Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order and call up my amendment No. 3893. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, this is an amendment brought up at the very outset of this debate. I understand there has been an agreement that we can move forward with this amendment. So I have worked with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, and the modifications have been made.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

We do not need a recorded vote. I will agree to a voice vote.

First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coburn as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I join my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Missouri, in supporting this bill and in opposition to the Leahy amendment.

My colleague from Texas identified a number of the issues that are in the amendment. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. It is a great committee. Senator Leahy does an excellent job leading the committee. But on this particular issue it is my belief, as a Judiciary Committee member, that we should recede to what the Intelligence Committee has put forward on a bipartisan basis and move forward with this bipartisan bill we have rather than going with, essentially, the substitute that the Judiciary Committee came up with, which was put forward on a partisan basis.

My colleague from Texas noted we have 9 days until this legislation expires. If we go with the Leahy substitute--as much as I respect Senator Leahy--the President is going to veto this bill and we are going to be in a nonfunctional position for a period of time while we get things put back together. There is no reason to do that. We have a bipartisan bill.

The Intelligence Committee bill passed with only two dissenting votes. The Judiciary Committee substitute, in essence, that is being put forward--it has been modified and changed, but, in essence, it is what came forward from the Judiciary Committee--came out on a strictly partisan party-line basis.

Why wouldn't we go with the bipartisan bill that passed, I believe, 13 to 2 rather than go with the partisan bill that will be vetoed and then we will just be back here? We are not going to have the votes for a veto override. We would then go without this needed law provision so we can provide for the security of the country, as well as protect the civil liberties and rights of individuals within America.

I want to note in particular on this issue of telecommunications companies and the information they provide, I think we need to provide some level of immunity for companies to participate and work with the Federal Government on information that the Federal Government has legitimately requested.

In case people think, ``Well, OK, you are just giving a pass to the telecommunications companies,'' I want to read what the requirements are within the Intelligence Committee bill toward the telecommunications companies. The telecommunications carriers face a series of threats and lawsuits presently over their complying with what the Federal Government required. But the Senate Intelligence Committee immunity provisions do not just simply dismiss the cases outright. Instead, the bill sets forth a process for the Attorney General to submit a certification to the court that the telecom carriers either, one, did not provide the Government the alleged assistance in the first place, or, two, provided assistance pursuant to a valid request, directive, or order indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The court would then separately review the Attorney General's certification for an abuse of discretion. This multilevel certification and review process will ensure an underlying assessment by the Government and the courts of the genesis of the carriers' role, if any.

The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases.

All in all, I think the Intelligence Committee bill strikes the right balance between intelligence gathering and protections for civil liberties.

My point in bringing this out is that this is not some blanket waiver toward telecommunications companies. It goes through a multilevel court and administrative review procedure that has to pass through both in order for the telecommunications company to be able to get this immunity from liability exposure. It is not just the Attorney General; it is also the court that is involved with this as well.

I would hope my colleagues who have concerns about civil liberties would

look at that and say: Well, this is going to be reviewed in both places. This should be sufficient to require them--the telecommunications companies--to participate in this program, and to give them the immunity from liability, if they do this according to the law as determined by both the Attorney General and as determined by the court.

That seems to me to be a good level and a good balance of our intelligence needs, which are significant, and our civil liberties guarantees and requirements, which are required--that we guarantee civil liberties for the individual and that I want to see protected. But at the same time I want to see our citizens protected as well. And we have to be able to have some access to information of these communications--with intelligence, with terrorist organizations, individuals--that may be taking place.

All in all, I think the Intelligence Committee has done an excellent job of striking that balance between providing for our security needs and guaranteeing civil liberties of the individual. It has provided a multilayered process for this immunity to be able to be granted by different entities within the Government. It has done so in a balanced fashion. It has done so in a bipartisan fashion. I don't know why, for the life of me, we would want to go with something on a partisan basis that is not going to get through the process, when we need the bill now and we have a good bill put forward by the Intelligence Committee.

So as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I would urge us to support the Intelligence Committee and not support the Leahy substitute. As much respect as I have for the chairman, I do not think that is the way for us to go in bringing this bill forward to closure for the good of the country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that my amendment, No. 3893, be called up.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, who has been a sponsor of this bill that I put in amendment form and am calling up now as an amendment, as an official apology to Native Americans in the United States for past issues. It is an amendment with a lot of history to it.

The bill has been brought up this Congress, the last Congress, and it has passed the Indian Affairs Committee both Congresses. It is an amendment with an issue of a lot of history to it. The chairman and myself are from Plains States where there is a lot of Native American history, as there is throughout the United States. It is a history that is both beautiful, difficult, and sad at the same time.

I have four tribal lands in my State, four areas where there are tribal lands, some that are tribal but don't have a resident tribe in the State. This has been an issue that has been around for some time-- the relationship between the Federal Government and the tribes.

What we have crafted in this amendment, a previous bill that is now in amendment form, is an official apology. It does not deal with property issues whatsoever, but it recognizes some of the past difficulty in the relationship.

It says that for those times the Federal Government was wrong, we acknowledge that and apologize for it. Apologies are difficult and tough to do, but I think this one is meritorious and, as I present my case, I hope my colleagues will agree and support this amendment.

I rise today to speak about this issue that I believe is important to the well-being of all who reside in the United States. It is an issue that has lain unresolved for far too long, an issue of the United States Government's relationship with the Native peoples of this land.

Native Americans have a vast and proud legacy on this continent. Long before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, Native peoples inhabited this land and maintained a powerful physical and spiritual connection to it. In service to the Creator, Native peoples sowed the land, journeyed it, and protected it. The people from my State of Kansas have a similar strong attachment to the land.

Like many in my State, I was raised on the land. I grew up farming and caring for the land. I and many in my State established a connection to this land as well. We care for our Nation and the land of our forefathers so greatly that we too are willing to serve and protect it, as faithful stewards of the creation with which God has blessed us. I believe without a doubt citizens across this great Nation share this sentiment and know its unifying power. Americans have stood side by side for centuries to defend this land we love.

Both the Founding Fathers of the United States and the indigenous tribes that lived here were attached to this land. Both sought to steward and protect it. There were several instances of collegiality and cooperation between our forbears--for example, in Jamestown, VA, Plymouth, MA, and in aid to explorers Lewis and Clark. Yet, sadly, since the formation of the American Republic, numerous conflicts have ensued between our Government, the Federal Government, and many of these tribes, conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought courageously and which all sides suffered. Even from the earliest days of our Republic there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and a peaceful coexistence were clearly preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our predecessors in Congress in 1787 stated in the Northwest Ordinance:

The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the

Indians.

Many treaties were made between the U.S. Government and Native peoples, but treaties are far more than just words on a page. Treaties represent our word, and they represent our bond. Treaties with other governments are not to be regarded lightly. Unfortunately, again, too often the United States did not uphold its responsibilities as stated in its covenants with Native tribes.

I have read all of the treaties in my State between the tribes and the Federal Government that apply to Kansas. They generally came in tranches of three. First, there would be a big land grant to the tribe. Then there would be a much smaller one associated with some equipment and livestock, and then a much smaller one after that.

Too often, our Government broke its solemn oath to Native Americans. For too long, relations between the United States and Native people of this land have been in disrepair. For too much of our history, Federal tribal relations have been marked by broken treaties, mistreatment, and dishonorable dealings. I believe it is time to work to restore these relationships to good health. While the record of the past cannot be erased, I am confident the United States can acknowledge its past failures, express sincere regrets, and work toward establishing a brighter future for all Americans. It is in this spirit of hope for our land that I am offering Senate Joint Resolution 4, the Native American Apology Resolution, as an amendment to the bill currently before us. This resolution will extend a formal apology from the United States to tribal governments and Native peoples nationwide--something we have never done; something we should have done years and years ago.

I want my fellow Senators to note this resolution does not--does not--dismiss the valiance of our American soldiers who fought bravely for their families in wars between the United States and a number of the Indian tribes, nor does this resolution cast all the blame for the various battles on one side or another.

Further, this resolution will not resolve the many challenges still facing Native Americans, nor will it authorize, support or settle any claims against the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with any property claims against the United States. That is specifically set aside and not in this bill. What this resolution does do is recognize and honor the importance of Native Americans to this land and to the United States in the past and today and offers an official apology for the poor and painful choices the U.S. Government sometimes made to disregard its solemn word to Native peoples. It recognizes the negative impact of numerous destructive Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their culture, and it begins--begins--the effort of reconciliation.

President Ronald Reagan spoke of the importance of reconciliation many times throughout his Presidency. In a 1984 speech to mark the 40th anniversary of the day when the Allied armies joined in battle to free the European Continent from the grip of the Axis powers, Reagan implored the United States and Europe to ``prepare to reach out in the spirit of reconciliation.''

Martin Luther King, whom we recognized and celebrated yesterday, who was a true reconciler, once said:

The end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end

is the creation of the beloved community.

This resolution is not the end, but perhaps it signals the beginning of the end of division and a faint first light and first fruits of the creation of beloved community. This is a resolution of apology and a resolution of reconciliation. It is a step toward healing the wounds that have divided our country for so long--a potential foundation for a new era of positive relations between tribal governments and the Federal Government.

It is time--as I have stated, it is way past time--for us to heal our land of division, all divisions, and bring us together. There is perhaps no better place than in the midst of the Senate's consideration of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization to do

this. With this in mind, I hope my Senate colleagues will support this amendment. I would ask their consideration on it. I would ask for their positive vote for it.

I hope a number of my colleagues in the Senate will join me as a cosponsor of the amendment itself so we can show a united front and that it is time for us to heal. I ask they give us that consideration. I simply ask my colleagues to look for this, and I hope they can vote for it as well.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wished to thank my colleague from North Dakota, and I would ask the amendment be referred to as the Brownback-Dorgan amendment, if that would be acceptable to my colleague. We will put it forward that way because he has been lead sponsor of this for the past several Congresses, and I appreciate his hard work.

I appreciate his heart and his practicality on the current situation. We do have to get better health care on the reservations and for the Native tribes. I appreciate the effort to get that done, and I think that is an important effort for us and a very practical and necessary thing, so the examples he talks about, and unfortunately so many others, don't continue to happen across this country.

The amendment put forward by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, is also important, his view about codifying a situation regarding abortions with Native Americans. I would hope that would be something we could see passed as something that is a hopeful sign in pushing to the future, rather than a sign of despair and the killing of children, which I think is completely wrong for us to see taking place and for us to be funding it as well.

I am delighted this bill is coming up. I think this is an important issue for us to debate, and I am glad to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments this morning to pay tribute to my departing colleague, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Senator Lott has been a trusted friend, a hardworking legislator, and a skilled party leader on issue after issue in his 35 years of distinguished service in the House and Senate. He has been a tireless champion of conservative values over the year, but it is a testament to his unfailing courtesy and affability that he has been so popular and effective with his colleagues over the years, without ever surrendering those core values. This Senate will miss his presence and example, and his state and his Nation will miss his principled leadership.

I often think about what an incredible country this is where the son of a Kansas farmer and the son of a Mississippi shipyard worker can work together on the great issues of our day in the world's greatest deliberative body. I know that this country is better for the fact that Trent Lott, with all of his talents and abilities, was given that opportunity.

Senator Lott was instrumental in the great political realignment that took place in the South throughout the 70s and 80s; in fact he was only the second Republican elected to Congress from Mississippi since Reconstruction. He went on to become one of the most effective political leaders of his day, perhaps one of the most effective leaders this body has every seen. Trent has been amazingly effective, in building coalitions, in working across the aisle, and in leading his party.

Those of us on both sides of the aisle who have worked with him over the years know that Trent Lott is a man of his word. In large part, that has accounted for his political effectiveness, both with the voters and with his colleagues. With Senator Lott, there is never any question about where he stands and who he is, and that kind of integrity gains people's respect and admiration.

His integrity was never more apparent than when he stayed in the Senate out of a sense of duty to his state to see his people through the terrible natural disaster that was Hurricane Katrina.

After three decades serving the people of his State and serving his country in the U.S. Congress, we now say farewell to our valued colleague. He has served his country with resolve, honor, and energy. As he leaves us in order to spend more time with his beloved family, I join my colleagues in thanking Trent and his wife Patricia for their service to their country, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Omnibus appropriations bill that is before us today. Although I am supportive of a number of important items in the bill, I have serious concerns and reservations about how this voluminous package was put together and how it has reached this point. As we are all aware, none of the 11 bills in this package have ever been considered on the floor of this chamber. I believe this is a travesty and entirely contrary to our democratic process. I, for one, believe that next year we must make it a priority to consider all of the appropriations bills in regular order so that all Members can participate in the process. We are appropriating nearly $933 billion through this bill and only a select few Members in both Chambers have participated in the allocation of those dollars.

Despite my deep concerns about the process of putting this bill together, I have chosen to support it because it is within the President's budget request, it provides bridge-funding to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it contains a number of other items that I support.

I am pleased that the bill contains funds to continue Marriage Development Accounts in the District of Columbia. We began this program in fiscal year 2006 as a way to stem the erosion of marriage in DC. Sadly, marriage is all but disappearing in low-income communities in this city and across the country because couples lose important benefits such as food stamps, low-income housing credits, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and Medicaid merely for taking a wedding vow. In addition, these couples often have to pay higher taxes when they choose to marry. For most low-income couples, the welfare system has made marriage a bad economic decision. MDAs are one way we are making marriage a good economic decision. With an MDA, a low-income couple can save for a house, for higher education, or to start a small business and we will match those funds 3-to-1 with two Federal dollars and one private matching dollar. In just its second year of operation, over 100 DC residents have opened MDAs and 7 have already bought houses with their matched savings.

I am also pleased that we were able to include language in this bill requiring the U.S. Mint to return the words ``In God We Trust'' to the face of the $1 Presidential coins and the $1 Sacagawea coins. ``In God We Trust'' is our national motto and since the beginning of our Nation, America's citizens have acknowledged how God is very much a part of the founding principles and traditions of our democracy. I would like to note that in 1861, Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase ordered that coins bear a motto expressing the American people's trust in God. The first coins with the phrase ``In God We Trust'' were minted in 1864. In 1955, the phrase was required for all new coins, and in 1956 Congress officially endorsed ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto. Therefore, I was troubled to learn that the words ``In God We Trust'' do not appear on the face of the new Presidential coins. These words are barely visible and almost hidden on the edge of the new coins. To rectify this situation, we have included language in this bill that will require the U.S. Mint to return our national motto to the front of the coin.

I would like to note that we have provided $80 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an increase of $17 million over the fiscal year 2007 level. I believe that this increase is important and necessary because it will allow the CPSC to hire additional inspectors to ensure that toys and other consumer products entering our country are safe. We have all been deeply concerned over the flood of shoddy and dangerous products entering our ports. Most troubling is that

many of these products are designed for our smallest and most vulnerable consumers: everything from baby cribs and strollers to children's toys and baby teethers have been recalled just this past year. I believe these additional funds will help CPSC address this growing problem.

I am supportive of the $60 million available in this bill to support democracy in Iran. Although I am pleased that this money is in the bill, I would have hoped we could have come up with an additional amount for this important and essential work. I am also concerned about oversight of these funds. In my view, this money is a crucial part of our overall policy on Iran, and I will closely monitor how it is spent.

Finally, I would not be able to vote for this bill if it did not contain the necessary funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment that Senator McConnell has offered today contains those important and necessary funds. We are making progress in the war in Iraq and we must continue to provide our brave servicemen and servicewomen all the armor and ammunition and support they need to continue to secure a peace in that region of the world.

I reiterate my deep concerns and consternation with how this omnibus bill was put together. To say that this behemoth bill was cobbled together in the dead of night among just a few Members is no exaggeration. Such an approach is undemocratic and dangerous. Although I will vote for the bill, I must insist that we abandon this undemocratic process and return to regular order when we take up next year's appropriations bills.

Mr. President, I believe my colleague had 15 minutes yielded to him. I ask unanimous consent to use the remainder of his time to speak on the amendment.

May I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Kansas in opposition to the Tester amendment. I appreciate my colleague from Montana offering this amendment. I respect his background and knowledge. He has worked in this field. He has lived this. He is living it in his own operation in Montana. I have a lot of respect for that and for what he is targeting. I have spent all my life in the agricultural business. I was raised on a farm, have undergraduate degrees in agriculture. I was Secretary of Agriculture in Kansas. I have worked on these issues a long time. We have all wanted to get more money in agriculture and keep more family farms operating. That is everybody's desire. I believe that is the desire and intent of this amendment.

However, in my State in Kansas, as my colleague has described, this is going to hurt family farm operations, and it will hurt people who are trying to get more money in their operation from the marketplace. I would like to briefly describe one example I recently experienced, an operation of a small family feed yard that does operate for a number of different individuals in the eastern part of Kansas. It is the Knight Feedlot. They have been operating for quite a few years in Lyons, KS. They have an innovative program. It is an alternative marketing program. They raise hormone-free, antibiotic-free cattle. They sell the meat directly from this feed yard into premium grocery stores in Connecticut and New York. It is the sort of thing many of us have been talking about. Let's get the producer closer to the consumer and sell the product they want. This is hormone-free, antibiotic-free beef. Anybody in this room who has raised cattle knows that if you are going to go hormone free and antibiotic free, you have increased your risk and the cost of your operation substantially to meet that consumer need. These guys are doing that. Any animal that gets sick, they have to pull out of the program because they have to keep the animal alive. To do it, they are going to use antibiotics, so the animal is out of the program when that takes place. It winnows down fairly fast. When you get weather fluctuations such as are taking place now, you get more problems and more animals out of the program.

But eventually, because of a contractual operation they have with a packer--because these are feeders, they are not packers--they are able to get their animals identified through the system, they are able to get the packer to deliver that meat to the counter in Connecticut and New York, because my Kansas feeders are not lined up to do that, they have a contractual arrangement to do that, and, as a result, they are able to get a substantial premium for their beef.

The consumer in Connecticut and New York can see who produces it, and the pictures of Kenny and Mark Knight are by the display counter on the beef case in these stores. They have been there, and they have been there to sell their beef. It works. It works for them, and they get a substantial premium for this beef. The consumer likes it, and they like seeing who has produced their beef.

That operation would be illegal under the direction of this amendment. I believe this amendment would generate lawsuits against that very type of operation.

I respect my colleague from Montana and his efforts to preserve the family farm operation--family farm operations like what my parents have and my brother is on. This amendment is not the way. It is micromanagement from here. One of the things I have certainly seen is you cannot micromanage America, and you should not try. The best is to set up fair playing rules. We have rules in this system. But we should not punish people who are trying to innovate to get more money for their producers in innovative fashions and using alternate marketing means and being successful at it.

The Knights had to invest a substantial amount of money to get this arrangement set. They had to hire somebody to do the marketing. They had to hire somebody and get enough cattle to be able to enter into a contractual arrangement with the packer to keep these cattle identified and keep them identified to be able to deliver to the consumers in Connecticut and New York. Without that, they are not packers, they cannot do this. This amendment would hurt their operation. As a matter of fact, it would make it illegal and bring lawsuits against it.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment on a number of grounds: No. 1, it prohibits innovation, and No. 2, it really tries to micromanage something we should not try to micromanage. It is going to hurt my Kansas feeders.

For all those reasons, I urge opposition to the Tester amendment.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time, if there is any on our side on this.

Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?

Mr. President, I wish to use 5 minutes of that time.

I respect those who do farm. My dad does, and I have a lot of respect for him. I have a brother who farms as well, and it is tough. It is a hard life.

I went to law school, and in my background I taught agricultural law. I have written two books on it, if anybody is interested. I don't think they are still for sale because they never sold very well.

But my point in saying that is one of the key things which is always talked about in agriculture is the Packers and Stockyards Act. It was developed back in the 1920s and 1930s because of this imbalance that was developing and was really heightened at that point in time even more so than today between the packers and producers. There were a lot more producers that were a lot smaller at that point in time and taken advantage of by packers. It was a very unscrupulous setting, and they passed the Packers and Stockyards Act. It was a very important piece of legislation, particularly in farm country, and it did have a substantial impact and continues to have a substantial impact today.

The situation today is different than it was back then. What you have now are a number of producers that are, in many cases, of a larger scale and trying to get closer to the consumer. You have small producers as well, such as my family, who are small producers and who often will link up with bigger sized producers and feed yards to try to get more money for their cattle. Everybody is trying to get more money for their cattle, and that is what I want to take place: more money for the producer for the cattle.

Unfortunately, because of the way this is drafted and because of being a lawyer and being somebody in the agricultural industry--and you are taking away: regardless of any alleged business justification. So my family says we are going to try this hormone-free, antibiotic-free beef, but we have to pool together at a feed yard that is big enough to negotiate with the packers to do this, and so they do that. We have 1,000 head of cattle from everybody--all 20 or more people who are doing this--and then they are going to market it directly on forward. That is a business justification to pay my family more for their cattle. That is a business justification for them to do it.

But we have taken it right out of here. We have said: regardless of any alleged business justification.

So, now, while my family is trying to move with this packer group through the feed yard to get closer to the consumer to take advantage of this, which is a business justification, this says, no, you can't assume that in the Packers and Stockyards Act. So somebody on the other side of this, or somebody just wanting to be ornery about it says: Look, you can't do that. You can't do it. It is right here.

I know the author's intent is not that intent. I also am a lawyer. This is something you can do under this draft of it. I appreciate the sentiment with which this is made. I appreciate the history of the Packers and Stockyards Act. It has been important. It remains important today. This isn't the way to get at this. This is going to cause people to have to go back to a generic marketplace for beef. You can say: Well, I am fine with a generic marketplace for beef--most people are-- but there are a lot of people who like specialty beef. That is where the producer gets in and gets a bigger slice of the pie is when he goes at the narrow marketplace for a specialty-type product and segments his marketplace. This, I honestly believe, is going to cut off these types of arrangements for farm families in my State, and I believe a lot of other places, to be able to get into them.

I understand the intent. I look at it on the surface, and we could probably say good idea, but this is something whereby lawyers who practice in this field are going to see a real opportunity to shut something off, and I think there are plenty of people who are desirous of doing something like that. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I retain the remainder of our time.

Parliamentary inquiry as to whether this could be a voice vote so we can move on. We have a number of amendments. I inquire as to that issue. I will suggest the absence of a quorum to sort this issue through. We might be able to save the body some time. I wish to speak with people about it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am the senior Senator from Kansas to Senator Roberts. I wanted to acknowledge that on the floor.

I was called the junior Senator from Kansas.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate that greatly. I always need to watch my junior Senator and make sure he is in his place.

Mr. President, I note, properly, my junior Senator is the dean of the Kansas delegation, even if he is the junior Senator.

I rise in support of the Craig amendment. I wish to make comments that I think are pertinent and germane to the farm bill because I believe this admendment is pertinent and germane to the farm bill. I know colleagues are looking at this amendment saying it is a private property rights issue, it belongs in the Judiciary Committee and this is an issue we should track through that committee. This is an issue involving agricultural lands, which I think is wholly appropriate for the farm bill.

Also, private property issues are so key and central to farming in the United States. It is in many places dominantly private property issues. In the West, there are a lot of public lands and agricultural use in public lands areas. But private rights dominates throughout the agricultural system of our country. There was a shock sent out with the Kelo case when the Court said you now don't have to have this justification of a public use for private property to be taken and can condemn it.

Many were shocked on all sides of the aisle--right, left, middle, people in urban areas, people in rural areas. I wish to say specifically people from rural areas were particularly struck by this decision because they all feel an

attack frequently from people in governmental entities to take lands for power lines, parks, land that should go back to them in some cases, if it is a railroad line that has been abandoned and the deed said the land will revert to the farmland owner and then it is taken for a trail. People are saying wait a minute, I thought we had private property rights, basic in our constitution, basic in our philosophy, basic to agriculture.

This is a narrow issue to get at the Kelo decision. It is well crafted by the Senator from Idaho to support those private property rights. The amendment will deter States and local governments from taking working agricultural land against the will of the landowner only to designate that same land as open space. Here I think you can look at that and say, well, obviously, that is something we should protect, that private property right. If there is to be eminent domain, it has to be listed on a public purpose, like we have had eminent domain laws for some period of time now, and not just taking it to keep an open space. If that is to take place, there needs to be a different set and a different system rather than what is being allowed or expanded after Kelo by local or State units of government.

This narrows the decision of Kelo back to what it was prior to Kelo-- a protection of private property rights. I think that is important. I think it is a key issue and one that is a top priority to agriculture and landowners. Indeed, the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation said after Kelo:

No one's home or farm and ranch land is safe from

government seizure because of this ruling.

Well, let's make sure their land is safe. We can do that, and this is an amendment that helps to do that. I think it is an important amendment to help to do that. If you voted in support of private property rights, I would hope you would support the Craig amendment, whichever side of the aisle you are on, and say there is an appropriate way and there is an inappropriate way and the appropriate way to make sure you have eminent domain is for a public purpose and not just taking agricultural lands to maintain open spaces and reducing the value of that land or its workability as agriculture.

This is an important, good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back to the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on the Grassley amendment. I am certainly willing to yield to the Senator from Iowa, if he wants to have his colleague from Wisconsin speak right with him or if he wants to go afterwards.

Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the Grassley amendment. I appreciate the heart of the Senator from Iowa, and his intent. He has been consistent. He has been longstanding and heartfelt on this issue. I have been in the meetings he has called with the head of packing and stockyard compensation about concerns of concentration in the agricultural industry. I have seen him press on this issue. I agree with his heart on this amendment and his effort and his desire.

I absolutely disagree with this amendment. I agree with the sentiment, what he is trying to get done. This is not the way. I would like to express to this body what I believe, clearly, will take place in my State were this amendment to pass.

The cattle industry is a major industry in my State. We are third in the number of cattle on ranches and feed yards--6.4 million. There are more than twice as many cattle than people in my State. It is big business. It is a feed yard business where a lot of cattle from all over the country come to be fed out and processed. It is a very big business. It is $6.25 billion in cash receipts a year in my State, my rural State.

This is a business where there are a lot of contractual engagements and obligations back and forth. A man may have cattle from Alabama, and he puts them on a feed yard near Dodge City, KS. The processing plant is near Dodge City and the feed yard may have a contractual arrangement with the processor, saying: I am going to deliver you a thousand head of cattle a day for every working day. That keeps your processing plant orderly and organized. In exchange for that, I am going to get a higher value of cattle that he then passes on to that Alabama cattleman who owns the cattle there.

It is an arrangement that has worked to produce a very highly effective system. Some people do not like the scale of it. In many respects I do not. I would rather it be dispersed to a huge number of family farms across the country the way it used to be, like the farm where I grew up where we had chickens and pigs and cattle. Instead, we have much more integrated operating units. But this would go right at the heart of this industry, as far as changing the burden of proof and changing it on one specific industry. It will not have the intended effect of recreating the family farm system. That is not what is going to be the spill-out of this.

What will end up taking place is the Alabama cattleman is going to end up getting less money for his cattle, and the consumer is going to get less of a directed product they want. I want to develop that for the body, to explain why I like the heart of the people proposing this, but this will not produce the results they want.

The amendment creates an Agricultural Competition Task Force with the stated purpose to examine problems in agricultural competition. The task force has virtually unlimited authority to investigate transactions and business arrangements in the livestock industry--read special counsel for agriculture. It puts in several millions of dollars in that area. The task force is unaccountable to anyone. It is not required to hold public meetings nor abide by the Administrative Procedure Act nor acquire evidence from all parties. Under this amendment, the livestock industry and entire agricultural industry could be subject to limitless reviews of transactions.

I think the biggest piece I have concern about--and I have concerns about

this as a lawyer, and as an agricultural lawyer I have concerns about this. This is the area that I taught in. This is the area I have written in. I have written on the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is an important piece of legislation that this Government passed in the 1920s, when we had a very diffuse agriculture with a very monopolistic packing industry. We said this is not fair, so we are creating the Packers and Stockyards Act to oversee this structure. That is what they have been charged with doing.

In this particular amendment they would shift the burden of proof in the justice system and say this is a guilty transaction, monopolistic in nature, and then you prove your way out of it. To support that, I want to quote from the Department of Justice letter they wrote on the particular provisions. I understand my colleague from Iowa has changed some of the provisions but not this piece of it.

This would change the standards of certain mergers, acquisitions, and actions under the Clayton Act. That is the base bill. In particular, in all agricultural merger cases brought by the Government, Federal and State, and all private cases where the merging parties' combined market share is 20 percent or more--this is the DOJ letter--it puts the burden of proof on the defendant to show the transaction would not substantially impact or lessen competition or tend to create problems in the marketplace.

I am paraphrasing monopoly in the marketplace at the end.

The current setting is, no, we have to prove that against the individual or the group. To date, the Federal antitrust laws apply unaltered to mergers across virtually all industries, with the overriding objective to protect competition to the benefit of consumers because the Department has not been prevented from challenging anticompetitive mergers. They can challenge, and do now, in agriculture under the current legal standards. Shifting the burden of proof is unnecessary. This is a big deal, to shift the burden of proof on one particular industry, and then also to put in industry-specific guidelines.

Let me tell you what is taking place now. I described the situation of an Alabama cattle producer who puts cattle on feed in Kansas, who gets more money for his cattle because they are on feed there and because that feed yard guarantees a certain flow of cattle. If you put this in place, it has lawyers paid for by the Government to go out and examine any contract that is taking place. It can go, pick a feed yard, a Kansas feed yard, and it can go out and say: You have a contractual arrangement with this packer, and we are going to examine that.

Now, you pay for lawyers to say this is not a noncompetitive transaction--and they are going to have to hire lawyers to do that. They are going to end up having a big legal bill on a shifted burden, where the guilt is assumed, not innocence is assumed. It is going to be different from any other industry around. You are going to then have people driving down the price of the commodity. And you have a number of groups that are in these innovative market mechanisms. I described one earlier, a group of people at the Knight Feedyard that have certified hormone-free, antibiotic-free beef. It is a group of producers. They formed an association. They go to a big packer and say: Will you process our cattle and deliver it to the shelves in Connecticut and New York as hormone-free, additive-free, antibiotic- free beef? The packer agrees to do so. That is a contractual arrangement that will be subject to investigation, that will be presumed guilty under this.

My Kansas producers, under this innovative marketing approach that they initiated, get a substantial benefit by being able to market this sort of product that the consumer wants, and they have to go to a major packer to do it because he is the person--that is the group that can process cattle and get it to the shelf in a good quality state.

But my guys are the ones who get the money out of the system. They will be presumed guilty. It will be presumed to violate this. It will be subject to a great deal of legal investigation taking place, and my belief is it will not happen. Then my producers get less money for their cattle, and the consumers do not get the product they want. This is a specialty product that people want. It costs more to produce this type of beef and the consumer is not going to get that product and my cattlemen are going to get less money for their product.

I appreciate the heart of the proposal. What it is going to end up doing is getting less money to cattlemen in particular. I can't speak for other agricultural or livestock industries as well as I can for business that is in my State. The National Cattleman's Beef Association is strongly opposed to this amendment. The Department of Justice is opposed to this amendment for reasons of shifting standards for one industry but not for any others; for having different standards for that industry. The cattlemen believe it is going to hurt them substantially, subject them to a number of legal costs that they do not currently have and that they cannot afford to deal with. It is going to hurt the consumer as well.

While I appreciate the intent, I appreciate the presentation of it-- my family farms. My brother is a farmer. This is not going to take us in the right direction. I believe the route to go is what we have been doing in the Packers and Stockyards Administration and having industry standards that are similar across all industries, and that we should support the Packers and Stockyards Administration, support the laws that are there, fund those entities--which I support doing--maintaining those standards but allowing these innovative approaches to take place for a major industry in my State and for my producers and cattle producers across the country.

I know others want to speak on this issue. I may speak on it again in a while.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to the good Senator from Iowa and a couple of his comments about the amendment. But first I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record after my statement a letter from the Department of Justice opposing the bill.

Mr. President, we just received this from the Department of Justice. They state in the first paragraph:

The Department of Justice strongly opposes the amendment.

To read their summation sentence, which I do not think is fair, given the detail and the work the Senator from Iowa has gone into on this, and substantial changes that he has made--we have been reviewing his amendment. I have the amendment.

But in the DOJ summary sentence, they state this:

However, DOJ believes certain provisions included in the

amendment would not accomplish its stated goal of protecting

rural communities and family farms and ranches, but instead

would unnecessarily duplicate

existing collaboration efforts, increase costs and

uncertainty and may hinder effective antitrust enforcement

and harm competition in agriculture and other industries.

Therefore DOJ strongly opposes the amendment.

Then they go on further to develop the points they have here. As I said, I appreciate the modifications the Senator from Iowa has made. I can tell you in my State, and in the cattle industry, they view this as hurting the price that they are going to be able to get for cattle is the bottom line issue. They view this as driving up substantially their legal costs, and most farmers do not like to have any legal costs, let alone having a number of legal costs.

They believe this is going to do it, and that is not--that is coming from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, it is coming from the Kansas Livestock Association, where I was a couple of weeks ago at their annual meeting. This was one of their lead concerns, and the reason it was one of their lead concerns is they are looking at that and saying: Look, we are going into a number of different marketing transactions now, and we feed cattle for a lot of people around the country.

My guess is a fair number of Iowa's cattle are on feed in my State in Kansas, and that that is taking place is a good thing. We invite more farms to come there because of the efficiency, of our feeding operations, because of the weather conditions for those, because of the packers that are located there, and the efficiency of being able to do that, and then of these innovative marketing arrangements so that they can get a premium price for Angus cattle that come out of Iowa or Alabama or California or somewhere else. They are able to get a premium price for those because they do special things. They say we are going to keep these Angus fed separately here, and we are going to track them through the whole system. Then we are going to make sure they are hormone free, if that is what the group wants, or we are going to do something else to have premium beef that is going to be marketed only in certain high-end restaurants.

All of that segments the marketplace, but those segmented marketplaces are through contractual arrangements, and they get a premium to the producer that will be under investigation with this. That is why DOJ opposes it. That is why the Kansas Livestock Association, when I was meeting with them, was very fearful of this.

I appreciate some of the changes that were made and were noted here. The base concerns remain what was stated here by the Department of Justice and by the Kansas livestock producers.

Now, different people look at this different ways. A lot of us are deeply concerned, and have been for some time, about the concentration that has taken place in the agriculture business. How do you go at it differently? I spent 6 years as agriculture secretary in Kansas, and many times was trying to come up with innovative, different market segments, whether we could do it on a small scale, farmers' markets, and getting products closer to consumers, whether we can do different products which are coming out now.

We are a big cotton producer in Kansas, looking at canola oil--some of it got going; some of it did not--or confection of sunflower seeds which are under contract, I might point out as well.

So we went through a period we are not making enough money off of the commodity-based business, and we have got to segment this. But when you segment it, that generally requires some sort of identity being preserved and some sort of contractual relationship. And, yes, you get a benefit for that, you get paid more than someone who just has a commodity product.

Well, now, if you say: You cannot do that, or if you do that, we are going to presume you are guilty and you are going to have to pay a lawyer to fight your way out of it. With all due respect to the people whose intent is pure on this, this is going to hurt producers in my State.

That is why many of them--not all, some--support this approach, but many would be strongly opposed to this, as the Department of Justice is.

I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington. DC, December 13, 2007.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice (DOJ) has

reviewed Senate Amendment 3823 to H.R. 2419. DOJ works

vigorously to ensure that the benefits of competition are

maintained in all markets, including agricultural markets, to

the benefit of American consumers. However, DOJ believes that

certain provisions included in the amendment would not

accomplish its stated goal of protecting rural communities

and family farms and ranches, but instead would unnecessarily

duplicate existing collaboration efforts, increase costs and

uncertainty, and may hinder effective antitrust enforcement

and harm competition in agriculture and other industries.

Therefore, DOJ strongly opposes the Amendment.

Senate Amendment 3823 to H.R. 2419 calls on DOJ and the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue agriculture merger

guidelines. To date, the Federal antitrust laws apply

unaltered to mergers across virtually all industries, with

the overriding objective to protect competition to the

benefit of consumers. As such, there is no need for any

industry-specific merger guidelines. The Horizontal Merger

Guidelines (Guidelines) issued by the DOJ and FTC apply

consistently to mergers across the entire economy, and no

need has been demonstrated to depart from that generally

applicable approach. DOJ has not been prevented from

challenging anti competitive mergers in agriculture under the

current legal standards. To the extent that there is a

suggestion that monopsony is a problem particularly

significant to agriculture, the guidelines address monopsony

and thus no industry specific guideline is warranted for that

concern.

DOJ believes that current merger policy is sufficiently

flexible to address market conditions that may be unique to

agricultural markets. For example, DOJ and FTC recently

issued a Commentary to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines

(2006), which provides several examples of how agricultural

matters are reviewed. This commentary, DOJ's merger

challenges in matters such as General Mills/Pillsbury (2001),

Archer-Daniels-Midland/Minnesota Corn Processors (2002),

Syngenta/Advanta (2004). and Monsanto/DPt (2007), competitive

impact statements issued as part of those challenges, and the

closing statements DOJ has issued for certain agricultural

matters, demonstrate that merger policy under the Guidelines

is effective at protecting consumers and maintaining

competition in agriculture industries. Changing the well-

established policy is not necessary and could deter

efficiency enhancing transactions that would benefit

consumers by resulting in lower prices.

Subsection (c) of Senate Amendment 3823 creates an

Agriculture Competition Task Force (Task Force), made up of

representatives from DOJ, FTC, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), State governments and attorneys general,

small and independent farming interests, and academics or

other experts. The Task Force is charged with devoting

additional resources focused solely on agriculture industries

to study competition issues, coordinate Federal and State

activities to address ``unfair and deceptive practices'' and

concentration, and work with representatives from rural

communities to ``identify abusive practices.'' In addition,

the Task Force shall report on the state of family farmers

and ranchers. DOJ believes such a task force would at best

duplicate existing enforcement activities, and at worst could

impede existing coordination between DOJ, USDA, and state

governments by creating a bureaucratic structure that would

increase the cost to the American taxpayer without any

benefit to competition or independent farmers. Furthermore,

to the extent the amendment requires consideration of the

effects on ``rural communities'' there is no clear

explanation regarding how this factor should be considered,

and such consideration could be inconsistent with overall

antitrust objectives.

Subsection (e) of this amendment requires notification to

the USDA of Hart Scott Rodino (HSR) filings with the FTC and

DOJ as well as the sharing with the Secretary of Agriculture

of any second request materials obtained under such merger

reviews. Under this section, USDA may submit and publish

comments on whether mergers ``present significant competition

and buyer power concerns,'' such that further review by DOJ

or the FTC is warranted. Congress provided essential

confidentiality for HSR filings and for productions of

documents under that process, and no need has been shown to

change that important protection. Through the existing

Memorandum of Understanding between DOJ, the FTC and USDA,

the antitrust agencies seek expertise and information from

USDA on agriculture matters, and as part of that cooperative

relationship, USDA expresses its views regarding antitrust

merger enforcement matters, and thus no need for radical

change has been shown. In addition, concurrent jurisdiction

likely would increase costs and time delays inherent in

duplicative review and has the potential for inconsistent

standards and outcomes.

DOJ shares the concern of the amendment's sponsors that

agriculture, as a key part of our economy, should maintain

its competitive nature so that producers and consumers alike

benefit from adequate supply and choice of agricultural

products at competitive prices. Moreover, we take seriously

concerns expressed in the agriculture community about

competitiveness in the agriculture sector. However, because

Senate

Amendment 3823 has several provisions that raise concerns for

DOJ, both about unintended consequences as well as about

competition and public policy, DOJ strongly opposes these

provisions.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on this

proposed legislation. The Office of Management and Budget has

advised us that there is no objection to this letter from the

perspective of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Benczkowski,

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

If my colleague will yield, my letter is dated today, December 13. It is a subsequent letter to the letter the Senator is quoting from.

It is on the amendment.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from Iowa, if this is voted on, will this require a 60-vote threshold?

Mr. President, I wish today to applaud my alma mater, Kansas State University, and three of its students. Recently, three Kansas State University students and a student from the University of Delaware teamed up to win first place in a student case study competition at the ninth annual International Leadership Association conference in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Members of the winning team from Kansas State were Chance Lee, senior in sociology and political science with a minor in leadership studies, Manhattan, KS; Lauren Luhrs, senior in human ecology and mass communications-public relations with minors in leadership studies and business, Overland Park, KS; and Anthony Carter, senior in sociology with a minor in nonprofit leadership, Colorado Springs, CO.

The Leadership Studies Minor at Kansas State University has been a tremendous success. The mission of the Leadership Studies at Kansas State University is to develop knowledgeable, ethical, caring, inclusive leaders for a diverse and changing world. Mr. President, this program is doing just that. I am proud of this program, my alma matter, and the three students who represented Kansas State University so well.

In the competition participating teams were given a 23-page document from the Harvard Business School which detailed specifics for leadership development at Goldman Sachs. The document provided key details for the case study, including the purpose of the leadership development program to be created. It also gave six factors that were essential in the design of the program: form and location, faculty, content and format, method, target audience, and governance and sponsorship.

I again congratulate these three students for their success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a recent enormous scientific breakthrough on a topic that has engaged this body for much of the past 8 years. I think this is a day that many of us--I think perhaps all of us--have hoped would take place. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record at the end of my remarks an article that broke lose right around Thanksgiving.

Mr. President, this article is by Dr. James Thomson, University of Wisconsin. Some may recognize that name. His name has been used on this floor many times during the past 8 years on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. He is the man who discovered human embryonic stem cells about 10 years ago and described them as being what is called pluripotent, which means that an embryonic stem cell could form any other type of cell tissue in the body, whether it is for the eye, brain, bone, or skin. Any type of cell tissue could regenerate on a fast basis, and it was thought that these sorts of pluripotent embryonic stem cells were going to solve a number of our human health problems. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle embraced the news and said this is a fabulous thing and we are going to be able to now cure a number of people from diseases who have had great problems and difficulties, and we want cures for them.

There was an ethical glitch with it in that it took the destruction of a human embryo to get these human embryonic stem cells, and therein ensued a fight that engaged the country and engaged the world about the tension between cures and an ethical recognition of human life and the sacredness of human life. It has been a long debate. I am hopeful that the article I submitted into the Record is the bookend on the other end of this debate that was started by Professor Thomson and that, in many respects, I hope is ended by Professor Thompson and his colleagues.

In this article they describe a new type of pluripotent stem cell that is manipulated by man. They call it an induced pluripotent stem cell. This is an elegant and simple process where they take a skin cell from an individual and they reprogram it to be able to act like an embryonic stem cell, or what they call an induced pluripotent stem cell. They then are able to get it to generate more embryonic-like stem cells that are pluripotent and which then can be used to treat diseases or to study diseases, thus removing the need to develop and have a human embryo destroyed, or the origination of the embryonic stem cells, thus removing the problem of not being able to get a genetic match so that we have to go to a cloned embryonic stem cell, or a cloned human to create an embryonic stem cell that matches genetically. You don't have to do that. Get a person's skin cells, reprogram them, back in, pluripotent, to form any type of cell--elegant, simple.

There are still many barriers to go on embryonic-like stem cells anyway because they have had a problem with tumor formation. But on the ethical issue, I am hopeful we are on the other bookend, and it is now over; that we don't need to destroy young human life for cures; that we don't need to destroy them for pluripotent cells; that we can do it much simpler and ethically and that good ethics is good science.

I put a description up here of what Dr. Thomson said on this subject. There was a University of Tokyo professor who came out with an article the same day, using a slightly different or modified technique, to be able to do this in humans. The University of Tokyo professor had done this earlier in mice and now has perfected it in human cells. He came out saying the same thing:

These induced pluripotent cells described here meet the

defining criteria we originally proposed for human ES cells,

with the significant exception that the induced pluripotent

cells are not derived from embryos.

That was Dr. James Thomson.

I want to speak about this to my colleagues because we have had so many debates on the Senate floor about this topic. I hope my colleagues will research this. A number of people in the scientific field are saying: Great, but let's not stop embryonic stem cell work and destroying embryos for research purposes. Or let's not stop human cloning because it appears now that the only reason to clone a human would be to bring a human to live birth at this point in time, which still has everybody in this body opposed to that type of human cloning.

It is noteworthy that the ``father'' of Dolly the sheep has said he has given up on human cloning to go to this type of technique rather than human cloning to provide these sorts of cures and research.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at the end of my comments a Telegraph article from the United Kingdom in which Ian Wilmut announced he is shunning human cloning.

Mr. President, it is my hope that we can move together in finding cures and developing research that cures humans that is ethical and sound and doesn't destroy young human life.

We have been able to do quite a bit of this already. We recently found there was scientific work done by a Northwestern University professor in developing cures and treatments for type I diabetes using stem cells. Again, this is adult stem cells, which is ethical and moral, no problem with it. The only problem I found with it is that the Northwestern professor was having to do this in Brazil rather than in the United States to get support and funding. He is saying this:

Though too early to call it a cure, the procedure has

enabled the young people, who have type I diabetes, to live

insulin-free so

far, some as long as 3 years. The treatment involves stem

cell transplants from the patient's own blood.

For parents who are dealing with juvenile diabetes and those difficulties, this is fabulous news in humans. We need more of it, and we need it to take place in the United States and not Brazil. Nothing against Brazil. I am glad for it to take place there, but I want it here for our children. We now have--as I have said previously on the floor--73 different human applications for adult stem cells. We have not been able to come up with any in the embryonic field yet. I think a bigger number--and we will verify this for my colleagues, as it is not verified yet--is somewhere north of 400,000 people who are now being treated with adult or cord blood stem cells in the United States and different places around the world, the majority being U.S. citizens. Of course, we don't have any in the embryonic field because it continues to struggle with tumor formation as an issue. These are wonderful numbers of treatments that we are getting in different human maladies and, hopefully, we can verify that number of 400,000 people being treated with stem cells, getting heart tissue and spinal cord tissue to regenerate, and Parkinson's treatment is coming forward. This is a beautiful set of treatments--all ethical.

I want to look at the budgetary numbers briefly to remind my colleagues where we have invested taxpayer funding in this field. It is my hope that as we look at the numbers--we have an ethical issue on human embryonic stem cell research, and I believe we have crossed over the line. I hope we can continue to look at our funding issues, where we are putting a lot of money, and have put a lot of money, into embryonic stem cell research. We are looking at $140 million in fiscal year 2006 and over half a billion since 2002 in embryonic stem cell research of both human and nonhuman types. We have not cured a single patient yet with that money.

May I submit to my colleagues that with over half a billion dollars, we could be treating and developing these cures in the United States and not in Brazil.

In trying to set aside all of the sharp edges that have now been associated with this debate, and focusing just on patients and treating people, I hope we will say we are all in this for cures, for treating people. So if I could take portions of these funds and put it into treating people and getting more people treated for Parkinson's, congestive heart failure, or diabetes--all the things that we are actually doing in humans today but that need more research in funding-- that we would say: OK, you are right. We don't have to go the embryonic stem cell route now. Let's go to where people are getting treated and treat people.

This is about curing people. That is what we have debated and talked about for some period of time, curing people. We have one that is working and one that doesn't. Yet we have invested pretty heavily in this.

I ask my colleagues if there is some way that we could put the swords down and talk about this rationally, stop the fighting and say how do we treat people. I believe that is our objective.

With that, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence in this debate. It will continue to come up. The next issue will be human animal crosses. I advise my colleagues on this, you will see people pushing to cross genetic materials from animals into humans. They are going to say it is going to cure a lot of people. I think it is an enormous ethical boundary that we should not cross at this point in time, with our understanding of life and what it is to be human. I hope before we go that route, we will all get together and say we are going to pause for a while on this one. This is too big for all of us, and we want to think about this for a while--left, right, middle. We have a ways to go to get some cures. We are getting them. We don't need to cross over to that. We can think about that.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells

Somatic cell nuclear transfer allows trans-acting factors

present in the mammalian oocyte to reprogram somatic cell

nuclei to an undifferentiated state. Here we show that four

factors (OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28) are sufficient to

reprogram human somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells that

exhibit the essential characteristics of embryonic stem

cells. These human induced pluripotent stem cells have normal

karyotypes, express telomerase activity, express cell surface

markers and genes that characterize human ES cells, and

maintain the developmental potential to differentiate into

advanced derivatives of all three primary germ layers. Such

human induced pluripotent cell lines should be useful in the

production of new disease models and in drug development as

well as application in transplantation medicine once

technical limitations (for example, mutation through viral

integration) are eliminated.

Mammalian embryogenesis elaborates distinct developmental

stages in a strict temporal order. Nonetheless, because

development is dictated by epigenetic rather than genetic

events, differentiation is, in principle, reversible. The

cloning of Dolly demonstrated that nuclei from mammalian

differentiated cells can be reprogrammed to an

undifferentiated state by trans-acting factors present in the

oocyte (1), and this discovery led to a search for factors

that could mediate similar reprogramming without somatic cell

nuclear transfer. Recently. four transcription factors (Oct4,

Sox2, c-myc, and Klf4) were shown to be sufficient to

reprogram mouse fibroblasts to undifferentiated, pluripotent

stem cells (termed induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells) (2-

5). Reprogramming human cells by defined factors would allow

the generation of patient-specific pluripotent cell lines

without somatic cell nuclear transfer, but the observation

that the expression of c-Myc causes death and differentiation

of human ES cells suggests that combinations of factors

lacking this gene are required to reprogram human cells (6).

Here we demonstrate that OCT4, S0X2, NANOG, and LIN28 are

sufficient to reprogram human somatic cells.

Human ES cells can reprogram myeloid precursors through

cell fusion (7). To identify candidate reprogramming factors,

we compiled a list of genes with enriched expression in human

ES cells relative to myeloid precursors, and prioritized the

list based on known involvement in the establishment or

maintenance of pluripotency (table S1). We then cloned these

genes into a lentiviral vector (fig. S1) to screen for

combinations of genes that could reprogram the differentiated

derivatives of an OCT4 knock-in human ES cell line generated

through homologous recombination (8). In this cell line, the

expression of neomycin phosphotransferase, which make cells

resistant to geneticin, is driven by an endogenous OCT4

promoter, a gene that is highly expressed in pluripotent

cells but not in differentiated cells. Thus reprogramming

events reactivating the OCT4 promoter can be recovered by

geneticin selection. The first combination of 14 genes we

selected (table S2) directed reprogramming of adherent cells

derived from human ES cell-derived CD45+ hematopoietic cells

(7, 9), to geneticin-resistant (OCT4 positive) colonies with

an ES cell-morphology (fig. S2A) (10). These geneticin-

resistant colonies expressed typical human ES cell-specific

cell surface markers (fig. S2B) and formed teratomas when

injected into immunocompromised SCID-beige mice (fig. S2C).

By testing subsets of the 14 initial genes. we identified a

core set of 4 genes, OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28, that were

capable of reprogramming human ES cell-derived somatic cells

with a mesenchymal phenotype (Fig. 1A and fig. S3). Removal

of either OCT4 or SOX2 from the reprogramming mixture

eliminated the appearance of geneticin resistant (OCT4

positive) reprogrammed mesenchymal clones (Fig. 1A). NANOG

showed a beneficial effect in clone recovery from human ES

cell-derived mesenchymal cells but was not required for the

initial appearance of such clones (Fig. 1A). These results

are consistent with cell fusion-mediated reprogramming

experiments, where overexpression of Nanog in mouse ES

cells resulted in over a 200-fold increase in

reprogramming efficiency (11). The expression of NANOG

also improves the cloning efficiency of human ES cells

(12). and thus could increase the survival rate of early

reprogrammed cells. LIN28 had a consistent but more modest

effect on reprogrammed mesenchymal cell clone recovery

(Fig. 1A).

We next tested whether OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28 are

sufficient to reprogram primary, genetically unmodified,

diploid human fibroblasts. We initially chose IMR90 fetal

fibroblasts because these diploid human cells are being

extensively characterized by the ENCODE Consortium (13), are

readily available through the American Type Culture

Collection (ATCC, Catalog No. CCL-186) and have published DNA

fingerprints that allow confirmation of the origin of

reprogrammed clones. IMR90 cells also proliferate robustly

for more than 20 passages before undergoing senescence but

grow slowly in human ES cell culture conditions, a difference

that provides a proliferative advantage to reprogrammed

clones and aids in their selection by morphological criteria

(compact colonies, high nucleus to cytoplasm ratios, and

prominent nucleoli) alone (14, 15). IMR90 cells were

transduced with a combination of OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and

LIN28. Colonies with a human ES cell morphology (iPS

colonies) first became visible after 12 days

posttransduction. On day 20, a total of 198 iPS colonies were

visible from 0.9 million starting IMR90 cells whereas no iPS

colonies were observed in non-

transduced controls. Forty-one iPS colonies were picked, 35

of which were successfully expanded for an additional three

weeks. Four clones (iPS(IMR90)1-4) with minimal

differentiation were selected for continued expansion and

detailed analysis.

Each of the four iPS(IMR90) clones had a typical human ES

cell morphology (Fig. 1B) and a normal karyotype at both 6

and 17 weeks of culture (Fig. 2A). Each iPS(IMR90) clone

expressed telomerase activity (Fig. 2B) and the human ES

cell-specific cell surface antigens SSEA-3, SSEA-4, Tra-1-60

and Tra-1-81 (Fig. 2C) whereas the parental IMR90 cells did

not. Microarray analyses of gene expression of the four

iPS(IMR90) clones confirmed a similarity to five human ES

cell lines (H1, H7, H9, H13 and H14) and a dissimilarity to

IMR90 cells (Fig. 3, table S3, and fig. S4). Although there

was some variation in gene expression between different

iPS(IMR90) clones (fig. S5), the variation was actually less

than that between different human ES cell lines (Fig. 3A and

table S3). For each of the iPS(IMR90) clones, the expression

of the endogenous OCT4 and NANOG was at levels similar to

that of human ES cells, but the exogenous expression of these

genes varied between clones and between genes (Fig. 3B). For

OCT4, some expression from the transgene was detectable in

all of the clones, but for NANOG, most of the clones

demonstrated minimal exogenous expression, suggesting

silencing of the transgene during reprogramming. Analyses

of the methylation status of the OCT4 promoter showed

differential methylation between human ES cells and IMR90

cells (fig. S6). All four iPS(IMR90) clones exhibited a

demethylation pattern similar to that of human ES cells

and distinct from the parental IMR90 cells. Both embryoid

body (fig. S7) and teratoma formation (Fig. 4)

demonstrated that all four of the reprogrammed iPS(IMR90)

clones had the developmental potential to give rise to

differentiated derivatives of all three primary germ

layers. DNA fingerprinting analyses (short tandem repeat-

STR) confirmed that these iPS clones were derived from

IMR90 cells and confirmed that they were not from the

human ES cell lines we have in the laboratory (table S4).

The STR analysis published on the ATCC website for IMR90

cells employed the same primer sets and confirms the

identity of the IMR90 cells used for these experiments.

The iPS(IMR90) clones were passaged at the same ratio

(1:6) and frequency (every 5 days) as human ES cells, had

doubling times similar to that of the human H1 ES cell

line assessed under the same conditions (table S5), and as

of this writing, have been in continuous culture for 22

weeks with no observed period of replicative crisis.

Starting with an initial 4 wells of a 6-well plate of iPS

cells (one clone/well, approximately 1 million cells),

after 4 weeks of additional culture, 40 total 10-cm dishes

(representing approximately 350 million cells) of the 4

iPS(IMR90) clones were cryopreserved and confirmed to have

normal karyotypes.

Since IMR90 cells are of fetal origin, we next examined

reprogramming of postnatal fibroblasts. Human newborn

foreskin fibroblasts (ATCC, Catalog No. CRL-2097) were

transduced with OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28. From 0.6

million foreskin fibroblasts, we obtained 57 iPS colonies. No

iPS colonies were observed in non-transduced controls.

Twenty-seven out of 29 picked colonies were successfully

expanded for three passages, four of which (iPS(foreskin)-l

to 4) were selected for continued expansion and analyses. DNA

fingerprinting of the iPS(foreskin) clones matched the

fingerprints for the parental fibroblast cell line published

on the ATCC website (table S4).

Each of the four iPS(foreskin) clones had a human ES cell

morphology (fig. S8A), had a normal karyotype (fig. S8B), and

expressed telomerase, cell surface markers, and genes

characteristic of human ES cells (Figs. 2 and 3 and fig. S5).

Each of the four iPS(foreskin) clones proliferated robustly,

and as of this writing, have been in continuous culture for

14 weeks. Each clone demonstrated multilineage

differentiation both in embryoid bodies and teratomas (figs.

S9 and S10); however, unlike the iPS(IMR90) clones, there was

variation between the clones in the lineages apparent in

teratomas examined at 5 weeks. In particular, neural

differentiation was common in teratomas from iPS(foreskin)

clones 1 and 2 (fig. S9A), but was largely absent in

teratomas from iPS(foreskin) clones 3 and 4. Instead,

there were multiple foci of columnar epithelial cells

reminiscent of primitive ectoderm (fig. S9D). This is

consistent with the embryoid body data (fig. Sl0), where

the increase in PAX6 (a neural marker) in iPS(foreskin)

clones 3 and 4 was minimal compared to the other clones, a

difference that correlated with a failure to downregulate

NANOG and OCT4. A possible explanation for these

differences is that specific integration sites in these

clones allowed continued high expression of the lentiviral

transgenes, partially blocking differentiation.

PCR for the four transgenes revealed that OCT4, SOX2, and

NANOG were integrated into all four of the iPS(IMR90) clones

and all four of the iPS(foreskin) clones, but that LIN28 was

absent from one iPS(IMR90) clone (#4) and from one

iPS(foreskin) clone (#1) (Fig. 2D). Thus, although LIN28 can

influence the frequency of reprogramming (Fig. 1A), these

results confirm that it is not absolutely required for the

initial reprogramming, nor is it subsequently required for

the stable expansion of reprogrammed cells.

The human iPS cells described here meet the defining

criteria we originally proposed for human ES cells (14), with

the significant exception that the iPS cells are not derived

from embryos. Similar to human ES cells, human iPS cells

should prove useful for studying the development and function

of human tissues, for discovering and testing new drugs, and

for transplantation medicine. For transplantation therapies

based on these cells, with the exception of autoimmune

diseases, patient-specific iPS cell lines should largely

eliminate the concern of immune rejection. It is important to

understand, however, that before the cells can be used in the

clinic, additional work is required to avoid vectors that

integrate into the genome, potentially introducing mutations

at the insertion site. For drug development, human iPS cells

should make it easier to generate panels of cell lines that

more closely reflect the genetic diversity of a population,

and should make it possible to generate cell lines from

individuals predisposed to specific diseases. Human ES cells

remain controversial because their derivation involves the

destruction of human preimplantation embryos and iPS cells

remove this concern. However, further work is needed to

determine if human iPS cells differ in clinically significant

ways from ES cells.

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

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

Mr. President, I believe we have 4 minutes remaining, if I may inquire of the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for a total of 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I will try to be brief and to the point, if I cannot be eloquent. I want to talk about the Iraq situation.

A number of Senators have spoken about that this morning. They are looking at the progress that is taking place with the surge. I had great question about the surge at the outset. I questioned whether this was the right route to go. Yet I have to say my concerns were proven wrong.

Look at the numbers: U.S. deaths are down more than 50 percent since June. Iraqi deaths are down more than 50 percent since August. Sectarian violence is down dramatically. Areas of Baghdad are opening. October saw the fewest roadside bomb instances since September of 2005. Mortar rocket attacks are at their lowest level since February 2006. Nobody would say it is over, we have won, but they would say these are very positive events that have taken place.

The area we have to emphasize now is the political solution to capture the moment of getting more stability on the ground in Iraq. For some time Senator Biden and I have pushed a federalism approach that this body endorsed by 70 votes. Now is the time for us to push much more aggressively on this political solution. We are seeing this already taking hold in the Kurdish region which has had a head start. Under Saddam Hussein, the Kurds were protected by our air power in the north. They have stabilized a government and have been operating basically that region. We now have Anbar stabilizing, the Anbar awakening. But they are not particularly interested in the federalism solution because they don't have oil. So what we have to have take place at the national level in Iraq is an oil law that distributes oil on a per capita basis around the country, not in regions, so federalism roots can take hold--not one Iraq but several regions and not necessarily on a sectarian basis.

Several Iraqis I have met with are saying they believe in federalism. They think it is the route to go. But they say: Don't say we are a Sunni region here or a Shia region there. These are going to be multisect regions so we can get together on a regional basis and not on a division basis around the country. This is a very promising route to go, but we need a political surge to take place in Iraq. We need to put emphasis on a political surge to capitalize on the stabilizing situation that is taking place on the ground.

We need a diplomatic surge. We need to push the Iraqis to get oil laws and debaathification taking place on a national level. We should prioritize local and provincial elections and encourage Iraq to devolve power from Baghdad. We should provide additional humanitarian assistance for those Iraqis who fled sectarian violence and relocated to other areas, or they are coming back. Some people are not coming back to areas because there is no housing left; it got blown up in all the violence that took place. Instead of pretending that nothing has changed, our debate needs to reflect the reality on the ground, that the security situation is much better, that we have a real moment here. The reality is that security has improved. The reality is that centralizing power in Baghdad is not the route to go. Creating federal regions provides a chance for that success to be captured and moved forward.

I question what came out of the Joint Economic Committee on the funding of the war. I am ranking Republican on that committee. That was not a committee report. I believe there are significant problems with how that funding level was arrived at. I don't think that was accurate. I don't think it was a positive way to move forward. Instead, now is the time to say: OK, let's capitalize on the surge. Let's go on a bipartisan basis with Senator Biden and myself on federalism. Let's push that to capture this, and then we as America can declare victory-- not a Republican victory, not a Bush victory, but we as Americans can say it is now stabilized and we can start to pull our troops back. That is the talk that is penetrating now, and it is the talk we need to have a lot more of.

Iraqi President Talibani endorses federalism as a political solution. The Kurds have announced they will convene a federalism conference. Some Iraqi Shia groups are openly discussing the creation of a region that would be a federalism model. The Sunnis do not particularly want to because they do not have oil, so we have to get that oil devolved.

I think there is a real route forward for us to all be able to say, soon, we are making progress, it is sustainable, and we are handing it off to the Iraqis.

Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence.

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

Mr. President, every so often a defining moment arrives, capable of dramatically altering the future of a Nation and its people. The country of Lebanon, which will hold its Presidential elections as soon as November 21, is on the brink of one of these moments.

Lebanon is a country whose vision for a socially rich, prosperous, and democratic future could serve as a model for what we hope to see in the Middle East region. Yet in spite of the courageous and unwavering will of the Lebanese people, extremist forces led by Syria, Iran, and terrorist groups--primarily Hezbollah--conspire to undermine the democratic majority in Lebanon and remake the country in their own oppressive image.

Ever since Lebanon's Cedar Revolution in 2005, when a third of the Lebanese people flooded the streets in peaceful protest against Syria's foreign domination, Lebanon has struggled to remain on the path to peace and democracy.

The cultural and media capital of the Arab world, Lebanon is comprised of a uniquely rich social and religious fabric where Christians, Sunnis, and Shias live in relative harmony. Polling data from Lebanon indicates that the majority of the Lebanese people desire an independent and stable country, free from Syrian and Iranian influence. They want the militias, including Hezbollah, disarmed, and they want an international tribunal to investigate the assassinations of Rafiq Hariri and other members of their Parliament.

On November 21, the Lebanese Parliament is scheduled to meet to elect the country's next President, an event which will serve as a harbinger for the future of independence and democracy in the Middle East. The stakes could not be higher--a fact that has not been lost on Syria and Iran and that certainly must not be lost on us.

Desperate to regain its lost foothold in Lebanon, Syria has adopted the macabre strategy of systematically assassinating members of the March 14th parliamentary majority, the embodiment of the Cedar Revolution's ideals. This tactic is designed to ensure the election of a President sympathetic to Syrian hegemony. As the election date approaches, Lebanon's prodemocracy members of Parliament have been forced to enter complete seclusion in Beirut's Phoenicia Hotel. They cannot go outside, or even look out of windows, for fear of a sniper's bullet.

If we are committed to ensuring a free and democratic future for the Middle East, safe from terror and extremism, we must not remain silent or passive about the need to ensure that the constitutional Presidential election process in Lebanon remains untainted by foreign meddling and coercion by terrorist groups like Hezbollah. We must be unequivocally clear in our support for our March 14 allies in Lebanon.

I commend Secretary of State Rice for her recent statement that ``any candidate for president or any president [of Lebanon] needs to be committed to Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, needs to be committed to resolutions that Lebanon has signed on to . . . and needs to be committed to carrying on the tribunal.'' I also strongly agree when she says that ``the March 14 majority should not be put in a position of having to accept either extra-constitutional measures or measures that would undermine the program that they stand for.''

In light of the precarious situation in Lebanon, we must ensure that the United States will not support anything less than the untainted election of a constitutionally legitimate President in Lebanon.

We must make clear to the regimes in Syria and Iran, in no uncertain terms, that the United States will not support a puppet President that seeks to thwart the will of the Lebanese people, nor will the United States remain silent in the face of the spread of militant Islamic extremism.

We must not allow Lebanon to be dragged back into chaos and war. Lebanon's enemies should understand that we are fully dedicated to Lebanon's future as a model for independent and sovereign democracy in the Middle East. We cannot abandon the Lebanese people and our shared ideals at this critical moment. The stakes are simply too high--for Lebanon, for the Middle East, and for us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, October 5, it was revealed that biotechnology

researchers had successfully created a hybrid of a human

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

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

Extracting the nuclei of cells from a human fetus and

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

Australian company called Stem Cell Sciences and an American

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

cell embryos before destroying them. The embryos would have

grown further, the scientists admitted, if they had been

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

sow or a woman. A woman or a sow.

There has been some suggestion from the creators that their

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

subhuman creatures for scientific and medical use. . . .

But what difference does it make whether the researchers'

intention is to create subhumans or superhumans? Either they

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

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

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

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

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

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

angels wrought in their all-consuming pride.

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

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

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

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

advanced genetic scientists--have already announced that they

will have no mercy.

It's true that Stem Cell Sciences and Biotransplant have

now, under the weight of adverse publicity, decided to

withdraw their European patent application and modify their

American application. But they made no promise to stop their

investigations into the procedure. We simply have to rely

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

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

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

elimination of the human race has loomed into clear sight at

last.

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

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

But we live at a moment in which British newspapers can

report on 19 families who have created test-tube babies

solely for the purpose of serving as tissue donors for their

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

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

advise women to keep their faces unwrinkled by having

themselves injected with fat culled from human cadavers. A

moment in which the Australian philosopher Peter Singer can

receive a chair at Princeton University for advocating the

destruction of infants after birth if their lives are likely

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

aborted babies can be vacuumed out and gleaned for stem

cells.

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

arrives like a thing expected. We have reached the logical

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

time, our ancestors used fairy tales to warn their children

against--and we will reap exactly the consequences those

tales foretold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, October 5, it was revealed that biotechnology

researchers had successfully created a hybrid of a human

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

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

Extracting the nuclei of cells from a human fetus and

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

Australian company called Stem Cell Sciences and an American

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

cell embryos before destroying them. The embryos would have

grown further, the scientists admitted, if they had been

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

sow or a woman. A woman or a sow.

There has been some suggestion from the creators that their

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

subhuman creatures for scientific and medical use. . . .

But what difference does it make whether the researchers'

intention is to create subhumans or superhumans? Either they

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

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

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

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

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

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

angels wrought in their all-consuming pride.

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

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

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

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

advanced genetic scientists--have already announced that they

will have no mercy.

It's true that Stem Cell Sciences and Biotransplant have

now, under the weight of adverse publicity, decided to

withdraw their European patent application and modify their

American application. But they made no promise to stop their

investigations into the procedure. We simply have to rely

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

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

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

elimination of the human race has loomed into clear sight at

last.

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

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

But we live at a moment in which British newspapers can

report on 19 families who have created test-tube babies

solely for the purpose of serving as tissue donors for their

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

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

advise women to keep their faces unwrinkled by having

themselves injected with fat culled from human cadavers. A

moment in which the Australian philosopher Peter Singer can

receive a chair at Princeton University for advocating the

destruction of infants after birth if their lives are likely

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

aborted babies can be vacuumed out and gleaned for stem

cells.

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

arrives like a thing expected. We have reached the logical

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

time, our ancestors used fairy tales to warn their children

against--and we will reap exactly the consequences those

tales foretold.

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

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

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

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