Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1104.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 229 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 147.

Mr. President, if I can just comment, that was a remarkable tournament. The final four was exciting, and the game between the Rutgers University team and the University of Tennessee was very exciting. It was high-quality basketball. I enjoyed it a lot more than the men's final four.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 148.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 92.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, April 13, notwithstanding an adjournment of the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee be permitted to report S. 3 during the hours of 12 noon to 2 p.m.; further, that if the bill is reported, it be in order for the majority leader to move to proceed to the bill on Monday, April 16.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Members have until 2:30 p.m. on Monday to file amendments to S. 3.

I further ask unanimous consent that if the committee does not file S. 3 tomorrow, it be in order for the majority leader, on Monday, to introduce a bill dealing with the same subject matter and that it be in order for the majority leader to move to proceed to that bill on Monday.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 16, and on Monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that at the close of morning business the Senate resume consideration of S. 372, as provided for under a previous order.

I commend the Republican leader for his willingness to work with us in getting an agreement where we debated two stem cell bills. I also would be remiss if I did not mention the primary individuals who were here during most, if not all, of that debate: Senators Harkin, Specter, Brownback, Coleman, and Isakson. They conducted the debate in a manner which shows Members can disagree and not be disagreeable. Although there were different points of view, the debate was clearly very informative and educational.

Also, we just entered an order allowing the Senate to consider the Intelligence authorization bill on Monday. There will be a cloture vote on that bill at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

The Senate will not be in session on Friday. Therefore, there will be no rollcall votes.

If there is no further business to be brought before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I have risen many times over the past years in support of the legislation that is now before this body, legislation that will unlock the hope of stem cell research for millions of Americans and tens of thousands of Nevadans who suffer from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and many other diseases.

Initially, I extend my appreciation to Senator Harkin. Others worked hard on this legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein have done a wonderful job, but Senator Harkin, from his position as the chair and/or ranking member of the labor subcommittee on appropriations, has worked with Senator Specter--back and forth, the two of them have worked to come up with stem cell legislation.

Senator Harkin has been a pioneer and a leader in this cause. I admire and respect him for a lot of what he has done as a longtime Member of the Senate, but I know I have more respect for him for what he has done on this legislation.

He has a tremendously good staff: Erik Fatemi, Ellen Murray, and Adrian Hatlett. They have done good work.

I have to throw a bouquet to my longtime, very important legislative advocate whom I have working for me, Carolyn Gluck. She has worked very hard on this issue. I appreciate her hard work.

I have spoken in the past about a man I met who is in a wheelchair in Boulder City, NE. This man suffers from Parkinson's. I asked him why he was in his wheelchair. He told me. After this legislation was vetoed by President Bush, he felt so bad because he believes with this legislation he will be able to walk again and not be confined to that wheelchair.

I have spoken of an 18-year-old twin from Las Vegas. She came to Washington for the first time when she was a little girl. She has suffered from juvenile diabetes for most of her life. She has had tens of thousands of needle pricks over these years--tens of thousands. But this 18-year-old girl still remains optimistic because of this legislation--optimistic for a healthy adulthood. Not only does she feel that way but her twin sister feels the same way.

I have spoken of a 23-year-old man from Henderson who just weeks after his high school graduation was in a car accident which left him a quadriplegic and whose mother wrote to me a plaintive letter hoping, praying because of this legislation her son one day will lead a more normal life.

The plight and suffering of these friends and neighbors pains my heart. But sadly, their stories are far from unique. Mr. President, 100 million Americans suffer just like them. Those who suffer are parents, are children, are friends, are our neighbors. They know that stem cell research is not a guarantee or imaginable, but they know it holds promise, they know it holds hope, real hope, yes, scientific hope. They know it because the world's leading experts tell us so.

In a letter to President Bush, 80 Nobel laureates wrote:

. . . for disorders that prove not to be treatable with

adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell

research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who

may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness

of adult stem cells is evaluated.

This is a statement from 80 Nobel Prize winners.

According to the National Academies of Science, research on both embryonic and adult stem cells is needed ``to most effectively advance the scientific and therapeutic potential of regenerative medicine.''

In a letter dated a few days ago, April 9, Dr. Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health and now the President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and also a Nobel laureate wrote:

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 of the testing of new drugs. Unfortunately,

current Federal policy, in place since 2001, has not kept

pace with the speed of scientific discovery and is today of

limited value to the scientific community.

A man whom I have met, Dr. Jeffery Bluestone, a leading diabetes researcher and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of California, San Francisco, said:

We have made great strides in understanding the role of the

immune system in diabetes, but fully pursuing both embryonic

and adult stem cell research will build on our current

successes and could be critical in the ultimate treatment and

cure of patients who suffer from this disease.

I have spoken to him personally, and he has said we are going to cure, in the next few years, diabetes. They need this ability to go forward.

The other day I received a letter signed by more than 500 leading organizations from all around the country. It crossed the political spectrum. It includes the AARP, the American Medical Association, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the Mayo Clinic, the Episcopal Church, Iraq Veterans for a Cure, the American Diabetes Association, Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center, Harvard University, and the Parkinson's Action Network--to name 11 of 500 organizations.

They spoke with one voice in support of S. 5, writing:

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will move stem cell

research forward in our country. The bill holds promise for

expanding medical breakthroughs and hope for millions of

patients and their loved ones.

Even President Bush's own Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, endorsed the need to pursue embryonic stem cell research in addition to alternative forms of research. At a Senate hearing a few weeks ago he said:

It's not possible for me to see how we can continue the

momentum of science and research with the stem cell lines we

have at NIH. . . . [F]rom my standpoint as NIH director, it

is in the best interests of our scientists, our science, and

our country that we find ways and the nation finds a way to

go full-speed across adult and embryonic stem cells equally.

Americans, by a huge majority, favor stem cell research because they see the suffering of their own friends and relatives and neighbors, similar to those described in my introduction today. They hear the opinions of experts similar to those I just mentioned and they put their faith in science.

Californians, by ballot, voted, they agreed to spend billions of their own State Treasury on stem cell research, thus challenging the obstinacy of President Bush.

Congress has supported this important cause already. Two years ago the House of Representatives passed something called H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, with bipartisan support. Last year the Senate followed suit, as Republicans and Democrats united to pass a bill that will expand the number of stem cell lines available to federally funded researchers, while ensuring that strict ethical guidelines are followed.

Yet when we sent this bipartisan bill to President Bush's desk, he responded with a veto--his only veto in 6 years, taking away the hope for millions.

Today, as hundreds of millions of Americans wait for progress, our scientists, our innovators are marking time, waiting for President Bush to keep hope alive. The wishes of the American people and the overwhelming weight of evidence, scientific evidence, should trump the narrow ideology of President George Bush.

Yesterday and today we debated S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill that is similar to the one both the House and Senate passed last year with strong bipartisan support. The House passed it again this year. S. 5 authorizes federally funded research on stem cell lines derived from excess embryos from fertility clinics, embryos that would otherwise be discarded--discarded, thrown away, trashed. These potentially discarded embryos could and should be used to advance lifesaving research.

At the same time, our bill acknowledges the important ethical issues at stake and enacts stronger research guidelines than exist in the President's current policy. Because we believe that all forms of promising research should move forward, S. 5 includes a provision that supports the advancement of alternative forms of stem cell research

based on the Santorum-Specter bill that passed the Senate unanimously last year.

Tonight the Senate will also consider another measure sponsored by Senators Coleman and Isakson. Similar to our bill, theirs would promote research in alternative methods for deriving stem cells, some say. However, unlike our bill, this bill would retain the President's restrictions on stem cell research. The legislation is, in my opinion, more political than substantive, more political than scientific. The Coleman-Isakson bill is not a substitute for S. 5.

I know some of my colleagues will disagree. I am not going to vote for it. I think S. 30 is a cover vote, and I am not going to provide any cover. S. 5 is the only bill being discussed that will lift the restrictions that are impeding scientific research and can lead to new treatments and cures of many dread conditions and diseases. For the 100 million Americans who suffer from diseases that could be treated as a result of stem cell research, there is simply no alternative to S. 5.

By supporting the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we are renewing our faith in society's steady march forward. Whether expanding our frontiers, putting a man on the Moon, or mapping the human genome, America has always embraced great scientific challenges that hold even greater promise. It is who we are and it is a commitment to the American people that we must honor.

Jonas Salk, a great American scientist who moved science forward regarding the dread polio or, as they called it, infantile paralysis, when he invented the vaccine, once said, ``Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.''

If we give our scientists the tools to succeed and give hope to the millions who suffer, we will be doing just that, good ancestors.

I yield any time I have.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Also, before the Chair enters an order, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second vote that we have this evening.

First, Madam President, I would like to welcome everyone back here in the Chamber. We have had a week break, and we are king of the hill because the House is out this week, so we don't have to compete with them.

This morning there will be a 60-minute period of morning business, with Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the final 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will debate concurrently the two stem cell bills. Under an order entered prior to the Easter recess, debate on the two bills is for a period up to 20 hours. I anticipate we will enter an order to provide for designated segments of time to be utilized for those who support and oppose the measures. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today. Both the distinguished Republican leader and I have scheduled our work caucuses for tomorrow rather than today, when they normally take place.

Madam President, I have a speech that I am going to give today. I didn't alert the distinguished Republican leader that I was going to give that, so I yield to him, if he has anything he would like to say.

Madam President, before I go to my formal remarks I have prepared, as I indicated, I have had extensive conversations during the past week with Chairman Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I think we have made progress as to where we need to go in order to do this as soon as possible. There is some controversy over the time limit. We know the President has indicated he needs the money right away, but even last year, when the Republicans were in charge, we finished the supplemental bill in June and there were no complaints at that time.

We have had a statement from the Congressional Research Service that the money will last until sometime in July. Even the Pentagon itself has indicated the money will last until around the first part of June. So we are going to do the very best we can to complete this as quickly as possible. We know it is important, and we will move forward as expeditiously as possible.

During this week, since the House is not here, I intend to continue my dialog with Chairman Obey. I have not spoken to the Speaker today, but I have a meeting with her later, at 5 o'clock, and so we will move forward, and I appreciate the remarks of the Republican leader.

Madam President, throughout the world, Easter has been celebrated. This was done on Sunday. On that joyous day, Pope Benedict spoke of the human condition with a very heavy heart, and I quote:

How many wounds--how much suffering there is in the world.

Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual

slaughter as the civilian population flees.

As we open the third work period this year, Pope Benedict's words weigh on my mind. I hope we will honor them as we continue to work in a bipartisan manner to address that suffering by moving America in a new direction at home and abroad.

That was the promise we made to the American people when the 110th Congress opened 3 months ago; not a promise made only by Democrats but by Democrats and Republicans. Although we have only completed the first two work periods of the session, we have made considerable progress.

When we began in January, we knew all our goals depended on changing the way Washington works. So our first order of business was passing the toughest lobbying ethics reform legislation in our Nation's history. We were guided through that by the chairman of our Rules Committee, Senator Feinstein.

Next, with the skill of Senators Kennedy and Baucus, we voted to give working Americans a much deserved and long overdue raise by finally increasing the minimum wage.

After the minimum wage, we addressed the fiscal mess left by the last Congress and passed a continuing resolution on a bipartisan basis, then enacted tough spending limits and limited earmarks for this fiscal year.

We then set our sights on keeping our country safe by finally passing the recommendations set forth by the 9/11 Commission, recommendations that came many years ago. This legislation was led by Senator Lieberman, as he skillfully led us on this long overdue legislation.

Next, we passed, under the guidance of our brilliant chairman, Kent Conrad, a balanced budget that put American families first by cutting taxes for working people, increasing investment for education, veterans, health care, and implementing the same pay-as-you-go rules that every American family must follow.

While addressing these crucial priorities here at home--ethics reform, minimum wage, homeland security, a return to fiscal responsibility, and a balanced budget for working families--we have also continued to seek a new direction for the war in Iraq at every opportunity, as the American people called for us to do last November. That is why we passed--with Senator Byrd and Senator Murray--last week an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that fully funded our troops while also setting forth a new course in Iraq.

The President has put our troops in the middle of a civil war. That was never supposed to be their mission. Every day the price we pay grows worse--soon to be 3,300 American lives lost, tens of thousands more wounded, and according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 600,000 Iraqis have been killed. Our American Treasury has been depleted by about a $\1/2\ trillion because of this war. Yet there is still no end in sight for our troops or our taxpayers.

Let me be clear. Democrats are committed to giving our troops the funds they need. The supplemental appropriations bill that we are trying to send to President Bush will provide every dollar the commander has requested and it will go further by providing funding to address the unconscionable conditions at Walter Reed and the other military health care facilities the President's budget left out.

Democrats are united in our commitment to fully funding our troops on the ground in Iraq and here at home, but we are also committed to providing our troops a strategy for success in Iraq, which President Bush has failed to do from the very start of this war more than 4 years ago.

Virtually all experts, military and civilian, agree the war cannot be won militarily. Success can only come when all the political leaders in Iraq reach a settlement. Even General Petraeus, who is our commander on the ground there, said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. It can only be won politically, diplomatically, and economically. Eighty percent of the war must be conducted through economics, through politics, and through diplomacy.

Pope Benedict, the spiritual leader of more than a billion people, said on Easter Sunday, and again I quote:

Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual

slaughter as the civilian population flees.

That is why we are telling the President he needs to make good on his promise to get the Iraqi people to meet the benchmarks they set for themselves but have never followed through on. After 4 years, it is long past time for Iraq to take responsibility for its own failures and its own future.

American troops are putting their lives at risk every single day, but Iraqi leaders are not willing to take the political risk of governing their own country. That must change. That is what Congress is demanding, that is what the American people, by a large majority, demand. The President should be leading us in that direction, not threatening to veto funding for our troops unless we rubberstamp his flawed plan.

Over the next 2 weeks, the President has an opportunity to work with Congress to let his views be heard on how to improve this bill. Speaker Pelosi and I invited him last month to sit down and work with us to develop a strategy together. We remain ready to do that. But this will require a commitment by the President to move beyond the political theater and take a seat at the table of negotiation, of compromise, of direction change.

Recall the Pope's Easter message: ``Nothing positive comes from Iraq.''

While we continue to press the President and his supporters in Congress to chart a new course in Iraq, we will move to the next set of issues crucial to the American people: expanding Federal funding for stem cell research, lowering Medicare prescription drug costs, delivering a new national energy

policy, and implementing tough, fair immigration reform.

This week, we will focus the Senate's attention on S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. We will be led by Senators Harkin, Kennedy, and Feinstein. Democrats and Republicans joined together last year to pass legislation that would have made stem cell lines more available to scientists, while at the same time strictly regulating how they could be used. This legislation gives hope to millions of Americans.

The actions of the Senate and House gave hope to as many as 100 million Americans and tens of thousands of Nevadans who suffer from cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Sadly, President Bush vetoed that bipartisan bill, and as a result we must take on this urgent cause again. This week, we will debate the Stem Cell Research Enhance Act and will fight to see that it becomes law.

Following debate on the stem cell bill, we will turn our attention to reducing drug costs for senior citizens. The flaws in the Medicare drug program are well documented, but many of them can be traced back to one simple fact: The current law puts drug companies and insurance companies ahead of seniors. Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the law that created the Medicare drug benefit, all of us want to make the program work better for seniors and people with disabilities, and right now they are paying too much because the Federal Government is unable to negotiate lower priced drugs. S. 3, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 1967, will fix that injustice by making it easier for the most vulnerable in our society to afford the medicine they need.

We are being told by the minority that they are not going to allow a provision to be changed in the law which says Medicare can negotiate for lower price drugs. Why? I guess they and the President believe that HMOs and insurance companies and all these managed care entities deserve to have an advantage over Medicare. It is unfair. Medicare should be able to negotiate for lower prices and, in effect, compete with these money-hungry HMOs and insurance companies.

Next, we will move to energy legislation that will improve our national security and protect our environment. For the past several weeks, gas prices have risen dramatically. Last week, they rose 11 cents--in 1 week. The average price I heard in this morning's news is about $2.90 a gallon. In places in California, it is approaching $4 a gallon for gasoline. One reason for this spike is the fear premium caused partially by the administration's inept foreign policy. Another reason is the empty words and unfunded promises of the administration's shortsighted energy policy. President Bush's budget choices have robbed the Treasury of the funds we need to invest in a better, more sustainable energy policy, and his friends in the oil and energy industry have failed to fill the void by investing in alternatives to oil.

I am hopeful in the coming weeks the Senate will consider legislation that will put us on the right track toward increased production and use of renewable fuels, renewable electricity, and energy-efficient products, buildings, and vehicles. This will improve our energy security and reduce the risk of global warming.

After energy policy, we will focus on the challenge of comprehensive immigration reform. We all agree America's immigration system is broken; our borders remain unsecured. Our laws remain underenforced. Eleven or twelve million undocumented immigrants continue to live in the shadows. Last year, the Senate passed bipartisan immigration reform that would have fixed our broken borders. Unfortunately, the legislation fell victim to partisan politics in the House and to inaction by the President, so we must readdress the issue--again. We will start with a bill that takes a tough and smart approach to fixing the borders, cracking down on enforcement, and laying out a path to earned legal status for undocumented immigrants already here and contributing to our society.

In January, we promised the American people a new era of open, honest Government. We promised a new direction that will put families and working people, college students and senior citizens first. We also promised a new course in Iraq that honors the service of our men and women in uniform. Heaven knows we have tried, but the President is charging forward with the same mindless strategy in Iraq that the Pope calls a continual slaughter. Defined in the dictionary, slaughter is to kill in a bloody and violent manner and in large numbers. This slaughter must end. For the sake of humanity and our country, it should be no more.

In these first few months, we have made progress. As we begin our third work period, there is much left to be done, but I am confident that with a continued commitment to bipartisanship, we will rise to the challenges ahead and answer the call for renewal of the American dream.

It would be wrong for me not to end by saying we have had the cooperation, most of the time, from the minority. It has been most helpful. We could not have passed these bills without the help of the Republicans. I have a warm, cordial relationship with my counterpart, Senator McConnell. He is easy to work with. We have had some procedural bumps in the road, but we have worked through those, and as a result of this we have been able to accomplish some good things for our country.

I apologize to my colleagues for taking the time I did, but I ask that there will be a full hour for morning business--is that true?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for representation of the Committee on Finance in a proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Finance Committee has obtained from that court, in connection with a hearing the committee is holding this Thursday, a writ compelling the production of a Federal prisoner, whom the committee has scheduled to appear as a witness before it.

Notwithstanding the long history of congressional committee seeking, and the court's approving, such writs to authorize the production of Federal prisoners to provide needed testimony before Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice has moved to quash the writ in response to objections made by the Bureau of Prisons to decisions the committee made about the organization of its hearing and presentation of its witnesses. The Justice Department's motion to quash challenges the authority of the court to issue a writ compelling a federal prisoner to be produced to appear in a congressional as opposed to a judicial proceeding.

This resolution will authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent the Finance Committee in connection with this proceeding in order to protect the committee's interests in obtaining testimony it needs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 20, S. 372, the intelligence authorization bill on Thursday, April 12, following morning business.

Mr. President, in view of the objection, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 20, S. 372, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

I now withdraw the motion to proceed.