady wrote last summer.

Jacki's progress does continue. We received an e-mail from Jacki's mom, Becki, in the last few weeks. Becki Rabon writes:

Jacki is doing wonderfully. She did have a slight hip

problem a few weeks ago. She was experiencing a lot of pain.

We had x-rays, Ultrasounds and lab work done.

Thank God, it was only tightness in her hip muscles. The

pain of course was not good . . . but it was in a way that is

good since Jacki is getting more feeling in her hips.

Otherwise, she is still walking with her braces and a

walker at our church. She walks independently now. All I do

is help her with getting the braces on and stabilizing the

walker while she stands up. Then she can walk by herself. The

distance has increased considerably. The next step for her is

to start walking outside and at home. She needs to be on more

normal terrain.

This is an amazing story, and the science that has gone into Jacki's

treatment is truly revolutionary, miraculous. Adult stem cell therapy-- what could it do with another $600 million? How far along could we be?

A June 2006 study in the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine reported on Dr. Lima having transplanted nasal stem cells into seven patients with spinal cord injury. The patients regained some motor function and sensation, and two patients showed bladder control improvement.

Most of the adult stem cell work in this area is still being done in lab animals, but it is already starting to have human applications. You have to ask yourself, why would we want to go down the unethical embryonic stem cell road when the doors are already being opened by adult stem cells and you already have these types of human stories taking place? Why, when we have something that is working?

Shown in this picture is Jacki Rabon.

I am going to tell an amazing story about Dr. Dennis Turner. He came in to testify in the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Science and Technology. He testified in 2004. He suffered from Parkinson's disease. I want to read portions of his testimony. I show you a picture of Dr. Dennis Turner. He stated:

For 14 years I've had Parkinson's Disease. This

irreversible disease involves the slow destruction of

specialized cells in the brain, called Dopamine Neurons. By

early 1991 I suffered extreme shaking of the right side of my

body, stiffness in my gait and movements. After some years of

medication, I developed fluctuation and poor response to

Sinemet. This made daily activities needing the coordinated

use of both hands hard or impossible, such as putting in

contact lenses. My disability prevented me from using my

right arm.

Other than my Parkinson's symptoms I was physically very

active and fit. Because of this Dr. Levesque felt that I'd be

a good candidate for an experimental treatment. He explained

that he would take a very small tissue sample from my brain,

removing its adult neural stem cells. He would then multiply

and mature these cells into Dopamine Neurons, then inject

these cells back into the left side of my brain. He proposed

treating only the left side because it controls the right

side of the body, the side with the most severe Parkinson's

symptoms.

Dr. Levesque did not tell me that this treatment would

permanently cure my condition. Science has yet to learn what

causes Parkinson's Disease, much less how to remove it.

However, since this cell-replacement approach had never been

tried in a human patient we hoped for the best. And since my

only other realistic alternative was to continue growing

worse until I eventually died, I decided to have the surgical

procedures in 1999, one to remove the tissue and another to

inject the cells. I was awake for both procedures, under

local anesthesia.

Soon after having the cells injected my Parkinson's

symptoms began to improve. My trembling grew less and less,

until to all appearances it was gone, only slightly

reappearing if I became upset. Dr. Levesque had me tested by

a Neurologist, who said he wouldn't have known I had

Parkinson's if he had met me on the street. I was once again

able to use my right hand and arm normally, enjoying

activities that I had given up hope of ever doing.

Since being diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease my condition

had slowly, but continuously worsened. I can't say with

certainty what my condition would have become if Dr. Levesque

had not used my own adult stem cells to treat me. But I have

no doubt that because of this treatment I've enjoyed five

years of quality life that I feared had passed me by.

Last year, after 4 years of being virtually symptom free,

my Parkinson's symptoms began reappearing in my body's left

side. Today I have various degrees of trembling in both

hands, although I feel that the left is slightly worse.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to have Dr.

Levesque use my adult stem cells to treat me a second time,

since in my case they were safe, effective, and involved no

risk of rejection.

Because of my improvements through Dr. Levesque's treatment

I've been able to indulge in my passion for big game

photography these past 5 years.

This man suffering severe Parkinson's for 5 years being able to indulge in his passion for big game photography.

While on safari in 2001 I scrambled up a tree to avoid

being run over by a Rhino. I swam in the South Atlantic with

Great White Sharks. Two weeks ago I returned from Africa

after photographing Cheetahs and Leopards in the wild.

This is a man with severe Parkinson's.

Here are a few examples of the pictures I took. They

represent memories and experiences I feel I have Dr. Levesque

to thank for. I came here to offer him my sincere gratitude,

and to offer others with Parkinson's a concrete reason for

hope.

This summarizes my history with Parkinson's and the

positive effects I experienced through a treatment that used

my own adult stem cells. I'm very happy with its results and

would dearly love to have a second treatment.

Mr. President, I cite this example because here is a route forward for us. We want to treat people with Parkinson's. Here is a route forward that has been shown in a human clinical trial setting, with positive results for a period of time. Why would we want to waste that? Why wouldn't we want to fund that and to use it aggressively?

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor and will continue to use more of my time later.

Mr. President, today the first bill I am introducing in the 110th Congress is the Kids Come First Act, legislation that would ensure every child in America has health care coverage. The Kids Come First Act was also the first bill I introduced in the 109th Congress and I feel just as strongly today as I did at the beginning of the last Congress that insuring all children must be a top agenda item. In the two years since I last introduced this bill, the problem of uninsured children in this nation has actually worsened.

The 110th Congress faces many challenges, from the war in Iraq to lobbying reform. But perhaps no issue bears more directly on the lives of more Americans than health care reform. Today 47 million Americans are uninsured, including 11 million under age 21. Health care has become a slow-motion Katrina that is ruining lives and bankrupting families all over the country. We cannot stand by as the ranks of the uninsured rise and American families find themselves in peril.

A recent Census Bureau report revealed that for the first time in almost a decade the number of uninsured children increased. In 2005 there were 361,000 children under the age of 18 added to the uninsured rolls. And the number of Americans without health care continues to rise.

The Kids Come First Act calls for a Federal-State partnership to mandate health coverage to every child in America. The proposal makes the states an offer they can't refuse. The federal government will pay for the most expensive part: enrolling all low-income children in Medicaid, automatically. The states will pay to expand coverage to higher income children. In the end, states across the country will save more than $6 billion a year, and every child will have health care.

It is totally unacceptable that, in the greatest country in the world, millions of children are not getting the health care they need. The Kids Come First Act expands coverage for children up to age of 21. Through expanding the programs that work, such as Medicaid and SCHIP, we can cover all eleven million children uninsured children.

Insuring children improves their health and helps families cover the spiraling costs of insuring them. Covering all kids will reduce avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent and replace expensive critical care with inexpensive preventative care. Also, when children get the medical attention they need, they pay much better attention in the classroom and studies show their performance improves.

To pay for the expansion of health insurance for children, the Kids Come First Act includes a provision that provides the Secretary of Treasury with the authority to raise the highest income tax rate of 35 percent to a rate not higher than 39.6 percent in order to offset the costs. Prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act Reconciliation Act of 2001, the top marginal rate was 39.6 percent. Less than one percent of taxpayers pay the top rate and for 2007, this rate only affects individual with income above $349,700.

The health care of our children is a priority that we must address and it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. I will continue to work to find ways to offset the cost of my proposal. The wealthiest of all Americans do not need a tax cut when 11 million children do not even have health insurance. President Bush has called for this rate cut to be made permanent, but I believe it would be a better use of our resources to invest in our future by improving health care for children.

Since I first introduced the Kids Come First Act in the 109th Congress, more than 500,000 people have shown their support for the bill by becoming Citizen Cosponsors and another 20,000 Americans called into our ``Give Voices to Our Values'' hotline to share their personal stories. In addition, a coalition of 24 non-profit organizations representing 20 million people from across the country have endorsed Kids Come First, including the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, March of Dimes, the Small Business Service Bureau, AFL-CIO, SEIU, and AFSCME.

It is clear that providing health care coverage for our uninsured children is a priority for our nation's workers, businesses, and health care community. They know, as I do, that further delay only results in graver health problems for America's children. Their future, and ours, depends on us doing better. I urge my colleagues to support and help enacting the Kids Come First Act of 2007 during this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Kids Come First Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Export Products Not Jobs Act.'' Our tax code is extremely complicated. In 1994, the IRS estimated that a family that itemized their deductions and had some interest and capital gains would spend 11\1/2\ hours preparing their Federal income tax return. A decade later in 2004, this estimate increased to 19 hours and 45 minutes. It is time for Congress to pass bipartisan tax legislation in the style of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which greatly simplified the tax code. And our tax reform should be based upon the following three principles: fairness, simplicity, and opportunity for economic growth.

Citizens and businesses struggle to comply with rules governing taxation of business income, capital gains, income phase-outs, extenders, the myriad savings vehicles, recordkeeping for itemized deductions, the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the earned income tax credit (EITC), and taxation of foreign business income. I believe that our international tax system needs to be simplified and reformed to encourage businesses to remain in the United States. And today, I am introducing legislation that I hope will be fully considered as we continue our discussions on tax reform.

Presently, the complexities of our international tax system actually encourage U.S. corporations to invest overseas. Current tax laws allow companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries, which provides a substantial tax break for companies that move investment and jobs overseas. Today, under U.S. tax law, a company that is trying to decide where to locate production or services--either in the United States or in a foreign low-tax haven--is actually given a substantial tax incentive not only to move jobs overseas, but to reinvest profits permanently, as opposed to bringing the profits back to re-invest in the United States.

Recent press articles have revealed examples of companies taking advantage of this perverse incentive in our tax code. For instance, some companies have taken advantage of this initiative by opening subsidiaries to serve markets throughout Europe. Much of the profit earned by these subsidiaries will stay in the European countries and the companies therefore avoid paying U.S. taxes. Other companies have announced the expansion of jobs in India. This reflects a continued pattern among some U.S. multinational companies of shifting software development and call centers to India, and this trend is starting to expand include the shifting critical functions like design and research and development to India as well. Some companies are even outsourcing the preparation of U.S. tax returns.

The Export Products Not Jobs Act would put an to end to these practices by eliminating tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and by using the savings to create jobs in the United States by repealing the top corporate rate. This legislation ends tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs by: 1. eliminating the ability of companies to defer, paying U.S. taxes on foreign income; 2. closing abusive corporate tax loopholes; and 3. repealing the top corporate rate. It removes the incentive to shift jobs overseas by eliminating deferral so that companies pay taxes on their international income as they earn it, rather than being allowed to defer taxes.

Last Congress, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Revenue held a hearing on international tax laws. Stephen Shay, a former Reagan Treasury official, testified that our tax rules ``provide incentives to locate business activity outside the United States.'' Furthermore, he suggested that taxation of U.S. shareholders under an expansion of Subpart F would be a ``substantial improvement'' over our current system. The Export Products Not Jobs Act does just that.

Our current tax system punishes U.S. companies that choose to create and maintain jobs in the United States. These companies pay higher taxes and suffer a competitive disadvantage with a company that chooses to move jobs to a foreign tax haven. There is no reason why our tax code should provide an incentive that encourages investment and job creation overseas. Under my legislation, companies would be taxed the same whether they invest abroad or at home; they will be taxed on their foreign subsidiary profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits.

This legislation reflects the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over 40 years. Our economy has changed in the last 40 years and our tax laws need to be updated to keep pace. Our current global economy was not even envisioned when existing law was written.

My Export Products Not Jobs Act will in no way hinder our global competitiveness. Companies will be able to continue to defer income they earn when they locate production in a foreign country that serves that foreign country's markets. For example, if a U.S. company wants to open a hotel in Bermuda or a car factory in India to sell cars, foreign income can still be deferred. But if a company wants to open a call center in India to answer calls from outside India or relocate abroad to sell cars back to the United States or Canada, the company must pay taxes just like call centers and auto manufacturers located in the United States.

Currently, American companies allocate their revenue not in search of the highest return, but in search of lower taxes. Eliminating deferral will improve the efficiency of the economy by making taxes neutral so that they do not encourage companies to overinvest abroad solely for tax reasons.

The Congressional Research Service stated in a 2003 report that, ``[a]ccording to traditional economic theory, deferral thus reduces economic welfare by encouraging firms to undertake overseas investments that are less productive--before taxes are considered--than alternative investments in the United States.'' Additionally, a 2000 Department of Treasury study on deferral stated, ``[a]mong all of the options considered, ending deferral would also be likely to have the most positive long-term effect on economic efficiency and welfare because it would do the most to eliminate tax considerations from decisions regarding the location of investment.''

The ``Export Products Not Jobs Act'' would modify the rules for determining residency for publicly-traded companies by basing a corporation's residence on the location of its primary place of management and control. This will prevent companies from locating in tax havens, but basically maintaining their operations in the United States. This provision should not hinder foreign investment in the United States. Existing companies that are incorporated in foreign countries with a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States will not be affected by this provision.

Massachusetts is an example of a state that benefits from foreign investment. Two foreign companies have recently expanded investment in Massachusetts. Our tax system should not discourage foreign investment, but it should not encourage companies to locate in tax havens.

The revenue raised from the repeal of deferral and closing corporate loopholes would be used to repeal the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. The tax differential between U.S. corporate rates and foreign corporate rates has grown over the last two decades and the repeal of the top corporate rate is a start in narrowing this gap.

The Export Products Not Jobs Act would promote equity among U.S. taxpayers by ensuring that corporations could not eliminate or substantially reduce taxation of foreign income by separately incorporating their foreign operations. This legislation will eliminate the tax incentives to encourage U.S. companies to invest abroad and reward those companies that have chosen to invest in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I ask unanimous consent that summary of the Export Products Not Jobs Act, as well as the text of the legislation, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families.

An October 2006 College Board report found that this year tuition and other costs at public and private universities rose faster than inflation. And, according to the report, tuition and fees at public universities rose more in the past five years than at any other time in the past 30 years, increasing by 35 percent to $5,836 this academic year. Over the same time period, tuition and fees at private universities increased 22 percent to $22,218.

Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around the country, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible.

In 1997, we implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. These tax credits were important and have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do more. In December, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax incentives for higher education in which we learned that the existing tax credits are not reaching enough students, particularly lower-income students who are most severely impacted by rising tuitions.

The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is nearly double the average annual public four-year college tuition and four times the average annual tuition of a community college. Over 80 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $10,000.

In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of four years of college. Currently the HOPE Credit applies only to the first two years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 (COTC) helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts, including those at this

week's Finance Committee hearing. My legislation creates a new credit that replaces the existing HOPE credit and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous.

The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit to the next $3,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $2,500 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses.

Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC; the COTC will be phased out ratably for taxpayers with income between $45,000 and $55,000 ($90,000 and $110,000 for married taxpayers). These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses.

The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the record. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority

Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007. At the beginning of a new Congress it is important to set priorities for the nation because every new Congress brings with it the hope for a brighter future. One of the ways that this new Senate will lead is by creating opportunities for more Americans to pursue the American dream. As incoming Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I hope to help in that effort by fostering the development of entrepreneurship in minority communities. It's vital that current and future entrepreneurs from minority communities are given the opportunity to build their own piece of the American dream. I believe that this legislation the Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007 will help in that effort.

I want to take a moment and tell you why it's so important to expand the numbers of entrepreneurs in the minority community. As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we foster entrepreneurship in under-served communities. There are signs of significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent to an annual growth rate of 10 percent. Employment opportunities within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community.

Although these economic numbers tell a significant part of the story they don't tell the whole story of what these firms mean to the minority communities they serve and represent. Many of these business leaders are first generation immigrants; many are first generation business owners and many represent, for those in their communities, what hard work, determination and patience can do.

We must encourage those kinds of values in our minority communities and, quite frankly, in our nation as a whole. For generations, millions have come to our shores in search of a better life. Millions of others were brought here by force and for years were not given a voice in how their lives would turn out. But, how ever we got here, we all have become branches of this great tree we call America. This tree is still nourished by roots planted by our forefathers more than 200 years ago. Those men and women planted the roots of hard work, innovation, faith and risk taking.

When you think about it, those words are the perfect description of an entrepreneur. It is the spirit of entrepreneurship that has made our nation great. And that is why it is absolutely imperative that we continue to support and develop that spirit in our minority communities. To that end, this legislation provides several tools to help minority entrepreneurs as they develop and grow their businesses.

First, this legislation will create an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the Small Business Administration. One of its primary functions will be to increase the number of small business loans that minority businesses receive. Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and women have been receiving far fewer small business loans than they reasonably should.

To ensure that this trend is reversed and minorities begin to get a greater share of loan dollars, venture capital investments, counseling, and contracting opportunities, this bill will give the new office the authority to monitor the outcomes for SBA's Capital Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting programs. It also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade associations and business groups to identify more effective ways to market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of SBA's Field Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to market to minorities.

Second, this legislation will create the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program. This program will offer a competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions to create an entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small Business Development Centers on those campus' to serve local businesses.

The goal of this program is to target students in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Traditionally, minority-owned businesses are disproportionately represented in the service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students will help expand business ownership beyond the service sectors to higher yielding technical and financial sectors.

Third, this legislation will create the Minority Access to Information Distance Learning Pilot Program. This program will offer competitive grants to well established national minority non-profit and business organizations to create distance learning programs for small business owners who are interested in doing business with the federal government.

The goal of this program is to provide low cost training to the many small business owners who cannot afford to pay a consultant thousands of dollars for advice or training on how to prepare themselves to contract with the Federal Government. There are thousands of small businesses in this country that are excellent and efficient. They are primed to provide the goods and services that this nation needs to stay competitive. This program will help prepare them to do just that.

Finally, this legislation will extend the Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business Program which expired in 2003. This program provides a price evaluation adjustment for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses as a way of increasing their competitiveness when bidding against larger firms. This is one more tool to increase opportunities for our minority small business owners.

I have outlined several ways that we can create a more positive environment for our minority small business community. These are reasonable steps that we ought to take without delay. Moreover, these are important steps that will help bolster a movement that is already underway. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national average. Also, business development and entrepreneurship have played a significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this country for over a century. These business owners are embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that our forefathers carried with them as they established this nation.

With this legislation and in my role as incoming Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I hope to play a part in helping to extend that spirit to the next generation of entrepreneurs. Not only is this vital for our minority communities, but it is vital for America. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit Act which would provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit to help with the cost of providing employees with health insurance. Recent studies show that certain groups of individuals are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance. The 2006 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey shows that since 2000 the number of firms offering health benefits has declined from 69 percent to 61 percent in 2006. This decline in coverage is more prevalent in small businesses. Only 48 percent of the firms with less than 10 employees offer health insurance whereas, 90 percent of the firms with 50 or more employees offer health benefits. Approximately 32 million Americans work for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

The April 2006 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey concluded that 41 percent of working-age Americans with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 were uninsured for at least part of the past year. This reflects a dramatic increase in this income range, up from 28 percent in 2001. The survey found that of the 48 million American adults who were uninsured in the past year, 67 percent were in families where at least one person worked full time.

My legislation provides a refundable tax credit to small businesses designed to help provide coverage to those who are currently uninsured. Small businesses with less than 50 employees would be eligible to receive a tax credit to help with the cost of health care premiums for employees making more than $5,000 and less than $50,000 a year. To be eligible for the credit, the employer has to pay at least 50 percent of the health care insurance premium. The credit for businesses with fewer than 10 employees will be capped at 50 percent of the cost of the premium, and the credit amount decreases for larger businesses.

Last year, Leonard Burman, Codirector of the Tax Policy Center, testified before the Senate Finance Committee and suggested a refundable tax credit as an incremental option to help defray higher administrative costs faced by small employers in purchasing health care. This credit will help small businesses afford health care premiums. It is a refundable credit, so that it will help new businesses that do not yet have taxable income be able to offer health care and provide struggling businesses with assistance so that they can offer health care.

This tax credit will cut the cost of health insurance by up to 50 percent for small business owners. It will enable small businesses to provide health insurance for their low- and moderate-income employees. Until we can agree on a comprehensive proposal that will help reduce the cost of health care premiums for small businesses, this legislation provides an appropriate option for increasing health insurance coverage for small businesses and their employees.

I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which addresses the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 2007. Last Congress, a choice was made to extend lower capital gains and dividends rates that do not expire until the end of 2008 rather than address the AMT for 2007. My preference was to address the AMT for 2007 and I believe we still must take action to prevent taxpayers never intended to pay the AMT from being penalized this year.

I opposed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 because it contained the wrong priorities for America leaving behind working families and substantially adding to the deficit. This law extended the lower rates on capital gains and dividends for 2009 and 2010, but only addressed the individual AMT for 2006.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, those earning $200,000 or more will receive 84 percent of the benefit of the capital gains tax cut and 63 percent of the benefit of the dividends tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 42.8 percent of taxpayers with income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be impacted by the AMT if the AMT is not fixed for 2007 a number that increases to 66 percent by 2010. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation of Act of 2005 extends a tax cut that does not expire to the end of 2008 with a price tag of $50 billion, but fails to protect the hard working families that will be impacted by the AMT. These families were never intended to be impacted by the AMT, a tax originally designed to prevent a small number of high-income taxpayers from avoiding taxation.

Today, I am introducing legislation that will address the AMT for 2007 and repeal the lower tax rates on capital dividends for 2009 and 2010. To calculate the AMT, individuals add back certain ``preference items'' to their regular tax liability. These include personal exemptions, the standard deduction, and the itemized deduction for state and local taxes. From this amount, taxpayers subtract the AMT exemption amount, commonly referred to as the ``patch'' which reverted to lower levels at the end of 2005. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 increased and extended the patch for 2006. The patch was increased in order to hold the same number of taxpayers harmless from the AMT in 2006 as in 2005.

The problem with the AMT is that while the regular tax system is indexed for inflation, the AMT exemption amounts and tax brackets remain constant. This has the perverse consequence of punishing taxpayers for the mere fact their incomes rose due to inflation.

In 2001 Congress opted to provide more tax cuts to those with incomes of over $1 million rather than fix a looming tax problem for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 did include a small adjustment to the AMT, but it was not enough. And we knew then that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT would continue to rise steadily because the combination of tax cuts and a minor adjustment to the AMT would cause the AMT to explode. We are rapidly approaching this explosion and without immediate action America's middle class will be harmed.

My legislation extends and expands the AMT exemption amount for 2007 to prevent additional taxpayers from being impacted by the AMT. Without increasing and extending the AMT exemption for 2007, an additional 19.5 million taxpayers will be impacted by the AMT in 2007. Large families, with incomes as low as $49,438, will be hurt by the AMT. My legislation will allow nonrefundable personal credits such as the higher education tax credits and the dependent care credit against the AMT for 2007. This legislation is offset by repealing the lower rates on capital gains and dividends.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the extension of the capital gains and dividends benefits is necessary to provide investor certainty. But I believe that the certainty of working families worried about paying the AMT should come first.

About a third of long-term capital gains are reported by taxpayers who are impacted by the AMT and due to the interaction of the AMT, they do not fully benefit from the lower rates. Simply put, taxpayers forced to carry the AMT burden will not benefit from the lower capital gains and dividends rate.

The AMT is a looming problem that is impacting hard-working families and for each year that we fail to address the AMT, it gets worse and more expensive. At a minimum we must address the AMT for 2007. My legislation is not a long-term cure to the AMT crisis, but it will provide certainty for 2007 to hard working families who will be impacted by the AMT just because of where they live and the number of children they have, and it will addresses the AMT in a revenue neutral manner for 2007 as well.

We all agree that the AMT should not be impacting families with incomes below $100,000. My bill fixes the AMT for 2007 in a timely and fiscally responsible manner and gives Congress time to work in a bipartisan manner to find a fiscally responsible permanent solution to the AMT.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Act of 2007. This legislation repeals the manufacturing deduction for big oil and gas companies that was enacted by Congress in 2004. I introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress and Congressman McDermott introduced companion legislation in the House.

The domestic manufacturing deduction was designed to replace export- related tax benefits that were successfully challenged by the European Union. Producers of oil and gas did not benefit from this tax break. Initial legislation proposed to address the repeal of the export- related tax benefits and to replace them with a new domestic manufacturing deduction. That legislation only provided the deduction to industries that benefited from the export-related tax benefits. However, the final product extended the deduction to include the oil and gas industry as well.

My bill repeals the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas companies because these industries suffered no detriment from the repeal of export-related tax benefits. At a time when oil companies are reporting mind-boggling record profits, there is no reason to reward them with a tax deduction.

Like me, many Members of Congress support a windfall profits tax on big oil and gas companies. Providing this deduction to oil and gas companies actually functions as a reverse windfall profits tax. This deduction lowers the tax rates on the windfall profits that they are currently enjoying. And without Congressional action this benefit will increase: upon enactment, the domestic manufacturing deduction was three percent, but it increased to six percent in 2007 and it is scheduled to increase to nine percent in 2010.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We owe it to the American people to eliminate tax benefits to the oil industry at a time of record profits, record gas prices, and record deficits.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 16 months after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, small business owners in New Orleans and across Louisiana are still struggling to keep their doors open and their employees working. In those 16 months, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter to produce a comprehensive package to reform the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. The SBA's failed response in a time of unmatched need demonstrated to everyone that this program is broken and needs fixing.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit, I introduced an amendment with Senator Landrieu to the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill to address the needs of Gulf Region small business and homeowners. The amendment was adapted with input from Chair Snowe, and a subsequent bipartisan amendment passed the Senate with a vote of 96-0. Although the entire Senate supported the amendment, it was stripped out of the bill in conference.

On September 30, 2005, I again worked with Chair Snowe and Senators Landrieu and Vitter to introduce a bipartisan proposal, the Small Business Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction Act of 2006 S. 1807. This proposal was opposed by the administration. In June, I introduced the Small Business Disaster Loan Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, S. 3487 which once again attempted to comprehensively address the shortcomings of the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. Again, the administration opposed this effort. In August, the Small Business Committee unanimously reported S. 3778, the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, which again put forward a bipartisan, comprehensive fix for this program. Finally, in December, just prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress, yet another attempt was made at reaching a bipartisan consensus with the introduction of S. 4097, the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2006. The administration maintained its opposition to the fixes proposed in this bill.

Now, on the first day of this new Congress, I am introducing the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007. Once again, this bill enjoys bipartisan support by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Small Business Committee, as well as by the Democratic and Republican Senators of Louisiana, whose constituents continue to wait for their Government to respond appropriately. I am introducing this bill on the first day of the 110th Congress because as the incoming chair of the Small Business Committee, improving the Disaster Assistance program at the SBA is among my top priorities.

This bill includes directives for the SBA to create a private disaster loan program, to allow for lenders to issue disaster loans. To ensure that these loans are borrower-friendly, we provide authorization for appropriations so that the agency can subsidize the interest rates. In addition, the administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans.

The bill also includes language directing SBA to create an expedited disaster assistance loan program to provide businesses with short-term loans so that they may keep their doors open until they receive alternative forms of assistance. The days immediately following a disaster are crucial for business owners--statistics show that once they close their doors, they likely will not open them again. These short-term loans should help prevent those doors from closing.

A presidential declaration of Catastrophic National Disaster will allow the administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In the event of a large-scale disaster, businesses located far from the physical reach of the disaster can be affected by the magnitude of a localized destruction. We saw this when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 affected businesses from coast to coast, and we saw it again with the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Should another catastrophic disaster strike, the President should have the authority to provide businesses across the country with access to the same low-interest economic injury loans available to businesses within the declared disaster area.

Non-profit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to non-profit entities, including religious organizations.

Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program, which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if deemed necessary.

The bill also provides for Small Business Development Centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas, and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage Small Business Development Centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived.

So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's disaster loan program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The adiministration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration.

Finally, gas prices continue to fluctuate, and fuel-dependent small businesses are struggling with the cost of energy. This bill provides relief to small business owners during times of above average energy price increases, authorizing energy disaster loans through the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to companies that are dependent on fuel.

In the 16 months since Katrina struck, I have visited New Orleans three times. I have met with the lifeblood of that city--its small business owners--the shopowners on Bourbon Street and on Magazine Street who make that city unique. The people of New Orleans are resilient, and they remain hopeful; they are keeping their

businesses open despite tourism that has been slow to return and despite a government response that was painfully slow to arrive. Sixteen months is too long a time to wait to reform and improve a program that could have breathed relief into this city's economy during a time of desperation. As this new Congress begins, I call on my colleagues to support this legislation, a bipartisan labor of more than a year's worth of negotiations. The tools offered within this bill will go a long way toward heading off another Katrina-like response to any future catastrophic disaster.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Biden, and Lieberman in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2007. This legislation is nearly identical to the rail security measures approved by the Senate during both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has yet to act

on rail security legislation. I remain hopeful that rail security will be made a top priority for the 110th Congress.

We have taken important steps and expended considerable resources to secure the homeland since 9/11. I think all would agree that air travel is safer than it was five years ago. And, we have worked to address port security in a comprehensive manner. However, we need to do more to better secure other transportation modes, a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security in recent years. As a result, our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion dollars for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Penn Station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with responsibility for passenger stations. It would help to address identified security weaknesses in a manner that also seeks to protect the taxpayers' interests.

As we continue fight the War on Terror, we need to do all we can to address our vulnerabilities. We have witnessed the tragic attacks on rail systems in other countries, including the cities of London, Mumbai and Madrid, and the devastating consequences of those attacks. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack, and this legislation will help to do just that.

As I mentioned earlier, the Senate has consistently supported legislation to promote rail security. Most recently, rail security provisions were adopted last Fall as part of the port security legislation. But again, the House failed to allow these important security provisions to move ahead, and the provisions were stripped from the conference agreement. As a result, our rail network continues to remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. That is unacceptable in my judgement.

I urge the Senate to move quickly to again pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2007. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation. Simply put, this legislation would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers.

For almost a decade, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest State and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission, USBC or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

Mr. President, it is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007. This bill is identical to S. 4113, a bipartisan measure that was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on December 8, 2006, the last day of the 109th Congress. The legislation would allow Indian tribes to be eligible for funding through the Department of Justice to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale and manufacture in Native American communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Grassley, Reid, Feinstein, and Feingold in introducing this important legislation.

The impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be overstated. Methamphetamine is the leading drug-related law enforcement problem in the country. Unfortunately, the meth crisis is affecting Indian Country most severely. Very serious concerns have been raised by the U.S. Department of Justice, States, and other non-tribal law enforcement agencies over the rapidly growing levels of methamphetamine production and trafficking on reservations with large geographic areas or tribes adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. But because of the sovereign status of the tribes, criminals are generally not subject to state jurisdiction in many cases. As a result, local law enforcement often has no jurisdiction in Indian country, and tribal law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of most law enforcement functions.

The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified last year as its top priority, is ubiquitous, and has strained already overburdened law enforcement, health, social welfare, housing, and child protective and placement services on Indian reservations. Last year a former tribal judge on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and other drugs. The day before, the Navajo Nation police arrested an 81 year old grandmother, her daughter, and her granddaughter, for selling meth. One tribe in Arizona had over 60 babies born with meth in their systems. In 2005, the National Indian Housing Council expanded its training for dealing with meth in tribal housing: the average cost of decontaminating a single residence that has been used a meth lab is $10,000.

During the 109th Congress, as the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I held hearings on this serious matter. Committee witnesses testified that the methamphetamine epidemic in Indian country has contributed to a rise in child abuse and neglect cases, among other social ills, and some tribes reported dramatic increases in suicide rates among young people linked to methamphetamine use. Following our hearings, I was pleased to work with Senators Dorgan, Sessions, Bingaman and others in improving upon our legislation to assist Indian Country in fighting this terrible drug crisis.

To avoid any potential misinterpretation of the intent of this legislation, this bill includes language developed and agreed to during the last Congress that is designed to clarify the intent of the bill. This clarifying language, provided in section 2(a)(4) of the bill, is intended to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, the legislation does not somehow authorize a grantee state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one state, territory or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has such jurisdiction.

The legislation further clarifies that authority under the bill to award grants would have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding or denying a grant of funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe. So, for example, if a state, territory or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the state, territory or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants as permitted under this legislation. The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection, and nothing else.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward our fight against methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am please to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800's when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900's, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service (APS), one of the state's largest eclectic utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six Threatened and Endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found

eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private property owners.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Wyden and Sununu in introducing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This bill would ensure that consumers never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet using cable modem, DSL, dial-up or wireless services, under this bill, they will not be taxed by any State or local governments for their Internet usage.

Keeping Internet access affordable to all Americans is a worthy policy goal. The Internet has become a fixture and core component of modem American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States.

In 1998, Congress put in place a temporary ban on any State or local taxes on Internet access. Additionally, Congress placed a moratorium on multiple or discriminatory State and local taxes on e-commerce transactions to ensure the growth of online commerce. This moratorium was extended in 2004, but is set to expire November 1, 2007. Our legislation, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007, would make the moratorium permanent.

Today, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world in per capita Internet access, lagging behind competitors South Korea, the United Kingdom and Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country that leads the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. We certainly cannot afford to make Internet access more difficult to obtain if we want to become more internationally competitive.

There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the tax moratorium. In 1998, the year the moratorium was first enacted, 36 percent of U.S. adults reported using the Internet. In 2006, that number grew to 73 percent, an all time high according to an April 2006 Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. However, the report also found that Americans in the lowest income households are considerably less likely to be online. Just 55 percent of adults living in households with less than $30,000 annual income go online, versus 73 percent of those whose income is between $30,000-$50,000. This ``digital divide'' needs to be closed immediately. Continuing Congress's policy of reducing the cost of Internet access, by preventing the service from being taxed, is one step we can take now to close the ``digital divide.''

As use of the Internet has grown, so has e-commerce. According to the most recent comScore Networks report, Americans spent over $100 billion on Internet purchases during 2006, a major milestone for retailers and the World Wide Web. This legislation would ensure that online transactions are not taxed by cities or States at a rate higher than other sales transactions. Again, the goal of this legislation is to make the Internet affordable to all

Americans and foster the growth of the Internet.

With respect to the question of whether it is wise to make Internet access tax free, Congress has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by this bill.

I recognize that there are some who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that the Internet will continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I believe that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making the moratorium permanent, businesses that invest in and provide Internet access will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important social, political and economic medium.

Congress now has the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and assure consumers that taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting this legislation, we can continue to promote Internet usage by Americans as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator DeMint

in introducing the Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007. This bill would put a stop to new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services for a period of 3 years.

The average general sales tax in the U.S. today is around six percent, but the average State and local taxes and fees on cell phone service comes in at about 17 percent. Consumers are left paying a hefty portion of their monthly cell phone bill to the Government for what many believe is their most important communications device.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors' Association have issued policy positions calling for states to eliminate excessive and discriminatory taxes on communications services. State and local governments have been working with the telecommunications industry to find a solution to these excessive taxes, but no agreement has been reached. During the three year moratorium, it is my hope that State and local governments--in cooperation with industry--will work to eliminate discriminatory taxes and fees on wireless services.

Excessive taxes dampen innovation, and are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable customers the hardest. Although more then 72 percent of all Americans own a cell phone, 26 percent said they could not live without it because it is their only communications source, according to a recent Pew Internet and Life Project report. Cell phone only owners are often those who find it difficult to afford a wired and a wireless phone. Additionally, according to the same report, 74 percent of the Americans say they have used their cell phone in an emergency and gained valuable assistance.

Some State and local governments cannot move beyond the idea that wireless services are some kind of luxury item that can be taxed at a higher rate. These services may have been a luxury item many years ago, but due to deregulation wireless services are more affordable than ever and even necessary for personal or business reasons. This is why it is perplexing that some states burden cell phone subscribers with taxes and fees that can be as high as 24 percent of a consumer's total bill.

Tax rates as high as this are generally associated with cigarettes and alcohol and known as ``sin taxes'' designed to reduce consumption. I cannot imagine it is the intention of states and localities to reduce consumption of wireless services.

Mindful of the revenue requirements of States and localities, this bill does not eliminate existing discriminatory taxes. Nor does the bill prohibit states and localities from imposing new taxes on wireless services that are not discriminatory. The bill simply puts a stop to the creation of new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services.

Last year I introduced similar legislative language during a mark-up in the Senate Commerce Committee. The amendment passed with a vote 21- 1. I am hopeful that this bill will once again be supported by the Commerce Committee and that it will be approved by the full Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in ending the discriminatory sales taxes on this very popular communications service.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Collins, and Lieberman in introducing a bill to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government, and to ensure greater accountability among public officials.

The legislation proposes a number of important and necessary reforms. It would provide for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under current law. It would require greater disclosure of lobbyists' contributions and payments to lawmakers and entities associated with them, as well as fundraising and other events they host. the bill also would require greater disclosure from both lobbyists, and Members and employees of Congress, of travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client.

To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill would strengthen the lobbying restrictions on former senior members of the Executive Branch, former Members of Congress, and former senior congressional staff. It would require that Members publicly disclose negotiations they are having with prospective private employers to ensure there is no conflict of interests. The bill also would modify the provision in current law that exempts former Federal employees who go to work for Indian tribes as outside lobbyists and agents from the revolving door laws.

The bill would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. To ensure that such a ban is not circumvented, the bill also would require Members of Congress and their staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the fair market value of sports and entertainment tickets. Members and staff would also have to post the details of their privately-sponsored work trips on-line for public inspection.

The bill would establish an independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity. Armed with a number of investigative tools, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate alleged misconduct by Members and their staff and make appropriate recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee for final disposition.

Finally, the bill would help us combat wasteful, porkbarrel spending. It would amend Congressional rules to allow lawmakers to challenge unauthorized appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills.

Mr. President, when I introduced similar legislation over a year ago, I regretted that such reform was even necessary. And, I voted against the bill that was ultimately passed in the Senate because it lacked a number of elements essential to true reform.

Unfortunately, the need for such reform has only become more acute. The American people's faith and confidence in this venerable institution has steadily eroded. The day after the mid-term elections, CNN reported that, according to national exit polls, voters were concerned about corruption and ethics in Government more than any other issue. I can tell you the polls, if not spot on, are not far off.

During my travels around the country last year, it quickly became clear that there is a deep perception that we legislators do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests, and not the people's interests, guide our legislative hand. This loss in confidence is not limited to a single party or ideology; rather, it cuts across the spectrum. It is a perception bred by recent Congressional failures and scandals, which I need not chronicle here.

We can begin to restore faith in this institution by divesting ourselves of some of the perks and privileges that have somehow crept into public service. Take, for example, free meals and sports and entertainment tickets. The American people have rightfully come to see the abuse of such perks as a corrupting influence. In a string of guilty pleas last year, several lobbyists, former congressional aides, and a congressman admitted that such gifts were used as bribes. Quite frankly, there is no good reason why Members of Congress and their staff cannot forgo such gifts from lobbyists. No one would seriously contend that they are necessary for us to conduct the people's business. A total gift ban would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in us.

Another critical aspect requiring reform is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate of a first class plane ticket. This bill requires Senators and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market value for that travel. While I appreciate that such a change is not popular with some of my colleagues, the time has come to fundamentally change the way we do things in this town. Much of the public views our ability to travel on corporate jets, often accompanied by lobbyists, while only reimbursing the first-class rate, as a huge loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right--it is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to fly around the country on very comfortable corporate-owned aircraft and only be charged the cost of a first-class ticket. It is a pretty good deal we have got going here. We need to face the fact that the time has come to end this Congressional perk.

At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We can do this not just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body that regulates itself. That is why I am again proposing the creation of a new Office of Public Integrity with the capacity to initiate and conduct investigations, uncolored by partisan concerns and unconstrained by collegial relationships.

Finally, Mr. President, if we are truly serious about reform, we need to address what some have coined the currency of corruption--earmarks. In 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent! But there was a little good news for 2006 solely due to the good sense that occurred unexpectedly when the Labor HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill. Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it does not change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let us consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in FY 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased! Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue.

Mr. President, this past election, the American people sent a clear message: clean up the way business is done in our capitol. As faithful public servants, we are obligated to respond. Let us respond meaningfully, to assure the American people that we are here promoting the interests of main street over that of K Street, and that we are more interested in public service than the perks and privileges offered us. Let us also remind ourselves that we came here in the sincere belief that public service is a noble calling, a reward unto itself.

I therefore urge my colleagues in joining me on this bill. I think our Nation and this venerable institution will be all the better for it.

Mr. President, I noted as the clerk reported the bill, S. 5, she reported it as an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, and that is what this debate is all about and that is what this vote is going to be about. It is going to be about public health of people in this country and around the world and whether they are going to have hope that they will see a future in which modern medical science can actually overcome and cure things such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, and a host of other illnesses. That is what this debate is about. It is about hope. It is about health. So today begins 20 hours of Senate debate on a bill to lift the administration's restrictions on stem cell research and bring hope to millions of people in this country who are suffering from illnesses such as ALS, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and so many other devastating diseases and conditions.

Most Americans probably find it hard to believe we are still arguing about this issue. They want more stem cell research. They have listened to the scientists. They have watched the House and Senate vote overwhelmingly during the last Congress to expand the administration's policy. Then they went to the polls in November and more often than not elected candidates who support stem cell research. So why are we still debating this? The answer, unfortunately, is simple: President Bush used his first--and so far only--veto of his administration to reject last year's stem cell bill and dash the hopes of millions of Americans. So we are back once again.

I thank my colleagues in the Senate who have worked together on this issue, starting, of course, with my colleague Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He chaired the very first hearing in Congress on embryonic stem cells in December of 1998. In all, our Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee has held 20 hearings on this research since then under the chairmanship of Senator Specter. I also thank the other Senate leaders on stem cell research, including Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Smith, and Senator Feinstein. So counting Senator Specter and me, there are three Republicans and three Democrats on that list, and this has truly been a bipartisan effort all the way. I thank our majority leader Senator Reid for scheduling this debate and making sure it is one of the first issues we vote on in the 110th Congress. I also thank our Republican leader Senator McConnell for working with us to schedule this debate and this vote tomorrow.

Most of all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of families and patients who never gave up, who kept up the pressure to bring this bill to the floor and who were so eager to see S. 5 sent to the President's desk. They have kept the faith and now it is our job to see that they are not disappointed.

There is probably one other entity I should thank and that is the House of Representatives, under the able leadership of Speaker Pelosi, which passed this bill earlier this year and sent it over to the Senate. I will talk a little bit later about how our bill differs from theirs, but nonetheless, the bill they passed is a bill that mirrors the same thing we are doing here, and that is to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Under this unanimous consent agreement we have, for information, we will debate and vote on two bills. Make no mistake, however: The only one that matters is S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The other bill is S. 30. This is the one bill that at long last will unleash some of the most exciting and promising research of modern times. Think of it this way: S. 5, the bill we will be debating and voting on, will take the handcuffs off of our scientists. It will take the handcuffs off so they can now begin to do the research that will lead to miraculous cures and interventions.

It is a good time to step back and ask: Why is there so much support for S. 5? Well, I have a letter signed by 525 groups endorsing this bill, including patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups. There are 525 groups in all. They all agree Congress should pass S. 5. Why is that? Because it offers hope. I have a series of charts here which I will point to. S. 5 offers hope. I think this chart illustrates many--not all but many--of the ailments which scientists tell us embryonic stem cells could lead to interventions and cures for, including Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy, anemias, severe burns, leukemia, lymphoma, bone marrow disorders, diabetes, immune deficiencies, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries. That is just to name a few. There are many more, but my colleagues get the idea of how all encompassing the approach would be if we were to get into embryonic stem cell research. It is not just focused on one thing; it is broader than that. It encompasses so many illnesses and afflictions. All told, more than 100 million Americans have diseases that one day could be treated or cured with embryonic stem cell research.

But it is not just Members of Congress saying that. No one should take our word alone. Three weeks ago Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health, appeared before our Appropriations subcommittee. I asked him whether scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the administration's current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said unequivocally: Yes. Now, Dr. Zerhouni is the Federal Government's top scientist in the area of medical research. President Bush appointed him to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health. So it took great courage on his part to say in public we need to change direction on stem cell research, but he did so because it is the truth.

This is his quote. This is what the Director of the National Institutes of Health said before the subcommittee:

It is clear today that American science would be better

served and the Nation would be better served if we let our

scientists have access to more cell lines.

It is not only NIH scientists who believe this way. Dr. J. Michael Bishop, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine, wrote recently:

The vast majority of the biomedical research community

believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the

source of key discoveries related to many debilitating

diseases.

Dr. Harold Varmus, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health, who just preceded Dr. Zerhouni and who himself is a Nobel Prize winner, wrote in a letter dated yesterday:

S. 5 represents an important step forward for human

embryonic stem cell research, a new field that offers great

promise for the replacement of damaged cells, the

understanding of the mechanics of disease, and the

development and testing of new drugs. Unfortunately, current

Federal policy has not kept pace with the speed of scientific

discovery and is today of limited value to the scientific

community.

I could go on and on. We have a lot of scientists all over this country and the world who agree we should be pursuing embryonic stem cell research because it offers enormous hope for easing

human suffering. Some may ask: I thought the Federal Government already supports embryonic stem cell research. Well, here we have an interesting situation in terms of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

I have to take my colleagues back in time to August 9 of 2001. In an evening address starting at 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, the President, in an address to the Nation, said we were going to permit Federal funding for embryonic stem cells only if they were derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001. Any that were derived after that we could not fund research on. Well, at this time it was said there were 78 lines, 78 stem cell lines we could use. We know that is less than 21 now and many of these are in bad shape, and every single one of them contaminated on mouse feeder cells, which I will talk about in a moment. I always thought it was kind of interesting and very curious that we had this hypocrisy--I call it stem cell hypocrisy--that before 9 p.m. on August 9 of 2001, it is morally acceptable to use taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. So if the stem cells were derived before 9 p.m., it is morally acceptable, but if they were derived after 9 p.m. on August 9, it is morally unacceptable. Well, I ask, what is so significant about 9 p.m. on August 9? Why couldn't it have been 8:30 p.m., 9:15 p.m., midnight, or 10 p.m? Well, I think my colleagues get the point. It is totally arbitrary--totally arbitrary. We have to ask ourselves: Why is it that Federal tax dollars can be used on embryonic stem cells derived before 9 p.m.--that is OK--but after 9 p.m., it is not OK? Please, someone tell me why 9 p.m., August 9 is the moral dividing line. It is totally arbitrary.

Even with that, we had hoped the President's policy would work, but it hasn't. Here is why. As I said earlier, on that date, the President said there were 78 stem cell lines available. We now know only 21 are eligible. It is not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity scientists need to develop treatments for everyone in the country. What is more, every single one--every single one of these approved lines--is contaminated by mouse feeder cells. What that means is when you take the stem cells and you propagate them, you get them to grow, you do them in a medium. You grow them in a medium. They were grown on mouse cells, mouse feeder cells, so they are all contaminated. Ask yourself: Would you want to take the possibility that somehow mouse cells are getting into your body because of stem cells? No. Many of the 21 lines are too unhealthy. They have degenerated. They are unhealthy. As a matter of fact, I have been told we are down to about right now only four.

Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, the Director of the NIH Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, said only 4 of the 21 federally approved lines are in common use by NIH-funded scientists. Only four. Dr. Jeremy Berg, another NIH Director, was a little more generous. He said there are six lines in common use. Well, four or six, you get the picture. It is not 78, it is only 4 or 6. Again, they are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. So some stem cell research is taking place, but our top scientists are working with one arm tied behind their backs because of these restrictions. It is having a chilling impact on the scientists who are thinking about entering the field.

According to Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the NIH Drug Abuse Institute, the administration's policy is discouraging scientists from applying for NIH funding to conduct stem cell research. In a letter to me last year, she wrote:

Despite general interest and enthusiasm in the scientific

community for embryonic stem cell research, the limited

number of available lines has translated into a general lack

of research proposals.

So the President's policy, which we have had in effect since August 9, 2001, is not a way forward; it is an absolute dead end for research. It only offers false hope to the millions of people across America and the world who are suffering from diseases that could be cured or treated through embryonic stem cell research. Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary time of August 9, 2001. The NIH estimates there are about 400 different stem cell lines worldwide. Many of those lines are uncontaminated and healthy, but they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists.

Scientists in many other countries around the world don't face these kinds of arbitrary restrictions. We have talked to researchers in England, for example. Our policy makes no sense to them. They cannot understand why stem cell lines derived on one date are fine to use, but if they are derived on another date, they are off limits. I don't understand that, either. I have wrestled with that since August 9, 2001.

If you are going to take the position that this is totally morally unacceptable and there should be no Federal funding, then we should have no Federal funding, and there are four or five lines that are now being examined and studied that should not be allowed, either. But I have not seen any amendment from anyone here that would even overturn that policy. It is a shame that we don't open these stem cell lines. Think about it this way. We don't require astronomers to explore the skies with 19th century telescopes. We don't tell our geologists to study the earth with tape measures. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available.

Again, don't take my word for it. Dr. Story Landis runs the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH. In January, she appeared before a joint hearing of the HELP Committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, and my subcommittee. Senator Kennedy asked her whether scientists are missing out on possible breakthroughs under the administration's current policy, and this was her answer:

Yes, we are missing out on possible breakthroughs. From a

purely scientific perspective, Federal funding of additional

cell lines is necessary to advance the field.

This is Dr. Landis, head of the Stem Cell Task Force at NIH.

So we need a stem cell policy in this country that offers true, meaningful hope to patients and their loved ones. That is what this bill, S. 5, would do. Under our bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date a stem cell is derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met.

I believe it is important to emphasize this: We have very strict ethical guidelines. First, stem cells must come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. There are more than 400,000 embryos right now in the United States left over from fertility treatments that are currently sitting frozen in liquid nitrogen. If the contributors of those embryos--the parents, the moms and dads--have had all the children they want and they no longer need the embryos, what happens to them? Under the policy we have now, there are only two things: You can keep them frozen for the next 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 years, or however long, or you can discard them. That is what is happening every day at in vitro fertilization clinics across the country. Embryos are being discarded as hospital waste.

Now, you might be a couple who says: We have had all our children, and we don't want any more. We don't want to keep paying forever and ever to have the embryos frozen. We would like to donate them to stem cell research to maybe help a young person with juvenile diabetes or someone with a spinal cord injury. We would like to contribute those embryos for that research. They cannot do it. It seems to me that at least we ought to be able to allow the couples to donate them if they wish. So the real question is, Do we throw them away or use them to ease suffering? Do we throw them away or allow them to be used with these strict ethical guidelines? I think it is the second choice that is truly moral and respectful of human life.

You might even think about it this way. Embryos will be destroyed, people say. The embryo itself--about which, by the way, I will point out there is a lot of misconception. I didn't listen to it, but I read the debate in the House last year. One of the speakers--I think the former minority leader, Mr. Delay, talked about fetuses and about the protection of fetuses. A lot of people think we are talking about fetuses. We are not. We are talking about embryos. I often put a dot on a piece of paper and I say: Can anybody see what I put there? That is just how big an embryo is, which is a few dozen cells.

Well, you have to get over this idea that somehow it is a fully formed fetus

existing in a womb. That is not it at all. You might say it is alive, it has life--yes, it does--and you should not destroy that life. Well, you might destroy the embryo itself, but in taking the stem cells from it--the cells in the embryo give the embryo life. If you take the cells out and you propagate them and examine them and then maybe use those lines for curing diseases in the future, it seems to me that you are really propagating life, saving lives, and enhancing life by doing that. That is why giving people the choice of voluntarily contributing the cells is truly moral and respectful of human life.

The second ethical requirement is that couples must provide written, informed consent. Now, I might point out that some of the 21 federally approved lines that are now in existence--especially the ones from other countries--don't meet that requirement. So we need to pass S. 5 to tighten the ethical guidelines of stem cell research, so there is no question that the embryos were donated properly. Think of it this way. We have Federal money right now that could be going--and probably is-- for research on some stem cells that were provided without written informed consent. So we need to tighten down on that. S. 5 does that.

I read the debates of last year on the floor of the Senate and in the House. There was a lot of talk about setting up ``embryo farms,'' that there is going to be embryo farming so that women will take their eggs, or create embryos, and there will be embryo farms. I heard that a number of times. Well, S. 5 prohibits women from being paid to donate their embryos. There is no chance under this bill that women could be exploited to go through the donation process against their will. Under our bill, couples cannot receive money or other inducements to donate embryos. Under the present guidelines that now exist from the White House, it just says you cannot receive money. Well, there might be other inducements that may be provided to you to get you to donate. We want to cut that off and say it has to be purely voluntary. So you cannot receive money or any other inducements; you must have written, informed consent; it can only come from embryos that would otherwise be discarded; and there are very strict ethical guidelines.

So, again, this year's bill, S. 5, has one significant change from last year's bill that we passed. We passed that overwhelmingly, with 63 votes. But this bill has one difference. It includes the text of last year's Specter-Santorum bill, which passed the Senate unanimously but got tied up in the House and died at the end of the 109th Congress. That bill, which President Bush strongly endorsed, encouraged NIH to pursue alternative ways of deriving stem cells, in addition to our current method.

As I have made clear, going back to December of 1998, I support any ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. I believe we should open every door we can in the pursuit of cures. So what we have done in the new version of S. 5 is combine the two bills the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year but did not become law. That was H.R. 810 and the Specter-Santorum bill. By voting for S. 5, the bill before us now, Senators can show they support all forms of stem cell research. Again, the Specter-Santorum bill says open it up and find out all other forms of stem cell research. That was amniotic, placental stem cells, adult stem cells, whatever. I have no problem with that. I think we ought to pursue all of them. But that is the key difference between S. 5 and S. 30--that is the other bill we will vote on tomorrow night, S. 30. That bill puts all its hopes in theories, alternative ways of deriving stem cells that might or might not work. At this point, nobody knows. We do know how to derive embryonic stem cells and how to propagate them. Some research in other countries and private research has already led to stem cells developing into nerve cells and things like that.

We don't know about what S. 30 does. S. 30 says to scientists--that is the other bill before us--don't use any of the 400 existing stem cell lines already derived. Instead, put all of your effort into figuring out some new way of deriving stem cells that might take 10 or more years to pan out, or maybe not at all. For example, the proponents of S. 30 will talk a lot over today and tomorrow about stem cells that could allegedly be derived from ``dead embryos''--embryos that are not healthy and have stopped growing. I have to tell you, the idea that we can cure juvenile diabetes, ALS, and Parkinson's with something called ``dead embryos'' doesn't exactly inspire me with a lot of confidence. Think about it. If you were treating somebody with embryonic stem cells, would you rather use stem cells that came from an embryo that is healthy, vibrant, and growing or would you rather have them coming from a dead embryo? Ask yourself that simple question. The dead embryo died for a reason: there was something wrong with it. Chances are that the stem cells which come from that embryo are not so great, either. So why does anyone think a dead embryo holds the secret to curing ALS or juvenile diabetes? S. 5, our bill, by contrast, would immediately make those hundreds of new lines eligible for Federal research, again, as long as they were derived under the strict ethical guidelines we have in our bill. So S. 30, the other bill, might not do any harm, but I don't think it does any good, either. Again, that is why we ought to keep our focus on S. 5.

If this year's debate goes like last year's, then we will expect opponents of S. 5 to make a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells. I will listen closely and try to correct those mistakes people might make. There is a lot of stuff out there. Our committee looked at this, and we have had a lot of testimony from scientists at NIH. So there will be a lot of unfounded claims about adult stem cells.

As I have said for the last several years, I am all for adult stem cell research and use. Adult stem cells are already being used successfully in treating several blood-related diseases, and that is great. I am all for it. Let's continue this area of research. But as we now know, and as scientists tell us, adult stem cells have limits. They can't do everything that embryonic stem cells can do. Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to what Dr. Zerhouni, the Nation's highest ranking medical researcher, has to say about adult stem cells. This is what he said before our committee:

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 is what S. 5 will allow us to do. Most people could care less what cells are used to develop a cure. They just want a cure. So I say let's examine them all.

By the way, S. 30, the other bill we will be debating that focuses on deriving stem cells from naturally dead embryos, can be done under S. 5 also or under the Specter-Santorum bill. There are no restrictions on that issue. It is just that S. 30 says that is all we will do. S. 5, our bill, says we will open the 400 lines as long as they meet the ethical guidelines we have established. We will open those 400 lines to federally funded research and everything else, too. They can look at stem cells from naturally dead embryos. They can look at them from adult stem cells, placental, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord--whatever. They can look at them all as long as they meet ethical guidelines.

Lastly, we talk all about research, about science, about stem cells, using all the quotes from scientists and others. What it is really about is giving hope to people. It is about helping people who have devastating--devastating--illnesses.

This is a picture of Karli Borcherding of Ankeny, IA. Karli is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. I met Karli for the first time last fall with her mother and her sisters. She just celebrated her 12th birthday. She has type 1 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes. When people have this disease, their body stops making insulin, so they have to inject it either through needles or a pump.

Here is a picture of Karli Borcherding, age 12, from Ankeny, IA, with 1 month's worth of needles. Look at that picture. There are 120 needles, 1 month. Ask yourself: How would you like to give yourself four shots a day at age 12? Imagine that, four times a day. As Karli says, she never gets a vacation from juvenile diabetes. It is with her wherever she goes--at school, at

home, on field trips, on holidays. She told me:

My dream is that one day we will find a cure for juvenile

diabetes, and I can just go back to being just a normal kid.

If adult stem cells could bring Karli a cure, she would gladly take it. But scientists have known about adult stem cells for 40 years, and they still haven't provided the answer for juvenile diabetes. We can't keep telling people such as Karli that embryonic stem cells might bring them a cure but, sorry, the Federal Government is not interested. Our premier institution of NIH can't be involved.

We can't keep telling the millions of Americans who have Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, or spinal cord injuries: Sorry, we know that embryonic stem cell research might ease your suffering, but we would rather do nothing about it.

Now is our chance to change that situation. I urge Senators to think about Karli Borcherding and all the people in their lives who could benefit from stem cell research and vote yes emphatically on S. 5 tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend, and I say again, the person who started all of our hearings on this issue in December of 1998. Under the chairmanship of Senator Specter, our subcommittee had the first hearing on stem cell research 1 month after they were derived. Under his chairmanship, we have had 20 hearings. I mentioned that earlier. There hasn't been a more stalwart, informed person in either body, or on the Hill, about embryonic stem cell research than Senator Specter.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. President, we started a little late, so I will yield back the remainder of my time on this segment.

Iowa.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for the eloquent statement and for her many years of working on this issue and for her support on so many issues dealing with the health of the American people. I thank Senator Feinstein for being a stalwart in trying to break down the barriers we have to embryonic stem cell research.

I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from Delaware, for his very eloquent and personal statement. That is what this is all about, helping people who are suffering bad problems and need help with their health care.

I yield to a leader on all our health care issues for so many years, and I think he is recognized as such by the entire country. He is a great leader in all health care issues, especially on this issue of stem cell research. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side in this round?

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

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her very eloquent statement regarding this bill. The Senator is right on the mark in talking about the ethical--if I can get her attention for a second--part of this issue.

As the Senator knows, in S. 5, we have very strict ethical guidelines. One, the only embryos that can be used are those slated to be discarded anyway from our IVF clinics. Secondly, there has to be written informed consent by the donors. And, third, there cannot be any monetary or other kinds of inducements at all to the donors of these embryos. Those guidelines are actually stricter than what is in law right now. As the Senator knows, we have these strict guidelines.

The other point the Senator brought up, if she has a minute for me to explore this point with her a bit, is that we have in vitro fertilization clinics. My information is that last year about 50,000 babies were born by IVF. I have friends of mine who had children thanks to IVF; otherwise, they would never have had children. Obviously, there are some embryos left over. They would like to be able to donate those for embryonic stem cell research because they are not going to have any more children.

So it seems to me the ethics question is, are we just going to discard them as hospital waste, which is done every day, or would it be more ethical to say let's use those with the strict guidelines we have to save lives, to make life better, to ease suffering and pain?

The Senator from Maine put her finger on it. That, to me, is the ethical way, I would think. What our bill is trying to do is to let those donors of those embryos say, yes, do this. You can do that, and use that for research. I thank the Senator from Maine for her contribution.

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

Mr. President, I will take a couple more minutes to expand on this point.

I mentioned this morning, if you are faced with a situation where embryos are going to be discarded and destroyed totally or these embryos could be donated for embryonic stem cell research and propagated and given life and then proceed to give life to others, is that not the better ethical choice? In other words, what I am saying is, when you discard an embryo from an IVF clinic now as hospital waste, that is destroyed. But if you take an embryo and take out of the embryo the 100 or 200 cells in it, extract them, the embryo itself is not an embryo any longer, but the cells are still alive. They are still alive. They propagate, they grow, they become stem cells that we already know--we have already done that--develop into nerve cells, bone cells, heart muscle tissue, motor neurons. They already know that.

On the one hand, you are really destroying the embryos, and on the other hand, you are taking the embryos, you are changing them into something else that propagates life and that actually could be--we don't know, as the Senator said, we don't know the end result but could actually enhance and make life better for many people. It seems to me this is the more ethical way to go.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Maryland.