Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the end of this Great War.

I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made. Today, along

with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce America's National World War II Museum Expansion Act.

On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA, opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home. The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the Merchant Marine.

The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men from the ship to the shore.

The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs, letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving, maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of the war, including the war on the home front.

This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits, the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring all of the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as President, or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives between the years of 1941 and 1945.

A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240 million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million, and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately.

A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing, I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen.

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

Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the end of this Great War.

I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made. Today, along

with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce America's National World War II Museum Expansion Act.

On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA, opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home. The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the Merchant Marine.

The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men from the ship to the shore.

The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs, letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving, maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of the war, including the war on the home front.

This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits, the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring all of the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as President, or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives between the years of 1941 and 1945.

A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240 million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million, and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately.

A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing, I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg, Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen.

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

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a very important Louisianan, and really a great leader of our Nation, who passed away recently. I come to the floor in her memory, to pause for just a moment and to remember this great lady.

Thursday, January 24, Louisiana and the Nation lost a powerful advocate for justice, equality, and opportunity. Rupert Florence Richardson was truly a heroine of the civil rights movement, who battled throughout her life not only to realize the dream of equal opportunity and a colorblind society, but she fought every day that I knew her for decent jobs, adequate health care, quality health care, and equal opportunities in education for all children.

During more than half a century of work and devotion to the civil rights movement, and to public service generally, Rupert Richardson rose into national prominence as one of the longest serving board members of the NAACP, serving from 1992 to 1995 as national head. Prior to that, she served that prestigious organization for 7 years as vice president and also 16 years as the president of the Louisiana chapter.

Rupert Richardson was a mother, a teacher, a nurse, a sought-after speaker, and a leader always. She had an extraordinary voice and presence, a really big and wonderful heart, she was a great intellect, and she had a passion for people. She was fondly known as the grand dame of the NAACP and was beloved by many in the NAACP civil rights family.

To us at home, you could always see Rupert coming because of her hats of various shapes, sizes and colors--quite decorative--which was her signature trademark. She was a vibrant spirit, always busy, working, and always generous to those around her.

Rupert served many years in Baton Rouge and was no stranger to our Nation's Capital. She was born in Texas and moved to Lake Charles, LA, as an infant. That is where she will be buried tomorrow. For more than 30 years, Rupert served Louisiana in many spheres of influence, and she will be fondly remembered and respectfully remembered. It was truly a life of service. Her family, her friends, her sorority sisters, and particularly the civil rights family in America owe a great deal to this great heroine of civil rights.

I am happy to come to the floor of the Senate to remember Rupert Richardson, to speak of her, and to remind all of us of her great contribution. She will be missed very much.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation enhances women's health by establishing an annual continuing medical education, CME, proficiency requirement for pathologists and laboratory professionals who read Pap tests to screen for cervical cancer. The legislation would enhance our fight against this disease by giving women confidence in their Pap test results. Women in my State of Louisiana and across the country deserve no less.

Specifically, our legislation would require individuals who examine Pap test slides to participate annually in an outcome-based CME program to evaluate their interpretative skills. This educational testing program would keep pace with cutting edge advances in science and technology. Health professionals would be challenged with complex, difficult cases and would learn through constructive feedback. The bill would also require that laboratory directors utilize the CME testing results to help assess the performance of their laboratory personnel and take corrective action as appropriate. Finally, the bill would require that the CME results be reviewed by accrediting organizations as part of federally mandated inspections of laboratories to evaluate Pap test quality.

In 1988, Congress requested that a cytology, Pap test, proficiency program be established as part of The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, CLIA. However, the program lay dormant until 2005 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, CMS, finally implemented a program. Unfortunately, the program was implemented using 1992 regulations--now 15 years old--and no longer relevant to real world practice. The bill we are introducing today would modernize and replace the current program so we can help raise the bar of quality in diagnosing cervical cancer. It would compliment the already extensive Federal quality control standards for Pap tests under CLIA.

Without a doubt, regular Pap tests save women's lives. We need to make sure that the Federal Government's efforts to combat cervical cancer are the most effective they can be. This bill helps to do just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this women's health issue.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, Senator Johnny Isakson, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation enhances women's health by establishing an annual continuing medical education, CME, proficiency requirement for pathologists and laboratory professionals who read Pap tests to screen for cervical cancer. The legislation would enhance our fight against this disease by giving women confidence in their Pap test results. Women in my State of Louisiana and across the country deserve no less.

Specifically, our legislation would require individuals who examine Pap test slides to participate annually in an outcome-based CME program to evaluate their interpretative skills. This educational testing program would keep pace with cutting edge advances in science and technology. Health professionals would be challenged with complex, difficult cases and would learn through constructive feedback. The bill would also require that laboratory directors utilize the CME testing results to help assess the performance of their laboratory personnel and take corrective action as appropriate. Finally, the bill would require that the CME results be reviewed by accrediting organizations as part of federally mandated inspections of laboratories to evaluate Pap test quality.

In 1988, Congress requested that a cytology, Pap test, proficiency program be established as part of The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, CLIA. However, the program lay dormant until 2005 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, CMS, finally implemented a program. Unfortunately, the program was implemented using 1992 regulations--now 15 years old--and no longer relevant to real world practice. The bill we are introducing today would modernize and replace the current program so we can help raise the bar of quality in diagnosing cervical cancer. It would compliment the already extensive Federal quality control standards for Pap tests under CLIA.

Without a doubt, regular Pap tests save women's lives. We need to make sure that the Federal Government's efforts to combat cervical cancer are the most effective they can be. This bill helps to do just that. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this women's health issue.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to join my colleagues, the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Arkansas, in a strong appeal to our colleagues to vote against the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. As Senator Lincoln so eloquently stated, this underlying bill is the single largest reform to the farm program practically in the last two decades, if not forever. We have made significant underlying reforms to try to limit and streamline subsidies and to make it fair. But as the Senator from Alabama said, our rural areas, particularly in the South and Southeast, need this bill to continue to grow and prosper. There are parts of the country that are doing very well. But in rural America, there are still difficulties. We have over 200,000 farmers in Louisiana.

I respect the two Senators offering this amendment. They truly are two of the most respected in this Chamber. But I have to say, perhaps it would be easy for me to support an amendment such as this if the crop in my State was getting two or three times the price it once did.

The fact is, rice and cotton are not in the best shape. We are being pressed by imports. We have different rules and subsidies. With all due respect to other Senators, corn has done very well lately. A couple of years ago it was selling on the market for $2.10 a bushel. Today the commodities rate is $4.33. So people growing corn are doing very well. I have some of them in my State as well. But because of the ethanol subsidies, because of what we have done on the fuel business, corn is doing well. We are happy for that. But rice, soybeans, and cotton fighting for markets, fighting against unfair trade practices. This amendment will do them great harm.

Senator Lincoln has done an excellent job representing Southern farming on the Agriculture Committee. She has, with our support, put forward some reforms to reduce the cost to taxpayers. But we can't do anymore. Asking us to do it is not right. For Georgia and for Alabama and for Louisiana and parts of Texas, this is as far as we can go. I am saying to our farm guys, we help you with subsidies for ethanol. We know farmers growing corn are making a boatload of money. We are happy for that. But we cannot accept this amendment. I urge our colleagues to reject it. Let's move forward together on reform for the taxpayers and for our rural areas.

On another note, our sugar farmers have not had a loan increase in 25 years. Now with this administration supporting huge imports from Mexico, we are at a great transitional time for sugar. This is not the time to cut them anymore. For rice farmers, which Senator Lincoln spoke about--she is from a rice farming family herself; she most certainly knows what it means to walk the rice rows--the current this amendment would unfairly penalizes producers of rice. Any further cuts to our rice industry would be detrimental.

I am pleased that with Senator Lincoln's assistance, we were able to put in extra help for some of our specialty crops. Sweet potatoes we grow a lot of, and we are proud of that crop and others. But this is not insignificant business. This is billion-dollar business. It is important to Louisiana. We need to hold the line with the reform.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on Dorgan-Grassley. We have given enough from our region. We want to support reforms. We have supported reforms. But enough is enough.

I am happy corn is now at $4.33 a bushel. I wish my sugarcane farmers

and rice farmers were getting two or three times what they were getting a couple years ago, but they are not. Let's hold the line and vote no on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment.

If I may, I will add a comment to what the chairman said. I voted against cloture this morning, but I am most certainly willing to come to a compromise on some of the issues and get an agreement between the two sides, and I look forward to working over the weekend to that end.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to be recognized to speak for a moment with my colleague Senator Coleman on National Adoption Day, which is this Saturday.

Before I do that, let me thank the Senator from Alaska, the senior Senator, for his beautiful remarks relative to our other colleague from West Virginia, a man whom we have all come to know and love and respect for his years and quality of service to this body and to our country. Many of us will have other words to say on behalf of Senator Byrd on his birthday, which is coming up very soon.

I wanted to come to the floor with my colleague from Minnesota to speak about a very important issue that we try to remember and reflect on through the whole month of November, but particularly on National Adoption Day on November 17. I also wanted to take this opportunity to remind ourselves of the importance of family and the laws we try to pass here in Congress to encourage families to be strengthened and expanded through the miracle of adoption.

Many Members of Congress, including myself, are adoptive parents. We have personally experienced the joy of building our families through adoption. We are proud promoters of this practice that is not uniquely American, but is embraced by Americans in a way

that it is not embraced in most countries in the world. And we are proud of that. In America, we like to believe it is not the color of our skin or even being from the same part of the world that makes a family. It is a bond, a love that can be shared between people and families and children, even if those children are of a different race or a different background. It is a very unique aspect of America that is quite open and quite extraordinary.

In America, we adopt many children, thousands of children. Over the last decade, the numbers have increased every year, in good measure due to the work that has been done in the United States, right here in Congress.

Let me back up a minute to say that, obviously, our ultimate hope and wish is that all children could stay with their birth families. In an ideal world, you would want all children born in every country, every day and every year, to be able to be born into families who want them, can care for them, can nurture them, and will stay whole and permanent. But we know in the reality of the world in which we live, that is not possible. War, famine, disease, addiction, violence, and gross neglect separate families, separate children from their birth parents every day.

I think it is one of our primary responsibilities as responsible, functioning governments, particularly democracies, to do what we can to connect those children who are separated from that special bond with a birth parent to another nurturing, loving adult as quickly as possible. It would seem that the most natural thing in the world is to understand that a child without a parent is very vulnerable. Even children with parents who are educated and able to navigate through life still have great challenges. So, you can imagine the vulnerability of children with no parents to protect them, alone to raise themselves. Children don't do that very well. And governments don't raise children. Human beings--parents--do. So we need to do our best.

We are working at it, but we have a long way to go. That is why every November, our Presidents, President Clinton, and before him President Bush, take a minute, as our current President will tomorrow at the White House, to acknowledge that November in America is National Adoption Month. We focus the attention of our country on our efforts and we congratulate ourselves on our progress, but there is still a gap. We have 514,000 children who have been removed from their birth families and placed in the care of the community, in foster care. Today, over 115,000 of these children are waiting to be adopted, and the majority of their parents already have had their parental rights terminated. These children are waiting to be placed in a permanent family through adoption, whether kinship or regular, or long-term guardianship.

So I come to the floor today to recognize some of these children who are waiting today, and to say that while we are making progress, we have some beautiful children who are still waiting to be adopted. There are many misconceptions about some of the children who are in our public child welfare and foster care systems. The survey recently conducted by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption indicated that the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that many of the children in foster care are ``juvenile delinquents.'' According to the survey, an unbelievable number of Americans, have thought about adopting a child from foster care, but because of their misperception that there is something wrong with these children, that they are damaged goods, they back up or they back away.

The facts will show that it is not the children who are in foster care who are delinquent. It was a problem from the parental end; that the parents somehow failed to step up or were unable to step up. These children are not damaged goods. They are doing beautifully in school. Many grow up to be quite successful, but they, like all children, need parents and protection.

This is a young girl, Natalyia, who is 8 years old. She has been in foster care since 2001 and is one of the children in Louisiana who is waiting to be adopted.

This is two siblings. Sometimes a child is an only child and sometimes a child has brothers and sisters. I am one of nine children. I know, Mr. President, you came from a fairly large family. Sometimes the unfortunate thing is that parents walk away, or disease or violence separates them from groups of children.

These are two young boys, Terron and Montrell, who are about 7 and 8 years old. They are in foster care in Louisiana, looking for parents here in the United States.

This is two other brothers who have been in foster care for a while. Their names are Ronnie and Kody. They are 11 and 13 years old, also looking for a family here in the United States.

We have thousands and thousands of children of all ages in the United States looking for families. We have millions of orphans around the world. As I said, there are tens of thousands of children right here in the United States who are waiting to be adopted. I am proud of the laws we have tried to pass here on the floor of the Senate, giving appropriate tax credits and providing other opportunities for children to move into loving and permanent families.

I think our time is limited. I don't want to take any more time, but I ask unanimous consent to allow the Senator from Minnesota to finish up our talk here on the Senate floor, to acknowledge National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month, and then turn to the leadership, if I could.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I would like to conclude our presentation with a few wrap-up remarks. Before my colleague leaves the floor, I wish to say that orphans everywhere have found a bold, brave, and articulate champion on their behalf. I am so pleased that Senator Coleman has joined me as a co-chair of the Adoption Caucus to help lead the 213 Members of Congress who have joined our coalition. As the Senator pointed out, it seems that around this place adoption is the only issue on which we can all agree and work so well together. I don't know if it is a tribute to us or to the children who bring us together in a very special way. I thank him.

The States of Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wyoming have more than quadrupled the number of public agency adoptions in their States. It takes a lot of effort, not only on what we do in Congress, but for Governors, legislators, caseworkers, social workers, and judges. I wish to call those States out today to thank them for their extraordinary work. All States are making progress, and we are happy with what the statistics will show. But those seven states are making special progress.

Secondly, we want to be sensitive in our movement, if you will, to the role of birth parents and to honor the choices that birth parents make to the process of making good decisions and creating good outcomes. Sometimes we focus a lot of attention on the adopted child and the adoptive family. I am not sure we spend enough time honoring the role of the birth parents who make this very brave and generous choice. I would like our Congress to be sensitive this coming year to what we can do to honor and highlight birth parents who also are part of that great triangle of adoption.

Finally, I urge our State Department to support adoption. I know they are preoccupied with many important, significant and grave issues, from international diplomacy to conducting wars, which are very important and consequential actions. However, our State Department has taken 7 years to implement the rules and changes required by the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 that Congress passed. Every day and every week and every month that these rules are delayed, there are literally thousands of children who die. Without these rules, we can't keep open the avenues of international adoption. I will say this to our critics-- there aren't many, but there are a few--every time there is a bad story about someone, maybe an agency, maybe a lawyer, maybe a disreputable person--and you know there are many disreputable people in the world, unfortunately--who does something wrong, does not fill out a document correctly or does not go through the proper procedures, and there is a big scandal in international adoption. The whole system is shut down under the guise of trying to get the ethics right.

Nobody is more committed to ethics and adoption than the two of us. We work every day to make it transparent, make it relatively easy, reduce the challenges associated with it, and have it meet every law and cross every T. However, every time a bank is robbed in this country, we don't shut down the banking system. We go after the bank robber. We find them and put them in jail. The banking system stays open. Every day people cash checks and deposit money and take money out and make loans and keep this economy going. Every time we shut down adoptions from a country, millions of children die. That is the consequence of our action. We need to focus on the roots of the problem. We need to find solutions that address the problems and their causes, but which also meet the best needs of the children in that country. I want the State Department--and I hope they are listening--to understand that those of us in Congress understand about ethics. We understand about laws. We want things to be as appropriate and as legal as possible. When mistakes are made in a country, the answer is not to shut down the adoption of children from there. When we do this, we not only break the hearts of thousands of our constituents who are waiting to receive these children and believe they are doing God's will by taking in orphans who would die otherwise and have no one to care for them, we also hurt the children who we are trying to protect. Our State Department very callously brushes that aside. They are going to hear from us this year. They need to finalize the rules required by the law that we passed long ago. We need to continue our efforts to improve our system of international adoption. We have to get the State Department's attention. I intend to work with my colleagues to do so.

I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He will be traveling to Guatemala over the holidays, which is a great testament to his leadership and dedication to helping us do the right thing by the children of Guatemala. We pledge to this Congress to give the best leadership we can on an issue that we all can come together on. It is quite refreshing.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month. Senator Coleman and I understand that later today the Senate will consider our resolution recognizing National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month.

Every child should have a loving and permanent family. The Hague Convention recognizes ``that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.'' Unfortunately, not all children have a family of their own. However, through adoption a child can have a ``forever family.''

President Bush has recognized the importance of adoption to children and our Nation. Thus, he has declared November to be National Adoption Month. Nearly half of all Americans have been touched by adoption.

In 2002, 151,332 children found ``forever families,'' a significant increase from 119,766 in 1996. 21,063 of these children were born in another country and adopted by American families. Public agency adoptions have more than doubled since 1995. The National Council for Adoption attributes the increase ``in part to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997's Adoption Incentive Program, which awards financial incentives to States for placing foster children into adoptive homes.'' Seven States: Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, quadrupled the annual number of public agency adoptions from 1995 to 2005. Over 7,000 children who are part of the public child welfare system are adopted every year in California, which is the highest number of all 50 States. However, only 10 percent of the 513,000 children in foster care will ever be adopted.

National Adoption Day occurs on November 17 as a part of National Adoption Month. National Adoption Day is an event to raise awareness of the 114,000 children in foster care who are waiting for permanent families. Since the first National Adoption Day in 2000, nearly 17,000 children have joined ``forever families'' on this special day. This year we hope to have events in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Over l90 events in 48 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are planned for this Saturday to finalize the adoption of over 3,000 foster children and youth.

I want you to picture what happens on this fall day, children running, laughing, and playing with their new parent. Think about a girl or boy planning their special outfit and joyously awaiting the family celebration. Imagine the excitement welling up inside of a child as she looks into her new parent's eyes and knows she is finally part of a family. She will never dread the sound of a car coming to take her away again or wonder where she will lay her head or which school she will be moved to.

Now picture the other dramatically different reality. In 2005, there were 514,000 children in foster care and 115,000 of them were waiting to be adopted. The following States have the largest number of children in their foster care system: California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, States made progress in reducing the number of children in their foster care systems, such as Illinois, 34 percent reduction, and New York, 35 percent reduction. These children have not had the luxury of their own room, a stable school environment, or a constant adult in their lives. Though the average percentage of children in foster care who are waiting to be adopted is 24 percent, some States have percentages as low as 5 percent,--California--and as high as 38 percent--New Jersey and South Carolina.

Of the 52,000 foster children who were adopted, 60 percent of them were adopted by their foster parents. According to a recent survey by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, many potential adoptive parents have considered foster care adoption, but ``a majority of Americans hold misperceptions about the foster care adoption process and the children who are eligible for adoption. For example, ``two- thirds of those considering foster care adoption are unnecessarily concerned that biological parents can return to claim their children and nearly half of all Americans mistakenly believe that foster care adoption is expensive, when in reality adopting from foster care is without substantial cost.''

In Louisiana there are 4,541 children in foster care and 1,162 of them are waiting to be adopted. I would like to tell you about some of the foster children in Louisiana who are looking for their ``forever families.''

Natalyia is a cute, outgoing and loveable 8-year-old who is bright and energetic. She is in the second grade and she is an above average student. She loves to read books, ride her bike, complete crossword puzzles, and play

with her dolls. Natalyia has been in foster care since November 2001. The average length of time a child spends in foster care is over 2 years.

Most foster children entered into State custody because their parents were either unable or unwilling to care for them. Not only are children separated from parents, but in many cases, siblings are separated when they are placed in foster care. Terron and Montrell are two brothers in the Louisiana foster care system who would like to be adopted together.

Terron is a handsome, happy 8-year-old in the third grade who is placed in the same foster home with his younger brother, Montrell. Both boys would like to be adopted together, because they share a close bond. Terron responds positively to structure, love, and consistency. He is a caring child who has enjoyed living in a two-parent family. He enjoys soccer, baseball, fishing and any outdoor activity. He wants his new family to know that he likes to eat spaghetti, macaroni, and rice- a-roni. Terron would benefit from a two-parent family that can provide structure as well as stimulation.

Montrell is Terron's brother. He is a very sweet, friendly, and open young boy who responds well to structure and consistency. He is very bonded to his older brother and with time and nurturance can adjust to a new environment. Montrell is a first grader. School is a challenge for him but with patience and redirection, he responds well. Montrell's overall health is good and he is basically a happy little boy. He enjoys riding his bicycle and playing outside. Montrell and Terron would benefit from a 2-parent family that can provide structure as well as stimulation.

Over half the children in foster care are 10 years of age or older and have more difficulty being adopted. These children are just waiting to flourish with the right parent's guidance. Kody and Ronnie are two brothers who are above the age of 10 years old and are waiting in the Louisiana foster care system for a ``forever family.''

Kody is a cute, very active and outgoing, blonde haired, hazel eyed, 13-year-old boy. He enjoys football, skateboarding, fourwheeling, and playing video games. He also loves horses. He is a sixth grader who enjoys science and reading. Kody would like to be an entertainer when he grows up, such as an actor, a comedian, or a rapper. He would like to be in the same home as his brother, Ronnie.

Ronnie is Kody's brother. He is an 11-year-old boy who resembles his brother. Ronnie loves both playing and watching football. He likes to play video games and board games, horses, and going fishing. He is a fourth grader who likes math and science. He would like to be a policeman when he grows up, so that he could rescue people. He would also like to own a toy company, so that he could invent new video games. He wants a family who would care about him. He is very close to his brother Kody and wishes to remain in contact with him.

I could stand here every day for the next month and talk about each child who needs to be adopted out of foster care. The bottom line is that each of these children, from one day old to 22 years old, needs permanency. They all need a loving, nurturing family that will help them to grow, bring out their unique personalities, and transform them into confident and happy adults.

On National Adoption Day, I have faith that this can be done and we must continue to be the catalyst. The miracle of adoption cannot be explained, but the loving parents that are holding their children for the first time today are living examples of how dreams can be realized. As an adoptive mother myself, I find that words cannot adequately explain the miracle of adoption. I can only take a moment to offer my most humble thanks, gratitude, and appreciation to all those across the Nation who have given their Saturday to help find waiting children safe and loving homes.

Let us continue to remember that when National Adoption Month and Day end there are still thousands of children like Natalyia, Montrell, Terron, Kody, and Ronnie who need that sense of permanency. I challenge Congress to make these children their first priority and to help them to finally realize that dream. Please support our resolution.

Mr. President, almost a year ago, we passed a Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Included in that very large piece of legislation was a small provision that probably went beneath most people's notice.

Section 426 of that bill allows Federal funding to provide case management services after a disaster. That has been a tragically absent component to our circumstances in Louisiana. Educated people struggle to find their way through the Byzantine morass that is FEMA individual assistance program, the Small Business Administration's loan program, the Road Home program and their own insurance company's requirements. Think of how all of this seems to working people who are encountering Federal bureaucracy for the first time.

So, we need case management badly. Unfortunately, Section 426 fails the people of my State in two important ways. First, and this predates the change in Congressional leadership, it allows for case management services--but only for future disasters. The legislation that I am introducing today makes Section 426 retroactive to 2005 and will now cover Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, as well as succeeding disasters.

Two years after the disaster, we only distributed half of the Road Home grants. It is obvious that we will need case management services for years to come in Louisiana. It is only common sense to direct these resources to the Gulf Coast today, where they are direly needed.

However, an equally important failing of Section 426 comes from its implementation. In New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast, the energy for the recovery effort has truly come from America's faith community. You can see their good work in neighborhoods that are returning in my hometown. You can see them with hammers and nails in the Gulf Coast towns of Mississippi, and you can find them helping thousands of victims of Katrina and Rita to navigate the bureaucratic hurdles between them, and rebuilding their lives.

As we have not had the benefit of Government supported case management, nonprofits and the faith-based community have stepped in to fill the obvious void. Unfortunately, the same community that has been such a lifeline to the people of the Gulf Coast has been barred from competing for Federal funding under Section 426.

This is a shocking turnaround for an administration that has put so much emphasis on including the faith-based community in Government programming. I believe that the instinct to incorporate programs that are organic to the community, and are already working, was a good one. It is clear to me that case management services are prime examples of programs that should incorporate the faith-based community.

So, as you can see, circumstances have compelled me to clarify Congressional intent. The bill I am introducing today does two things. First, it makes Section 426 retroactive to 2005, so that it may cover Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Secondly, it strikes the phrase ``qualified private organizations'' which has been misinterpreted to exclude the faith-based community. That phrase has been replaced with ``nonprofit or faith-based organization with experience in case management services.'' It is unfortunate that we have arrived at the point where a legislative solution is needed. But nevertheless, I believe that this legislation resolves the problem, and will give comfort to the people of the Gulf Coast that Federal monies are being spent wisely, and given to those that have shown themselves capable and willing to help.

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

Mr. President, almost a year ago, we passed a Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Included in that very large piece of legislation was a small provision that probably went beneath most people's notice.

Section 426 of that bill allows Federal funding to provide case management services after a disaster. That has been a tragically absent component to our circumstances in Louisiana. Educated people struggle to find their way through the Byzantine morass that is FEMA individual assistance program, the Small Business Administration's loan program, the Road Home program and their own insurance company's requirements. Think of how all of this seems to working people who are encountering Federal bureaucracy for the first time.

So, we need case management badly. Unfortunately, Section 426 fails the people of my State in two important ways. First, and this predates the change in Congressional leadership, it allows for case management services--but only for future disasters. The legislation that I am introducing today makes Section 426 retroactive to 2005 and will now cover Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, as well as succeeding disasters.

Two years after the disaster, we only distributed half of the Road Home grants. It is obvious that we will need case management services for years to come in Louisiana. It is only common sense to direct these resources to the Gulf Coast today, where they are direly needed.

However, an equally important failing of Section 426 comes from its implementation. In New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast, the energy for the recovery effort has truly come from America's faith community. You can see their good work in neighborhoods that are returning in my hometown. You can see them with hammers and nails in the Gulf Coast towns of Mississippi, and you can find them helping thousands of victims of Katrina and Rita to navigate the bureaucratic hurdles between them, and rebuilding their lives.

As we have not had the benefit of Government supported case management, nonprofits and the faith-based community have stepped in to fill the obvious void. Unfortunately, the same community that has been such a lifeline to the people of the Gulf Coast has been barred from competing for Federal funding under Section 426.

This is a shocking turnaround for an administration that has put so much emphasis on including the faith-based community in Government programming. I believe that the instinct to incorporate programs that are organic to the community, and are already working, was a good one. It is clear to me that case management services are prime examples of programs that should incorporate the faith-based community.

So, as you can see, circumstances have compelled me to clarify Congressional intent. The bill I am introducing today does two things. First, it makes Section 426 retroactive to 2005, so that it may cover Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Secondly, it strikes the phrase ``qualified private organizations'' which has been misinterpreted to exclude the faith-based community. That phrase has been replaced with ``nonprofit or faith-based organization with experience in case management services.'' It is unfortunate that we have arrived at the point where a legislative solution is needed. But nevertheless, I believe that this legislation resolves the problem, and will give comfort to the people of the Gulf Coast that Federal monies are being spent wisely, and given to those that have shown themselves capable and willing to help.

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

Mr. President, may I take a moment to thank the chairwoman of this committee again for fulfilling the promise she made to have this bill--that was 7 years in the making--become law. And as of about 10 minutes after 12, eastern time, it did become law.

People in Louisiana and throughout the gulf coast are cheering, dirt is being turned, levees are being built, and wetlands are being preserved. This Congress has kept its word to the people of Louisiana and the gulf coast, and for that this Senator is very grateful.

Again, I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a provision in this bill that I sponsored. With funding in this conference report designated in the fund for the improvement of education, the Robert H. Clampitt Foundation's Children's PressLine will establish a New Orleans bureau to teach journalism skills to at-risk youth in New Orleans.

Using an oral journalism methodology created 31 years ago by its predecessor, Children's Express, New York City-based Children's PressLine, CPL, has a proven model of civic engagement and issues awareness by youth that facilitates the participation of children of all ages and literacy levels. Every year, CPL enables more than 75 children and teens to be trained quickly and easily, empowering them with real-world critical thinking, learning and writing skills outside of the constraints of a traditional classroom environment. This CPL model has a proven track record for creating an engaging program that teaches critical professional skills and media literacy in a format that invests children in the lasting journalism that they produce.

This funding would provide for CPL personnel to work with local education and community leaders to establish a New Orleans bureau, implementing the CPL model for youth training and development. In the spirit of CPL's acclaimed ``In Search of Faith'' project following 9/ 11, the bureau's youth reporters would apply their skills to creating an oral history of children's experiences recovering from Hurricane Katrina. As CPL content is syndicated nationally through the Scripps Howard News Service and through online news sites including PBS OnlineNewsHour, the program would also create a national forum for children's voices to be heard.

By sharing their poststorm experiences with a national audience, these children will both process their traumatic experiences in a creative way, while also developing important writing skills that will bolster their academic achievement. These types of creative programs are critical for children's development, particularly after a traumatic experience, and we are excited that CPL will now have the resources necessary to build a New Orleans bureau and work with children who will benefit greatly from the program.

Thank you to the chairman and ranking member for their efforts.