Floor Statements

I thank the Senator from Illinois. I share his understanding of this legislation and also his expectation that the Web site will include information about the use of competitive procedures.

Mr. President, Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper, John McCain, and I earlier this year introduced S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to bring increased transparency to the way the Federal Government spends taxpayer money. Transparency means allowing citizens to access accurate information on Federal spending decisions in a timely fashion for the purpose of keeping their elected officials accountable. Outside of protecting national security and individual privacy, there is no reason why the operations of all Federal agencies should not be widely known by as many as would like to know. It is because this belief is widely shared by the American people as well as many in this body that S. 2590 has gained the cosponsorship of dozens of Senators.

I believe, though, that transparency in Government decisionmaking should not be limited simply to spending, but should also be extended to the decisions Congress makes about the Tax Code. The Tax Code is currently tens of thousands of pages in length and far too confusing for even IRS customer service agents to understand, let alone the average citizen with far less expertise. Because I believe that transparency is one of the best tools we have to curb wasteful behavior, I look forward working with Senator Frank Lautenberg to develop bipartisan legislation like S. 2590 that will bring increased transparency to the Tax Code by allowing the American public to understand the real world effects of the Tax Code. Tax Code matters are extremely complex and the American public has a right to know how the Tax Code affects them. American taxpayers also deserve to know if they are paying higher taxes in order to offset the loss of revenue due to special treatment for special interest groups. This is a complex issue that will require careful study. It is my intention to address this issue in a future hearing of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security. I believe that a hearing addressing this issue will help us all to better understand the ultimate effects of targeted tax expenditures. Further study will also help to inform us on how to fully address the issue of greater transparency.

I thank Senator Lautenberg for his attention to this issue and I look forward to working with him and Senator Obama to promote increased Government transparency. As Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802, ``We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant's books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.''

Madam President, is there an amendment pending at this time?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4787.

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

Madam President, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. One of the things we do know is happening is that we are borrowing a lot of money every year from our kids and our grandkids. What we have done in my Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management is we have noted that we spend, at minimum, a half a billion dollars a year on conferences.

The Defense Department spends more on conferences than anybody. These conferences are sometimes very needed--which I will not object to--but also many are not needed. One of the things I think we need to look at is, can we do it better? Can we become more efficient?

The chairman and ranking member on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, as well as Chairman Warner on the Defense authorization committee, understand the things we need to do to fund our military, such as the Senator just talked about: the timeliness of this bill. But the fact is, the Pentagon, last year, spent $77 million on conferences.

Madam President, 36,000 military and civilian employees went to 6,600 conferences worldwide last year, at an average cost of $2,200 per person. Of interest is that of those 6,600 conferences, 663 were held in Florida in the middle of the winter, 224 were held in Las Vegas, and 98 in Hawaii. The cost of those conferences and the per cost of those travels for individuals far exceeded the average. DOD spent more on conferences than the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and EPA combined.

The question is, Are there not some benefits? There are some benefits to some of these conferences. But half the conferences could have been conducted under what we call now digital video conferencing. So we have the technology to save money. We are in a war. We are having trouble funding the war. We are borrowing the money to fund that war from our kids. We are at $8.6 trillion debt. We have unending debts facing us in the future, secondary to Medicare and Social Security. It is time we prioritize.

All this amendment does is it sets a ceiling for the Department of Defense. It does not tell them where they can go, who can go, or anything else. It just says they will not spend more than $70 million-- $70 million. That still will be more than all those agencies combined. And all it takes is a little thoughtful planning to say: Maybe this is one we should not go to. Maybe we should not be traveling to Florida in the middle of the winter for a conference. Maybe we can do it on video conferencing.

The fact is, there are hard choices before us. Should we limit how much

money we spend on conferences? And can we use that money to take care of our troops, to upgrade a humvee, to pay for the things we are having trouble paying for today?

I think this is a commonsense amendment. It was added to the HUD bill by this body. I plan on adding it to almost every appropriations bill that comes through. It is something I think we ought to consider.

For example, for $159,000, we can up-armor an M1151. For $152,000, we can up-armor an M1152. For $189,000, we can up-armor an M1152 ambulance. There are a lot of things we can do if we limit the amount of money spent on travel and conferences in the Department of Defense.

So all this says is: Can't you do it better? Won't you do it better? Won't you use the technology that is available to us today? And won't you put $70 million, this next year, into our troops instead of conferencing?

I have tried to work with the chairman on getting this accepted and held in conference. I understand he cannot guarantee that. Therefore, I am going to be asking for a vote so that the Senate is on record that we think we ought to be trimming some of the other expenses so we can put the money where our troops need it.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Madam President, in concurrence with the other amendment being set aside, I ask that amendment No. 4784 be considered.

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

This amendment is all about common sense, about saving money.

I do wish to make a couple of corrections with regard to the last amendment. The expenses related to the military meeting with Members of Congress are not in the $79 million that was spent last year. It is not included in that figure. This is domestic conferencing. It doesn't have anything to do with international travel. The fact is, we have to do better when it comes to the things we can control in terms of variable expenses.

In the Defense appropriations bill, 20 reports are required by the Defense Department. Many of those are needed. What this amendment does is require public disclosure of all reports delivered to the Appropriations Committee. I am willing to amend that to apply to the authorization committee as well, if the chairman would so desire, including the justification of the presence of annual budget requests by the Department of Defense, unless those reports contain information that would comprise national security. Anything that would comprise national security is exempted from the amendment. But if they are reporting to the Appropriations Committee or the authorization committee, then they ought to be reporting to the American public. The American public ought to see what those reports say, provided there is no risk to national security within them.

DOD provides the Appropriations Committee with annual justifications for the administration's budget proposals, which OMB has agreed to put online next year, with the same exception regarding the compromise of national security. The reason this issue came up is that this year with the President's budget request, only members of the Appropriations Committee could see the justifications. Other Members of the Senate could not see the justifications, the reasoning behind the requests. Even though we are going to be required to vote on them, we could never see the President's reasoning for why he was asking for what he was asking for. So that is going to be changed at OMB next year. They have committed to do that. Those justifications will be made public.

But of the reports this committee is going to ask of the Congress, if they don't compromise national security--Senator Obama and I are offering this amendment--they ought to be placed online. The Defense Department has the capability of doing that. The rest of America ought to see what the justifications are. Sunshine is the best thing we have to hold us accountable

to do what is in the best interest of our country. Not only should the American public know it, the media should have availability to it so that information can be spread.

Every Department annually provides budget justifications to the Appropriations Committee. That is not in question. The question is, Do they provide justifications to the American public? That is the question. That is a question the American public is asking now.

We are going to spend, as Senator Gregg said yesterday, $553 billion on defense this year, including the war, upgrading defense, and there is no question, as the chairman said, we are the lone superpower. There is great responsibility that comes with that. But in fact, as the Secretary of Defense said on September 10, 2001, every penny counts. It ought to be tracked, checked, and open for scrutiny.

This amendment says that a communication to Congress, if in fact it puts no risk, no security-sensitive information out there, the American public ought to see it. The only reason, a logical person could assume, other than a national security issue, that we would not want the American public to see these reports is that we have something we don't want them to know. I believe collectively the American public is as wise or wiser than the collection of their representatives in Washington. Their judgment is important in what we do and how we do it. If we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then routine operations of the Government must no longer be concealed or hidden from the people of this country. What this amendment does is assure greater transparency and accountability of taxpayer funds. It lets the American people know what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how.

This amendment is endorsed by over 50 organizations. Here is what they say:

As advocates from diverse political perspectives, both on

the far right and far left and in the middle, we concur that

government transparency is vital to the health of our

political system. Regardless of our views on the appropriate

role of the federal government, we believe government policy

must disclose its spending decisions and the rationale behind

them. Such disclosure will help encourage a more active,

engaged citizenry and a more effective and efficient

government.

American taxpayers should not be kept in the dark about any decision, unless it is for national security, and yet there are obstacles for this information at every turn. It is important, with the revelations of what has happened in Defense contracting, that the American public have their confidence reestablished that what we are doing is correct, right, and straightforward.

This is straightforward. We have from the committee the list of reports that are directed to be prepared: Reserve component budget structure, legal assistance, personnel reductions, National Guard procurement, alternative diesel fuel, MTF efficiency wedge, impact of nursing shortage on military health care delivery system, postdoctoral education, alcoholism research, Commander's Emergency Response Program, to name a few. Where it does not compromise national security, the American public ought to know it. This says that if they have it, the Department of Defense puts it on the Web site with the proviso that anything that is of national security be extracted or withheld. It is a reasonable amendment. It ought to be there. The Senate ought to vote on it to say that they want sunshine, that they want the American people to know what they are going to do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we spent some time last evening with the Parliamentarian on it. We believe we have a defense of germaneness based on what the content of the House bill is and that we would stand by the idea that this is already relating to and attached to requirements from the House bill. We do not believe it violates rule XVI. I ask for a ruling from the chair.

I raise the point of germaneness.

That's correct.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4785.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this is a straightforward amendment. Everybody knows we are having problems in the Department of Defense in terms of management and accounting and control. There is a law called the Improper Payments Act. Quite frankly, the law is not being followed by the Department of Defense.

This amendment is very narrow in its focus. What it does is directs the DOD to improve the methodology for estimating improper payments related to travel and to provide risk assessments that determine whether travel payments at DOD are at a significant risk of making improper payments.

We know of a minimum of $30 million in airline tickets that were not used, but we didn't get our money back for last year. We know of another $30 million that was at least bought inappropriately, and this is done outside of the Defense Department, not within. The Defense Department is not assessing that. All this amendment does is say you ought to figure out and look at what you are making improper payments for.

What we do know, from our subcommittee hearings, is that there is in the neighborhood of $20 billion to $30 billion of improper payments made by the Defense Department every year on a $553 billion budget. Those problems cannot be solved overnight. We are working hard. As a matter of fact, we are having a hearing today on the management techniques and information systems that the DOD is using. They are starting to make the corrections to be better stewards of our money.

This is a simple amendment that says they ought to follow the Improper Payments Act for this one segment, for the purpose of finding and eliminating payments that should not have been made, or were made for incorrect amounts by the Defense Department. We have had three hearings in our subcommittee on improper payments. The minimum in this Government, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, is around $100 billion a year in wrong payments made by the Federal Government. There is over $30 billion in Medicaid and $36 billion in Medicare. This large quantity in the Defense Department--plus many of the other agencies--is not even being reported or looked at. There is $1.6 billion in food stamps. I could go on and on.

The fact is, when we are running a deficit such as we are and we are borrowing the money from our grandkids, we ought to do every small thing we can to improve the stewardship of that money. The DOD is reporting improper payment information for only three programs--the military retirement fund, military health benefits and, for the first time this year, military pay.

There are significant other improper payments within the Pentagon. We know it and we are going after it and we are going to try to solve it. The Improper Payments Act doesn't exempt this agency from its requirements. No agency is exempt. What it says is: Perform a risk assessment, develop a statistically valid assessment of improper payments, develop corrective action, and report the results. If you are not doing any of that, you are not going to know what we are wasting, and you are not going to be able to develop a plan or figure out how to correct the problem.

So all this amendment does is take one small area of it and say do the improper payments on it. It is one area where they can do it fairly simply and they can accomplish it. It is asking them to do it. It requires them to provide the congressional defense committees and the Governmental Affairs Committee the risk assessments for fiscal year 2005 that determine whether travel payments at DOD are at a significant risk of making improper payments. We already know that because that is what the Defense Travel System debate is all about. It requires DOD to use a statistically valid estimate for determining whether travel payments are at risk or making significant improper payments. Finally, it requires DOD to provide a justification for the methodology and making sure it is statistically valid and accurate, representing the full universe of travel payments by DOD. This isn't a small amount of money. They spend a ton on travel, and they ought to spend it wisely. They shouldn't waste a penny because anything we are wasting can't be used in a way to support our troops and do what we need to do.

We have cleared this with the Parliamentarian in terms of it being germane, and we hope the Senate will concur with this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me describe the recent assessment by the Department of Defense: For payments made within the Department of Defense for travel--for travel--as required under section 2 of the Improper Payments Information Act.

That is what this says.

Will the chairman yield for a question?

Would the chairman yield for a question?

Is there a reason, even if the money was spent from NSA or Defense Intelligence, that you wouldn't want an improper payments evaluation for that money?

Madam President, if the chairman would yield, I did apply this to the Defense authorization bill and it is in conference--it is going to conference, and the chairman of that committee accepted it.

I would be happy to add an amendment or a caveat that says ``under this act.'' Would that satisfy the chairman?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I do.

I do.

Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4848.

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

Madam President, this is an amendment which we know is needed. We have seen it through the conviction of a Member of Congress.

What this does is require an analysis of the total cost of earmarks and the effectiveness of each in meeting the goals of the Department of Defense. Earmarks are consuming a growing proportion of the Defense funding. The number of earmarks in the appropriation laws has grown from 587 in the Department of Defense in 1994 to 2,847 in 2006. The amount of money earmarked has increased over the same period from $4.2 billion to $9.4 billion. The amount earmarked as a percentage of the total Defense budget has risen to 2.4 percent in 2006.

It is my belief that earmarks are siphoning away funds from other national security priorities. Last year, the White House Office of Management and Budget wrote to the House Appropriations Committee warning that the hundreds of millions of dollars set aside for congressional pork projects would be slashed from a Pentagon program designed to fill some military desk jobs with civilians and would thereby limit one of the Defense Department's most productive initiatives for reducing the strain on our Armed Forces and free up critically needed troops for the global war on terror. OMB's letter said the committee's additions to the Navy's shipbuilding program and budget, and numerous other smaller funding increases, preempts the Department's ability to invest cost-effectively in 21st century capabilities and that the administration is concerned that these reductions could damage the readiness of the U.S. forces and their preparedness.

Earmarks or projects directed by Members could be used to offset much of the cost of the emergency supplemental bills that have been used to finance the various front lines in the war against terrorism. The emergency supplemental bill passed by Congress and signed by the President this last month provided $65.8 billion to support Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The total amount spent on earmarks in Defense appropriations spent over the past 3 years was $27 billion--about 47 percent of the amount needed to pay for the continued military operations in these battlefronts in the war against terrorism. What we have done instead is relied on emergency spending, which is not offset; it is directly added to the debt of our kids, undermining their future standard of living.

All this amendment does is say: Let's do an analysis. Let's see if the things that are being earmarked by individual Members of Congress actually support the defense of the country versus the defense of some special interest back home.

Interestingly, the chairman objected to Senator Durbin's amendment to do brain trauma research at the University of Chicago, and rightly so. We have had 1,700 brain-injured troops from traumatic brain injuries. There is research going on across this country on traumatic brain injury. The reason is that we have 1,700 a year from 4-wheelers and another 1,700 from motorcycles. So the point is, do we put the money in our troops or do we put the money in investing in projects back home that make us look good but aren't a priority with the troops?

Let's talk about this supplemental which we just passed this past year: $80 billion. Ten million dollars went to expand wastewater facilities in Pennsylvania. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center got $3 million; Dosoto County, MS, got $35 million; the Fire Sciences Academy in Elk, NV, got $4 million.

We know the problems with earmarking in terms of the recent congressional corruption and ethics probes. What this amendment does is adds transparency and accountability to the earmark process. If it is good, then the Defense Department study will say: Yes, it is something we should have done. If it will waste, then we will say: It is wasted. The fact is we are loading to the tune of billions of dollars a year projects Members of Congress want but the Defense Department doesn't want that interfere with their mission rather than help their mission.

An analysis of the usefulness of each earmark in advancing the goals of the Department of Defense is the purpose of this amendment. This will provide Members of Congress a more complete view of the cost- effectiveness of the earmarks and whether they continue to warrant additional funding.

The annual earmark report will ensure that policymakers and the public are fully aware of the impact of unnecessary earmarks on the budget of the Department of Defense and siphon

away from military preparedness and our national defense. The grading system will likewise provide needed information to the appropriators about projects that are inserted in the bills that have not had proper oversight, debate, or discussion. This added transparency will ensure that every Member of Congress can cast a truly informed vote and ensure greater accountability for how Federal funds are allocated and spent.

This is at the heart of the confidence of the American people with Congress. Do we earmark something because it is the best thing for the country to do, is it the best long-term choice, or do we earmark something because it helps us individually?

I would say there isn't one State in this country that can be healthy if this country isn't healthy. There can't be one community that can end up healthy if the country isn't healthy economically. None of us can be free unless we are all free. So the idea is not to eliminate earmarks; it is just saying after they have happened, then let's look at them and see if they really accomplished something worthwhile for the defense of this country and should we have spent the money in doing that.

There are multiple examples I can put into the Record, and I will submit to the Record with unanimous consent a list of the ongoing probes that are there in terms of earmarks and the Defense Department. But I think it is incumbent upon us to reestablish the confidence of the American public that when we earmark, what we are doing is accurate, it is needed, and it is something that will, in fact, inure to the defense of this country and the defense of our children's financial health.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a real straightforward amendment. The Defense Department spends more on conferences than all the other programs combined. It has grown significantly in the last 5 years. Every dollar that is spent on a conference in Las Vegas, the Presiding Officer's home, or in Hawaii or south Florida is a dollar that doesn't go to our troops. We are not saying eliminate the needed conferences. We are saying do some sacrifice when it comes to conferences so we have money to fund our troops appropriately. Be wise, use digital video conferencing where you can, and make some sacrifice within the ease of travel and conference fun and fair for our troops.

It is $70 million a year. Less than 5 years ago it was $58 million. Can we not, can we not spend less on conferences, do it a different way, and still accomplish what we need for the troops?

Mr. President, all this amendment says is that with the exception of anything related to national security, whatever they report ought to be made available to the American public. It is real simple. They have the Web site capability. If they report it, and it doesn't have anything to do with national security in terms of protecting our security, they ought to report it to the rest of the Members of Congress as well as to the rest of the American public.

I will accept a voice vote.

Mr. President, the only problem with that is I think the Senate ought to have a rollcall vote on whether improper payments which have been made by the Department of Defense ought to be held in conference. I would like to have a recorded vote to empower the chairman of the committee to hold this in conference.

All this says is, let's look at improper payments of the Department of Defense. They make more improper payments than anywhere in the Government. They only look at three areas out of all the areas. The law says they should report improper payments. That is all I am asking for. Let's make them report the improper payments under the Improper Payments Act of 2002 which says they should.

Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. This is transparency. This is about adding an amendment to this bill that says the earmarks we put in, we know where they go. They are transparent. We know who did them, and we know who gets the money. It allows the Defense Department to look at them in comparison to what the overall mission of the Defense Department is. It talks about the cost of administering the earmarks, assessment of the utility of the earmarks, and it is something the American people ought to see. We know some earmarks are great for the Department of Defense, but we also know some are terrible. We ought to be evaluating the pertinency and the value of those earmarks, and we ought to know whether they are valuable at a time when we are having trouble funding the war.

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I don't know quite where to begin. If you are sitting out in America today and you heard what you just heard, what you heard was, I am going to point out how bad you are. Here is what is wrong, here is the choice. What you heard was

a partisan rant about the situation we find ourselves in today rather than a constructive hand that says, let's work together to get things done.

We heard a debate about stem cells so it could be used politically. We heard a lot of words that were interchanged, stem cells versus embryonic stem cells. We heard words that President Bush does not care about people with illnesses, Republicans do not care about people with illnesses. We heard words that 70 percent of Americans support stem cell research. The fact is when you as Americans are asked, do you think your taxpayer dollars ought to be used to destroy embryos for embryonic research, that number changes to 38 percent.

Half truths are just that. The time we are supposed to be using is on the nomination of a great American by the name of Jerome Holmes. What we saw is, Members are going to vote against him because they have a litmus test. That is what is going to drive our country farther apart rather than bring us together. If you don't match up and you don't pass the litmus test, then you can't be voted for.

The problem is, that works both ways. If the Senate is going to change its approach to judicial nominees, and you have to match either a liberal or conservative dogma, what will happen to our courts? What will happen to our country?

The fact is Jerome Holmes is a man of absolute character, impeccable credentials, and has integrity that nobody questions. Except by a sleight of hand and backhanded inference that he doesn't care about minorities, even though he is African American, he does not care about minorities because he happens to have published a difference of opinion on the legal basis for affirmative action, that is the litmus test. That is why he is not going to be voted on.

Here is a man who grew up in less than ideal circumstances, graduated cum laude, went to Georgetown University, has advanced degrees from Harvard, has been a prosecutor, has been a defender, has been an advocate for those who are less fortunate, and will be the first African American ever to be on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yet as we heard, he measures up in everything except one thing: He doesn't buy into what some want him to buy into on one issue. Who better to question his own opinion--not his legal opinion but his own personal opinion? Is it the fact that you can't have a personal opinion about anything and become a judge in this country? How would we know anything about them?

It takes great courage for an African American, a lawyer, to say, I think there are some things that are wrong with the affirmative action plan.

He did not say: I don't think we should have equality. He did not say: I don't think we should make up for past deeds that have not been rectified. What he said was: Here is what the Supreme Court did. I think they should have gone a little further. And on that basis alone he does not meet the absolute litmus test that is going to be required.

Well, think what happens if every judge who is conservative has to be pro-life. Do they have to be pro-life? No. We have to get away from this idea that you have to fit a certain mold politically before you can be a judge in this country. And, if we do not, we are going to destroy this country.

What we want is people of integrity who understand the limited role of a judge; and that is not to put your personal opinions in but to, in fact, take the Constitution, take the statutes, and take the treaties, follow Supreme Court precedent, and make sure everybody who comes into your courtroom gets a fair chance, given what those rules are. They are not to make new law. They are not to put their opinions in. They are not to change based on what they feel rather than what the law says.

The only way we can have blind justice is to make sure those litmus tests are not a part of the selection. And what we heard today was the opposition--wouldn't go into details--come and aggressively tell us why you do not want Jerome Holmes to be an appellate judge on the Tenth Circuit. We are not going to hear that. We are not going to hear that at all. Instead, we are going to hear a political debate about the politics of division in our country rather than the healing hand of reconciliation that should be about the leadership in this body and Congress. How do we reconcile our differences to move the country forward instead of divide? How do we gain advantage in the next election by making somebody look bad.

That is what we just heard. How do we make somebody look bad? It is easy to make somebody look bad. It is a lot harder to build them up and say, in spite of our differences, we can walk down the road together to build a better America for everybody. We did not hear that this morning. What we heard was the politics of division. First of all, I think it is improper to do that when we are considering the nomination of such a great American as Jerome Holmes.

I want to comment a minute on the stem cell debate. I am a physician. I think it is so unfortunate that we are gaming this. All of us, as families and members of this society, have members in our families who have diseases for which future research is going to unlock wonderful and magnificent cures. There is no question about that. But there is a question about an embryo. I personally believe to destroy an embryo is to take a life. That is my personal belief. You can have a different position than that, and it does not make you a bad person. It just means we have different positions. It does not make you incapable of making good decisions in the future if you have a different position than I do.

But there are some facts that are not out, and I would hope the American public would listen to them. Embryonic stem cells have tremendous potential. There is no question about it. But they also have potential tremendous danger. And there will be no cure that will come from embryonic stem cells that does not come along with potential danger, and that is called rejection because it will not be your tissue, it will be the tissue of a clone, which will still have foreign DNA in it that is foreign to you. So any cure that comes out of embryonic stem cell research will be faced with a lifelong utilization of medicines to keep you from rejecting that treatment.

Now, the difference between an embryonic stem cell and a cord blood or adult stem cell or an amniotic membrane stem cell or chorionic stem cell is that it is your tissue, there is no rejection. There is no potential for rejection if you use your own stem cells to treat yourself so you do not have to have a lifelong utilization of medicines. And the complication of those medicines is tremendous.

The other thing we did not hear today, which is the most promising for everything that we have in terms of research, is called germ cell stem cells, that have absolutely all the potential of embryonic stem cells with none of the downside and none of the rejection and none of the carcinogenesis or teratogenesis, which means the forming of tumors--has none of the downside--so, in fact, we now have in front of us, in the last 9 months, in this country an ethical alternative that solves all the problems associated with embryonic stem cells and gives us all the potential. But we did not hear a thing about that today.

We did not hear it because we were creating a wedge issue for the elections rather than solving the problems of health care in this country. We did not hear about the fact that you can take a stem cell from the duct of the pancreas and recreate beta islet cells to have people--children and adults--who are insulin dependent today have reproduction of their insulin on their own from their own cells. We did not hear that. What we heard was division rather than reconciliation.

I think it is highly unfortunate that we take time when we should be talking about the merits of what do we want in our judges. I do not care if a judge is liberal or conservative. I do not care if a judge is a Republican or a Democrat. What I do care about is do they buy the fact that they have a limited role? Do they understand what that role is, that they are there to follow stare decisis, precedent set by the Supreme Court, and the only books they get to look at is what the law, the Constitution, and the treaties say? That is what they get to decide it on, and the facts of the case.

It should not matter what their political affiliation is. It should not matter what their philosophy is of life.

What should matter is, how do they see their role? Jerome Holmes is a man who understands the role of a judge. He will make a fine judge. There is not anybody who knows this man who has come forward, in any of the testimony or any of the history, who has raised an issue about his integrity, his competence, or his character. But we have one issue. He has written his real opinion.

If we say judges cannot have an opinion outside of their job, then we are going to have terrible judges--terrible judges. And if we use only political marks--you have to line up on all the politically correct stuff from my viewpoint or somebody else's viewpoint to be a judge--we are going to have terrible judges. But, more importantly, we are going to have a divided country.

What we need in our country today is leadership that brings us together, not leadership that divides us. We need leadership that looks at a vision of America as to what we need 30 years from now, and what do we do today to get there, rather than to concentrate on our differences today so we can have a political advantage in the next election. The American people understand that. They can be manipulated. We saw that today.

But America is great when America embraces its heritage. And that heritage is self-sacrifice and service for the next generations. It is not about, how do I make myself better today; how do I create an advantage for me politically today. It is about putting me second and our country first. It is about putting my party second and our country first. It is about creating a future for the very lives we are saying we want to cure with stem cells so they have something to look forward to.

Those who vote against Jerome Holmes do not have that vision for America. They have a vision of alienation, of division, of failure for our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, could the Chair advise the time remaining on both sides?

I thank the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent that letters from judges, Democrats, Republicans, businesses, the Governor of Oklahoma, be printed in the Record in support of Mr. Holmes.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to discuss the comments we just heard. I will go back to the litmus test.

My belief is there is no way Jerome Holmes could have given an answer in response to questions that were asked by Senator Leahy that would have met with Senator Leahy's approval. We had a hearing on Mr. Holmes. The great concerns we have heard on the floor, nobody came to ask any of those questions. No one showed up other than myself and two other Members to hear Jerome Holmes' response, both in terms of his comments and beliefs about affirmative action, but also about the beliefs he has. This is a man who has experienced racial discrimination. This is a Black man who rose to heights without the assistance of anyone else other than his sheer will and great effort on his part and the character instilled in him by his parents.

There are multiple allegations that have been raised. I will hold back on answering those specifically with Mr. Holmes' responses.

I yield to the senior Senator from Utah 20 minutes. If he needs additional time, I will be more than happy to yield that to him. Would the Chair please notify us when we have 10 minutes remaining?

Will the Senator yield for an inquiry of the Chair?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are under a unanimous consent agreement. There is a time agreement, and it is limited on both sides.

Will the Chair advise the amount of time left on either side? I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, it is amazing the way things get twisted. I want to read exactly what Jerome Holmes said in his comments about racial bias. The Senator from Massachusetts just stated that he would ignore

reality. Here is what he said in his article.

One need not doubt the lingering effects of racism in our

society to reject the above claims. Harvard law professor

Randall Kennedy and other scholars remind us that racial

prejudice still exists in the jury box.

He didn't deny it. He said it did. You just heard the opposite of that. What he said is: As an African American, I am among the first to condemn it.

We did not hear any of that. And what was just said about what Jerome Holmes wrote, he condemns it. He can't be trusted. That was what we just heard. What you just heard was a litmus test that if he doesn't agree down the line with those who have a completely different political philosophy, he is unqualified. Here is a Black man who has been discriminated against tons in his life. It makes no intuitive sense that he would oppose a jury system that ferreted out racial discrimination. So that is unfounded.

His comments on the death penalty, Judge Holmes said we should use DNA but that should come through the legislature as direction, as a directive of the legislative bodies in terms of creating parameters, also, which you would say is to his credit because what he said is: I recognize the limited role of the judiciary in how we make decisions. We should be dependent in certain areas on directions from the legislative body. In other words, what we rule on is the laws of this country which the legislative body and the executive branch determine. So all he is doing is deferring. It has nothing to do with whether DNA should be used to protect the life of somebody wrongly convicted and under threat of the death penalty.

The other quote we heard is it is impossible for him to have an open mind because he disagrees with the Senator from Massachusetts on an issue. Well, if we use that standard in this body, nothing would ever happen. If we disagree, then we can't have an open mind, we can't listen, we can't learn.

He won't come unbiased to the court. There is not one judge anywhere in this country who does not have biases. The question is can they separate their biases through the commitment of their oath of office to say: Here is our function. Here is how we function. Here is how we carry out our obligations.

Nobody meets the standard that the Senator from Massachusetts just set up. There would be nobody with whom I might have a philosophical difference that I could not raise that same example.

I am hopeful that the Members of this body will overwhelmingly endorse Jerome Holmes, the first African American to be appointed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. For the very reasons that Senator Kennedy raised, Jerome Holmes disproves every one of those arguments.

It gives me great pleasure to yield to the senior Senator from Oklahoma at this time and to thank him in the process and to also recognize and thank the President for the nomination of Jerome Holmes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the confirmation of Jerome Holmes be at 11:45 a.m. today with the remaining time under the majority.

I thank the Chair. I will not take all the time. I want to go back to what we said earlier this morning. If we are going to do a litmus test on judges, if we are going to say a judge cannot have an opinion outside of his role of a judge, we will destroy this country, whether it is a conservative litmus test or a liberal litmus test.

The fact is, as to Jerome Holmes, there have been very few appointments or nominees for this position at the appellate level that compare to the qualifications of Mr. Holmes. He also has the life experiences that will make him even more valuable on the court in terms of his compassion. He has experienced discrimination as an African male. He has risen to heights on his own, struggled--advanced degrees from Harvard, law degree from Georgetown, cum laude from his alma mater. There are very few people who will measure up to him.

Now, does he fit every litmus test? No, he doesn't fit every litmus test that I might have for a judge, but that is not the basis under which we should be considering judges.

He does, in fact, have the one key characteristic that is necessary, and it has been attested to by the people who know him. It has been attested to if you just heard him in the hearings. But of all those who have come to the floor to oppose him, members of the Judiciary Committee wouldn't even come and confront him with concern. They didn't come to the hearing. They didn't hear what he had to say. They had their minds made up.

The fact is, this is an excellent nomination. It is someone of whom we in our country should be proud, who recognizes the diversity of our country, and despite what the Senator from Massachusetts said, he can be entrusted with the future of this country, our Constitution, and the limited role of a judge in applying the law.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this is a philosophical debate. There are two questions we ought to ask ourselves: How many people think it is in the best interests of our young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Is there anything positive that ever comes from that? Is there positive self-esteem? Is there disease? Are there consequences to the fact that when our young people make a decision to become sexually active, almost always there is a negative downside?

Everybody in this body desires the best for our children. We desire the best for one another's children. We desire the best for every child. I have delivered over 4,000 babies. Most of those were Medicaid or teenage moms. I have been doing that for 23 years. I know the attitudes. I know what is going on. I can see.

I have also seen every complication that can come about when we take the parents out of the loop, when we rationalize, well, if the parents aren't going to do it, the Government is going to do it for them. What we do is divide. We make division between children and parents. We do something out in the dark.

I will never forget, I was in Stigler, OK, a small community. A farmer comes in there crying, with a bag in his hand. This was when I was a Congressman. He said: Congressman, how did this happen? My 13- year-old last night came home from the health department. She went with a friend. She came home from the health department with contraceptives and condoms, oral contraceptives and condoms. He said: How is it that I can pay my taxes and I am undermined by the local health department in what my child gets? She wasn't even going for her as an appointment. But she is sold on the fact that she needs to do this. She had good enough training that she came to her parents with that and said: Here is what happened to me.

The point is, as a practicing physician, I use every tool I can with young women to make sure they are well informed. But there is a tipping point about what the best medical advice is. This is debatable. But I would tell you the best medical advice we could give our young men and women, the best absolute medical advice is to stay abstinent until you are in a married relationship. Everybody in this body probably agrees with that.

If that is true, if risk avoidance is the best message, why do we turn around and give 1200 percent more money to risk reduction than we do risk avoidance? For every dollar we spend on abstinence education, we spend $12 on teaching people how to lower the risk. What is the message we are sending with that? We are going to spend $600 million this year on what this amendment does already. That is what we are going to spend. If you add up everything associated with this amendment, we are going to spend another $600 million. First, where are we going to get the money? We don't have it so we are going to borrow it from the very children we say we want to protect to do this.

No. 2, we are winning the war in this country on teenage pregnancy. We are winning the war. We have the highest level of virgin 16-year- olds we have had in 30 years in this country, both men and women, both girls and boys. I don't know if 1200 percent more of that is because we have comprehensive sex education or whether 100 percent of it is because of abstinence. I don't know that. But what I do know is, I am not going to vote for anything that destroys relationships as I have seen in my practice for young women for years.

Does that mean somebody who can't get available maternal child health should be denied it? No. Does that mean somebody who seeks out the right guidance should be denied it? No. This isn't a debate about not doing what we are already doing. We are already doing it. The question is, should we do more? Should we penalize the best medical advice that is out there, which is to abstain? The consequences of that would be disastrous.

The moral rationalization is if you make a mistake, there are no consequences. I have seen the consequences. Condoms on teenagers work about 50 percent of the time, if you add up all the studies. The STD rate for teenagers, even when used perfectly, for human papilloma virus is still 38 percent, the No. 1 cause of cervical cancer. We can rationalize our moral principle away or we can say: Here is where we should go. We are not talking about changing anything.

The President was widely attacked that he hadn't increased moneys for all this. We don't have money to increase anything in this country. We are fighting a war. We have had Katrina. We are running a $350 billion deficit. We don't have money. So if we are going to do this, what program are we going to cut? Or are we going to offer another $600 million? By the way, the title X program hasn't been authorized in 16 years and we are still appropriating moneys.

There is a difference in philosophy. It doesn't mean I am right or wrong. It doesn't mean those who oppose me are wrong or right. But what I have seen from experience is when we honor virtue, when we mentor integrity, when we encourage the right choices, what we get is right choices, honor, and integrity. When we rationalize the consequences of violating principles that are for a healthy productive life, we get a consumption of errors.

I have so many stories I would love for this body and the American people to know about the people I have cared for, the consequences of when we rationalize a moral principle of being pure until you are in a married relationship. Is that prudish? Does it happen? It happens a lot more than we give credit for.

The question we ought to ask ourselves is, would it happen more if we set the example, if we didn't glorify the other position, if we didn't rationalize the position?

I am opposed to the amendment on three grounds. One, we are already spending a ton of money on comprehensive sex education. I am not opposed to that. I teach condoms. I teach barrier methods. I also teach the consequences and the failure rates. I teach the consequences of oral contraceptives. We only have about 10 kids a year die in this country because they are given birth control pills that the parent didn't even know about and they have a thromboembolic event because there is a family history that was never related. So it is OK to sacrifice those 10 young girls because we didn't want their parents, who could have made a decision, to know. We could have done that, but we are not going to do that. We are going to rationalize the behavior of something that is not as good for our children, that is not the best medical advice, and we are going to sacrifice those lives. I am going to oppose it because we are already doing it, No. 1.

No. 2, we already have a markedly distorted ratio against the best medical advice on which we all agree, the best thing our kids could do is not be sexually active outside of a monogamous, long-term relationship. We all agree to that. There is not anybody who disagrees with that.

And finally, why is it here? Why is it on this bill? It is because we don't want this bill. Some of us don't want this bill to pass.

I will relate to you a story about a gal. I will call her Julie because I can't mention her name. Julie is dead. Julie was 16 years of age. Her parents didn't know she had a termination to her pregnancy. When I saw her in the ER at 2 o'clock in the morning, she had a fever and a little bit of bleeding. She had a botched abortion with an infection developed, what is called disseminated intravascular coagulation. And basically 3 days later, despite all the heroic events, she died. Why did she die? She died because we separated the choices that she made from her parents without their involvement. Would she have died if somebody had cared to know what her immediate post-op followup condition was? No. Had she had intervention earlier, would she have died? No. Her parents will never get over the fact that they weren't there. They blame themselves.

I oppose this amendment and hope other Members will do so as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Airland Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the F-22A Multiyear Procurement Proposal in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Aviation Subcommittee be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 10 a.m. on the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 25, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Regulation of Hedge Funds.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``How Much Should Borders Matter?: Tax Jurisdiction in the New Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``CHIP at 10: A Decade of Covering Children.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to hold an off-the-floor markup during the session on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, to consider the nomination of Stephen S. McMillin to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, Supporting the Warfighter: Assessing the DoD Supply Chain Management Plan.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to be on the committee with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and it is a privilege to represent Jerome Holmes during his debate and consideration for the Tenth Circuit Court position.

A lot of discussions have occurred in this body in the last couple of years on judges. One of the things which was prominent in my election to the Senate was the issue of judges. It really comes back down to what the American people would like to see in those people who sit on the highest courts of our land and what are the qualities and characteristics we would like them to have and do they go through a process where those are fairly vetted and taken out of the political arena to see what those qualities are.

Thinking about Jerome Holmes, Senator Specter very well outlined his history. So there is no question that he has impeccable credentials and that he is considered well qualified by the American Bar Association. But what he does have is two things. One is a

constitutionally correct and appropriate opinion as to the position of judges in our society. Their job is to take the Constitution, take our statutes and our treaties, and, in the light of Supreme Court precedent, rule only on those things--not to create new law, not to invent a cause they want to make. They are to be very limited in their role. Jerome Holmes understands that.

The second characteristic he has is that of integrity. We hear that word bantered around a lot, and we hear modifiers placed on it. You cannot modify integrity. You either have it or you don't. Your life either represents it or it does not. What people see you do and how you do it is either of integrity or not.

This is an African-American male who was raised in this city, who struggled to accomplish the highest levels of his profession. He excelled every step of the way. Not only did he apply his efforts in terms of his profession, but he spent a great deal of his time applying his skills, knowledge, and intellect to help other people outside of the field of law.

He is a man committed to our country, who has full recognition of what his responsibilities will be as an appellate court judge in the Tenth Circuit in this country. He also fully well knows that his role is to follow the precedent set by the highest Court in this land and to do that in a way which gives everyone before him a truly blind cause of justice for their benefit. We cannot ask more than that of our judges-- that in fact they have not only integrity and intellect, but the last thing we can ask is, Do they have heart? Do they have compassion? Have they experienced the real problems of life personally, so that they can see into the lives of others and how they deal with those things in the predicaments and situations which we face and whether they follow a response that is one of integrity. I have no question in my mind that Jerome Holmes has the qualities and characteristics which will make him an excellent appellate judge.

We are going to hear some opposition to him. The opposition is basically because he believes in a colorblind society. He has written commentaries based on what he believes personally. He has been critical--and rightly so, as many in this body have been, and others-- of decisions the Supreme Court has made. But to be critical doesn't mean one will not follow what is called stare decisis, the precedent set down by the Supreme Court.

It takes great courage for an African-American male to look at affirmative action in a light that says that in the long run, it hurts race relations rather than helps them. Those are my words, not his. But, in fact, what he has done is said this goes against what he believes to be fair and honorable, as we approach the problems within our society. What he really believes is that everybody should be judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin.

So we will hear a lot over the next 4 hours--2 hours today and 2 hours tomorrow--from those people who would question his position. It is OK to question it, but it is not OK to oppose him on the basis of what his personal beliefs are. If we do that, there is not a judge who can qualify. Not one judge could qualify for any court in this land if we take all their personal opinions and put them out in the open and say: This goes against something I believe.

So I am honored that I have the privilege to stand on the Senate floor and defend the criticisms that will come before him. I also know he has heart, he has intellect, and he has integrity. That is what we want. It doesn't matter whether he is Black or White or whether he is Republican or Democrat, we want those qualities in our judges. That is how we assure our freedom--we take the political arena away and out of the courts, and we let the Constitution and our statutes and our treaties reign supreme. That is the best equality for all that we can give to the next generation.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum call time we have on the Holmes nomination be equally divided.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the 15th amendment of the United States Constitution provides ``[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' In 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress finally began to enforce the Nation's promise embodied in the 15th amendment. The Voting Rights Act was designed to ``foster our transformation to a society that is no longer fixated on race,'' to an ``all-inclusive community, where we would be able to forget about race and color and see people as people, as human beings, just as citizens.'' The mere mention of this act conjures up profound images of the civil rights movement, a fight by many courageous men and women for equality and justice.

In 1965, Congress wisely decided to make the most significant sections of the bill permanent. The permanent provisions apply to all States equally. One section of the original act suspended all ``tests or devices'' that States used to disfranchise racial minorities. Section 2, which is also permanent, codifies the 15th amendment, confirming by statute that no political subdivision may deny or abridge voting rights on account of race or color and that all individuals have recourse to discriminatory election procedures in Federal court.

That same Congress passed temporary remedial measures to address voting practices and districting in seven Southern States, where registration rates for Black voters averaged only 29.3 percent. Section 5 was crafted to remedy the low voter registration and turnout among the minority communities caused by discriminatory registration practices and intimidation at the polls. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act has succeeded tremendously. Statistician Keith Gaddie reported that the registration and turnout rate of Black citizens is higher in covered jurisdictions than throughout the rest of the Nation. He additionally revealed that registration of Black citizens in Alabama during the 2004 elections was 72.9 percent of the voting age population; in Georgia, 64.2 percent; in Louisiana, 71.1 percent; in Mississippi, 76.1 percent; in South Carolina, 71.1 percent; and in Virginia, 57.4 percent of the voting age population. Voter turnout rates were equally improved. For example in 2004 Alabama had a 63.9 percent turnout rate of registered Black voters, Georgia had a 54.4 percent turnout rate, Louisiana had a 62.1 percent turnout rate, Mississippi had a 66.8 percent turnout rate, South Carolina had a 59.5 percent turnout rate, and Virginia had a 49.6 percent turnout rate.

If we applied registration and turnout data from our most recent Presidential elections to the trigger formula for coverage, many covered States would no longer require coverage. This is important because the Supreme Court requires that any laws that we write must be ``congruent and proportional'' to the problems we seek to remedy. While these provisions were necessary because State practices and the prejudices of individuals kept eligible citizens from being able to cast a ballot free from the threat of intimidation or harassment, it is important that we ensure that the correct jurisdictions are covered in order to preserve the constitutionality of the act.

We held nine hearings, and many individuals from diverse backgrounds and different races have both praised and criticized the temporary provisions of the VRA set to expire 1 year from now. At each hearing, multiple witnesses suggested ways to amend and improve this Act. Yet I was the only Senator on the committee prepared to offer substantive amendments to improve the act so that it addresses the problems it seeks to remedy today.

I was prepared to offer three amendments. The first would define the term ``limited English proficient,'' the second would reauthorize the amended provisions for 7 years instead of 25 years, and the third would require a photo identification in all Federal elections. Yet I only offered one amendment in committee yesterday because it was clearly communicated that we should pass the exact bill that the House passed regardless of the merits of certain amendments. In fact, even though the committee did pass a nonsubstantive amendment to amend the title of the bill, Senate leadership brought the House bill H.R. 9 to the floor without the title change accepted in committee. Political expediency clearly trumped the will of individual Senators.

There are other amendments that should have received consideration. During hearings, some Senators discussed possible amendments that they

appeared to support with witnesses. Yet I believe that political fear and perceived intimidation prevented them from offering any amendments. For example, there was discussion based on the testimony of numerous witnesses that someone should offer an amendment to create more reasonable bailout procedure. States and counties wishing to bail out are only permitted to make their case here in Washington rather than at a Federal court closer to their home. Another amendment that received some support among witnesses would have included more recent data to determine coverage of areas with a recent history of discrimination rather than relying on data only from the 1964, 1968, and 1972 elections.

Even if no amendments offered were accepted, this bill is dramatically different from reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act as renewed in 1982. This bill rewrites the Voting Rights Act, section 5 to include in section (b) that ``[t]he purpose of [section 5] is to protect the ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.'' Such language has never before been inserted into section 5 preclearance requirements where there is no judicial review of determinations made by Department of Justice, DOJ employees. Additionally, section 5(c) of the bill rewrites the Voting Rights Act to require that DOJ refuse to preclear a plan that employs ``any discriminatory purpose.'' These are very serious changes that were never debated and that witnesses suggested we amend. Those suggestions were never even discussed or considered. I am at a loss as to why we are inserting new standards for 25 years without knowing the potential consequences and clarifying congressional intent in the language of the act.

Some Senators have said that we have carefully considered this bill and the effects it will have on our Nation based on the number of hearings we had. Yet Member attendance at these hearings was incredibly low. At the first two hearings on section 5, only one Senator attended. At the third, five Senators attended. Five Senators did not attend any of the committee's hearings. Five Senators attended only portions of one hearing. This is not meant as criticism because I only attended part of two hearings.

My point is that it is unfortunate that we insisted on doing this on an expedited basis when the act does not expire for a year. The committee conducted eight hearings in 9 workweeks--and during times when it was clear most Senators would be absent. We held four hearings during the immigration debate on the floor and held two hearings during rollcall votes on the floor. Because of the political nature of this bill and the fear of being improperly classified as ``racist,'' the bill was crafted and virtually passed before any Senator properly understood any of the major changes. For example, the bill that passed out of committee included a finding section before any hearings were held. No changes to those findings were made.

Furthermore, it was nearly impossible to prepare for the hearings. Our rules require that witnesses submit their testimony 24 hours prior to the hearing so Senators can formulate thoughtful questions. Over half of the witnesses--21 out of 41--flouted the committee's rules by turning in their testimony less than 24 hours before the hearing. Indeed, one witness submitted his testimony at 12:03 a.m. the morning of a hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Another witness submitted her testimony at 10:21 p.m. the night before a 9:30 a.m. hearing. Other witnesses submitted their testimony literally hours before the hearing. Clearly, the only way Senators could ask thoughtful questions of these witnesses was through written questions. And many tried to do so. But that process has been unsuccessful. We voted the bill out of committee for discussion on the floor before 107 written questions to 10 witnesses were answered and returned. We did not even have the opportunity to submit questions to the witnesses on the panel of the final hearing.

We had plenty of time to do this right--to fully consider the testimony and answers submitted by witnesses--and still vote to extend the temporary provisions before they expire in the summer of next year. We still have time to do this right. Congress has until the summer of 2007 to consider this bill, and yet we are moving ahead without receiving all answers to questions and fully considering the testimony of our witnesses. As a result, none of us can realistically say that we know the full implications of what we are voting on today. And the consequences of our rush, forced by politics, may have unintended consequences for our Nation.

Nonetheless, I am voting for the Voting Rights Act because of its unparalleled success in the past at securing the opportunity to vote. I urge my colleagues not to forget that we all share the fundamental American belief that our society should be color-blind and that everyone should be treated equally. There should be no political advantage or disadvantage because of the color of a person's skin and we should be able to put aside politics to protect and openly discuss those values. Most Americans would like to move away from considering race when drawing congressional districts. In fact, a Washington Post/ Kaiser poll found that 70 percent of Blacks, 83 percent of Hispanics, and 90 percent of Whites said race should not figure into map-drawing.

While America has a long history of negative race relations, we must strive for the dream taught by Martin Luther King--that one day society will judge people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. For this, as Justice O'Connor stated in 1993, is the goal toward which our Nation continues to aspire.

Mr. President, I thank you for having this important debate

regarding our Nation's aging infrastructure and for allowing this body to discuss the merits of Corps of Engineers reform.

As you know, I supported allowing this bill to come to the Senate floor for consideration. Congress has not passed a water resources authorization bill since 2000, and particularly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this debate is long overdue. While many attempted to derail consideration of this debate, I did not because I believed that we must have this discussion in the open.

That being said, I have deep concerns regarding the legislation that is before us today. Specifically, I am concerned that we are missing a historic opportunity to incorporate the many lessons learned since the last WRDA bill passed in 2000. Consider the following developments that highlight the critical need for reform of the Corps of Engineers:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in

March 2006 that ``the cost benefit analyses performed by the

Corps to support decisions on Civil Works projects . . . were

generally inadequate to provide a reasonable basis for

deciding whether to proceed with the project . . .'' GAO-06-

529T--Corps of Engineers: Observations on Planning and

Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program

(March 15, 2006)

In remarking on the fact that the Corps reprogrammed over

$2.1 billion through 7,000 reprogramming actions in fiscal

years 2003 and 2004, the GAO noted that the Corps' practice

was often ``not necessary'' and is ``reflect[ive] of poor

planning and an absence of Corps-wide priorities for its

Civil Works priorities.'' GAO-06-529T--Corps of Engineers:

Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for

the Civil Works Program (March 15, 2006)

In a report to Congress in 2003 regarding the Sacramento

flood protection project, the GAO found that the Corps used

``an inappropriate methodology to calculate the value of

protected properties'' and failed to properly report expected

cost increases. Consider the projected costs for the three

primary Sacramento projects: the Common Features Project

increased from $57 million in 1996 to $370 million in 2002;

the American Features project increased from $44 million in

1996 to $143 million in 2002; and the Natomis Basin component

has ballooned from an early estimated cost of $13 million, to

$212 million in 2002. GAO-04-30--Corps of Engineers: Improved

Analysis of Costs & Benefits Needed for the Sacramento Flood

Control Project.

Thanks to a Corps whistleblower and a subsequent

investigation by the Army inspector general, we know that the

Corps: ``manipulated the economic analyses of the feasibility

study being conducted on the Upper Mississippi lock expansion

project in order to steer the study to a specific outcome.''

Furthermore, the investigation revealed that a Corps official

knowingly directed that ``mathematically flawed'' data be

used to justify the project. High-ranking Corps officials

also were criticized for giving ``preferential treatment to

the barge industry . . .'' by allowing industry

representatives to become direct participants in the economic

analysis.'' U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Statement of

Elaine Kaplan. Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special

Counsel (December 2000).

I could add several more examples, including the many lessons we have learned in the wake of Katrina, but my point is clear: the processes used for project justification, for long-term planning, for cost containment, and for project accountability are fundamentally flawed and do not serve the best interests of American taxpayers. For too long, we have allowed project costs to soar, routinely accepted inaccurate studies to justify large projects, and rarely, if ever, asked the tough questions of Corps officials.

Congress plays a central role in the oversight of all Federal agencies, and with respect to the Corps, we have failed taxpayers miserably. Why? Perhaps a better question would be to ask who benefits most from lax congressional oversight. I would argue that Members themselves are the real winners. We get the projects we want, regardless of the cost or the overall impact on critical national infrastructure, and the Corps is allowed to operate as it pleases. This environment--with every incentive for construction and little or no incentive for accountability--is a recipe for disasters of all sorts.

The only way to fix this problem in the long term is to bring fiscal transparency and oversight to this process.

First and foremost, we have to develop our ability to prioritize authorized Corps projects. The Corps currently faces a $58 billion dollar project backlog that will take many decades to resolve, and this bill will add over $10 billion more to that backlog. Many worthwhile projects, already debated and authorized by previous Congresses, languish in the annual competition for appropriations. Taking their place in line are politically popular projects that rarely address vital national infrastructure needs. Again, we are failing taxpayers.

I am pleased to see the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Feingold and McCain, that will squarely address this lack of prioritization. The tools that will be provided by this amendment will strengthen the ability of Members of Congress to analyze the hundreds of authorized Corps projects and determine which are in the best interests of our Nation. Congress maintains its discretion to fund whichever projects it deems most appropriate, but we will do so with an abundance of new data that will highlight critical national infrastructural needs. Funds are increasingly limited, and we have a responsibility to prioritize projects based on their impact.

Second, in our efforts to improve this important process, Congress must consider ways to bring greater oversight to the Corps. The many instances of wrongdoing in the Corps project justification process make clear that we must do better. With billions of dollars at stake and often thousands of lives hanging in the balance, we simply cannot allow for manipulation and undue influence in the justification study process.

Again, I am pleased to see the efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold in addressing this void. The Corps has proven itself incapable of mending these problems on its own, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the project justification process. It is imperative that outside experts, with no stake in large-scale construction proposals, be allowed to review these types of Corps studies. While I may have designed the amendment in a slightly different manner, I look forward to supporting the McCain-Feingold approach that will allow for a truly independent and time-sensitive review by a panel of experts. At the end of the day, Congress still makes the final decision on which projects to fund, and in no way will this amendment impact our constitutional obligations or slow project construction. We can still fund wasteful and inefficient spending if we so desire. If we pass this amendment, at least we will ensure that the studies we cite are accurate. We owe that to the American public.

I am grateful to my colleagues for the countless hours they have spent in putting this bill together. I know the road that led to this debate today was not an easy one, and it has been a long and difficult journey. As we embark on this debate and in our legitimate desire to pass this legislation, however, we must not overlook the critical need for Corps reform. The many lessons we have learned since WRDA 2000 are as numerous as they are pressing. The Corps of Engineers is staffed by many dedicated and hard-working Americans, many of whom are in my State. The agency itself, however, is ailing and demands our attention. If the Corps is to continue to meet the mandate it has been given and serve the needs of the American taxpayer, we must not move forward without the incorporation of new oversight and transparency.

America's waterways and flood control projects have played an important role in protecting our communities and in spurring agricultural and industrial commerce. Unless we can reform the Corps, though, their impact will increasingly diminish. As it stands today, the Corps is not accountable to Congress, and ultimately, it is not accountable to the American taxpayer. We have a historic opportunity to change this environment, and we must seize it.

Mr. President, I have listened to a lot of debate today, and I have heard a lot of statements. Let me just go through a few.

Cures are not around the corner; that is right. Embryonic stem cell groups are now starting to realize they have years upon years upon years to offer any hope of cure of any disease using embryonic stem cells.

Yesterday in the debate, I challenged those on the other side of this issue to deny the fact that the only way we will ever have a treatment will be that you will have to clone yourself to be able to get a treatment. Nobody has refuted that, and the reason they can't refute that is because that is the only way embryonic stem cells will ever be successfully used to treat a human condition. You will have to clone yourself. That raises all sorts of other ethical conditions.

The fact that cures are not around the corner with embryonic stem cells belies the fact that cures are here with adult stem cells, with cord blood stem cells, and it belies the fact that we are not recognizing the latest advance just available in the last 6 months, confirmed in Germany, of what is called germ cell pluripotent stem cells. They can make any type of cell, and it makes sense. What has been constant through the history of man that has survived? The ability to propagate and to repeat the species. And the unique thing about germ cell pluripotent stem cells is they come from both the testes and the ovaries of us, and we can capture from ourselves pluripotent stem cells that do all the things and have all the potential that an embryonic stem cell might have.

The real question before us is, If there was a way for us to establish this research and avoid any ethical questions, wouldn't we all want to go there? And what I am putting forward today is that way is here today. That way is here. The scientific community, in terms of their money-raising and fundraising and grant-seeking, hasn't caught up with it. But mark my words: The real research in the pluripotent stem cells, those that can do anything and regenerate themselves and also have the advantage of not creating teratomas or tumors, are going to be the germ cell pluripotent stem cells. It is important for us to look at it.

Another quote: It won't involve cloned embryos. The only way a stem cell therapy from an embryonic stem cell can work for you is in one of two ways: you either clone yourself, and you will still have some problems with rejection, or you will get from multiple, multiple lines a close match.

I wanted to ask the leader yesterday--his biggest problem as a heart- lung transplant surgeon is the availability of organs, No. 1, and rejection, No. 2. The wonderful thing about adult stem cells is there is no rejection because you are giving yourself your own cells. The same thing will be true of germ cell pluripotent stem cells. There will be no rejection because you are giving identical DNA to yourself. All the other treatments with embryonic stem cells will have rejection as a component of their treatment. So is it a wonder that we want to research the miracles of life and look at this? No. It is great research that should be going forward.

But it is not true that there is not embryonic stem cell research going on in this country outside of the Government and around the world. The question is, Are we going to use taxpayer money to do additional research?

The other question that I raised is, Where is the money up to now going? The people who are investing outside of Government grants, where is the money going in terms of research? It is not going into embryonic stem cell research. It is going into every other type of research where they can actually see treatments.

Senator Hatch talked about heart disease. We now know that if you have had an infarct and you get a bypass and you are injected with your own stem cells, a good portion of your scar goes away and the generation of new blood vessels around the heart is accelerated and accentuated to the degree of about 70 percent more than your body would naturally do, if you are injected with your own stem cells at the time you get your bypass. We are curing heart failure with adult stem cells today. We are curing new vessels in the heart.

There is recent research in the last 6 months where we are treating lung disease--pulmonary fibrosis. Charlie Norwood, a Congressman from Georgia, has had pulmonary fibrosis and has had a lung transplant. In 5 years, somebody with pulmonary fibrosis will be cured with their own stem cells--not with embryonic stem cells, with their own stem cells-- and they won't have a problem with rejection. Yet Charlie has to take drugs to keep from rejecting the lung transplant that he has.

Over time, we will recognize the value of what is really happening today in terms of treatments. We don't want the false promise. There is no question some great things will come out of embryonic stem cells. I don't deny that. But if we could do it a different way, if we could do it in a way where we didn't approach the ethical question, almost everybody would agree, let's do that. What I am saying is that is coming today.

Other quotes: Researchers have been prohibited from doing research on embryos. That is not true. That is not true. There is research ongoing today, with $41 million of your money last year on embryos. We haven't prohibited the research. We have said it is going to be limited. This bill, H.R. 810, says: There is no limit. Whether you agree with it or not, your money is going to be used to go in this direction.

I have not approached the ethical issues on pro-life--I am pro-life, but I am not claiming that as a defense on this issue. I am claiming that the smart science will avoid it and look at where the benefits are. There is no question.

I wish to quote from Lord Winston, the most prominent fetal embryonic stem cell researcher in England: ``I view the current wave of optimism about embryonic stem cells with growing suspicion.''

He says we have overpromised. He is right. It is going to be decades before a response comes from embryonic stem cells. There is not one viable treatment with embryonic stem cells in an animal model today, let alone a human model. There are hundreds in animal models and there are 72 in humans. To me, this is an easy question which doesn't have anything to do with ethics. Put the money where the results are. The results are here. I will promise you, germ cell pluripotent stem cells will be the end-all for our ethical question. It is just a shame that the politics isn't up with the science.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I wish to take 5 minutes of my allotted 15 minutes to answer some of the questions raised by Senator Harkin and Senator Specter.

I think it is very important that the American public understands what this debate is. We have heard a lot of statements this morning that there are no cures other than fetal stem cell research, and that could not be further from the truth. I am a practicing physician. I deliver babies. I have read almost every article published in the last 12 months on stem cells, both embryonic and nonembryonic adult. The fact is there is not one cure in this country today from embryonic stem cells.

We talked about 21 lines, but what they don't say is there is no limitation in this country at all on private research from any of the 400 lines Senator Harkin mentioned. There also is a statement by the caretaker and many scientists that the lines are not contaminated. As a matter of fact, they are not contaminated. The question is, do we want to do what is best to get us further down the road to treat people? I am a two-time cancer survivor; I had cancer of the colon and melanoma. With the treatments that are available--I desire the treatments that can come out of stem cell research, there is no question. But every disease Senator Harkin listed--every disease save ALS--has an adult stem cell or cord blood stem cell cure that has already been proven in humans, without using embryonic stem cells. What is the science behind it? What is the science that tells us we are going to have trouble with embryonic but not with the other? It is called the mitochondria. If you study physiology at all, what you know is every cytoplasm of every cell has mitochondria in it.

The only way to use an embryonic stem cell line and to use it effectively without falling into the trap of contamination or cross- immunization--in other words, allergy to the treatment--is to somehow quiet mitochondria. They are the energy source for cells. They have DNA. So none of the problems that are seen with your own adult stem cells or cord blood from your own child will be existing in a treatment from your own stem cells.

The reason we should spend more money on our own stem cell lines today is because there will not be complications from them as is noted in every study that has thus far been done on embryonic stem cells.

The Senator mentioned the rats. The only study that shows neurologic improvement is when the rats were sacrificed at 8 weeks. Every other study, when they let the rats live to 12 weeks, show teratoma or tumor formation, which is the problem with embryonic stem cells.

I hope the American people will listen. It is not about not getting where we want to go, but there is false hope, tremendous false hope in what we are about to do when, in fact, if we would redouble our efforts on the other areas of stem cells.

One final point and then I will yield. There is a germ cell line, stem cell line, which goes against everything Senator Harkin says. It has been proven in this country; it has been proven in Germany. It comes from ovarian tissue and testicular tissue. It is, without a doubt, the greatest thing on the horizon for us because it has none of the problems associated--I am not talking the ethical problems, I am talking the scientific problems associated with embryonic stem cells. There are none of the problems with it.

I have seen beating heart tissue from germ cell lines. It can create every area. There are three tissues, endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. That is the important reason why embryonic is thought to be so important.

One final point on dedifferentiation, the ability to take a cell that is in your body today and make it go backward. That has been accomplished. We now see multiple lines of pluripotent cells from our own bodies.

The choice is not destroy embryos, and if we don't, we will not get good research; the choice is go where the money is leading us, and the money is leading us into adult stem cells, germ cell lines, and other lines that have none of the problems of embryonic stem cells.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Is there any prohibition in the United States today for private money to fund any type of fetal research, embryonic stem cell research?

As a matter of fact, California passed, I think, Proposition 71: $500 million over the next 10 years in fetal stem cell research?

Three billion dollars. So there is no limitation at the present time.

Is the Senator aware of the private investment dollars that are presently--the private investment dollars--not Government dollars, not State dollars--that are now going into embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell and germ line stem cell and cord blood, the ratio is about 100 to 1?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware of the research that has been done on juvenile diabetes thus far in terms of embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research?

Is the Senator aware that the only successful treatments for juvenile diabetes to come from stem cells have come from adult stem cells, and in fact that the embryonic stem cells have one-fiftieth the amount of insulin, were not effective, and ended after about 80 days after transplantation? Is the Senator aware of that?

Is the Senator aware that of the human studies which have thus far been done on juvenile diabetes in fact the successful one was adult stem cells and the unsuccessful one was embryonic stem cell? Is the Senator aware of that fact?

It is not required. Actually, today the science shows that ductal cells from the patient's own pancreas can be induced to become stem cells that then produce insulin-producing cells. There is no transplantation needed. In fact, these ductal cells have been proven and demonstrated to produce the same eyelet cells that the patient did initially when they were grown as an embryo.

They cannot disagree. It has only been done for 3 months, and it is successful. There have been no successful embryonic cells taken from the duct of the pancreas of children with diabetes, converted into cells, and have in fact cured their diabetes.

For 3 months is all we know. I don't know the numbers. I think it is eight or nine. This protocol is being done in Europe at the present time.

No, it is not being done in the United States.

They have been published in peer-reviewed articles. I would be happy to submit them for the Record.

I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask those questions.

Here is the key point that needs to be made in this debate: If you use your own cells, you will not have tumors, you will not have teratomas, and you will not have rejection. If you use embryonic stem cells, you will have tumors, you will have teratomas, and you will have rejection.

That is what we know. That is why I, as a scientist, have not raised the life issue here once, but I am adamantly pro-life. I believe the science is so far ahead of this debate. When everyone knows what is really going on in terms of research, they are going to want the dollars put into the stem cells, both in terms of dedifferentiation--we know we can differentiate cells backward to make them pluripotent--and also to isolate cells from our own human body to use back on us. That is an important part of the debate.

I inquire of the Chair, under the previous order, if the majority is not here, who assumes control of the time?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Frist has this time. He has advised me I can use the time until he arrives.

I will spend a few minutes. This is a very emotional debate for every family in this country. Every family in this country has someone who, in fact, has a disease that will be impacted in the future by research that is ongoing in terms of stem cell research.

I make a couple of points. We have heard today a couple of very strong statements that are highly inaccurate.

One is that the only way you will cure this is with embryonic stem cells. No one knows that. As a matter of fact, most of the cures in science have come not by what we thought was going to happen but by what happened that surprised us. That is not true.

No. 2, there is no ban at the present time on research in this country on embryonic stem cells. What there is a ban on is using additional Federal funds to create additional stem cells, but additional stem cells can be created outside of the Government.

The Senator from South Dakota created a false choice. The false choice is not incineration. There are 400,000 embryos that are frozen in this country today; 93 percent of those the parents want to save for themselves. So that leaves us a smaller portion. If you look at the numbers, when you thaw embryos, you have a 50-percent wastage, you lose 50 percent of them. The false choice Senator Johnson put forward was this: they either get burned up or they get used for embryonic stem cell research. This last week, the 108th baby was born through this Operation Snowflake--which is adopted embryos--so that is not the only choice.

The other thing is, if everyone will recognize, in the fertility community in this country, that in Europe, they do not have a problem with excess embryos. We overdo it in this country in terms of creating embryos for fertility clinics. We create about four times as many obstetrician and fertility specialists as the rest of the world. The choice is not incinerate or use for embryonic stem cell research.

The majority leader has arrived. I yield my time.

Mr. President, Senator Brownback has graciously allowed me to take 10 minutes of his time. I would like to do that at this time.

First of all, I would like to set the record straight: the United States remains the world's leader of published stem cell articles and human embryonic stem cell articles. Specifically, it was April 6 of this year when that statement was made. From 1998 through the end of 2005, the United States published 46 percent of all papers published worldwide--by far the single largest proportion. The remaining 54 percent was divided among 17 other countries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the latest peer review articles that have been brought up to date for this year. This is about 15 pages long, and it has multiple entries. For every disease that has been mentioned on the Senate floor by those supporting the embryonic stem cell research, there are treatments ongoing today using adult stem cells.

Mr. President, the other thing I think we ought to make sure of--and I just want to go back. The Senator from California claims 72 percent of Americans favor stem cell research. That is true. That is true, if you ask it that way. But if you ask it: Should your tax dollars be used to destroy embryos to then create a research mechanism, it falls to 38 percent. So there is a difference between the ethical dilemma. I understand people can honorably disagree on the ethical dilemma, but we ought to be truthful about what the polling actually says. If you specifically say what we are doing, you get a much different answer.

I want to talk for a minute about something the majority leader discussed. He is a transplant surgeon. There are two problems transplant surgeons face. One is enough organs, which is a difficult problem in our country today, but the second problem is rejection. Nobody is talking about the long-term consequences of where we go.

Let's assume everything that everyone says about embryonic stem cell research is right. I am highly skeptical of that, but let's assume that it is. You still have this little problem called histocompatibility; in other words, rejection. Whatever you do with it, you are going to have a problem with rejection. And the thing that is so exciting about germ cell--and I want to explain that for a minute. Germ cells--pluripotent stem cells--just as powerful as embryonic, they can do everything that embryonic can. They don't have that problem. No. 1, they are pluripotent; No. 2, they continue to reproduce pluripotent cells just like embryonic. That is new research. That is 6 months old. It was discovered here first. It was duplicated in Germany last month. So that is a brand new study.

The point is, you don't have rejection because you are taking your own cells to create a pluripotent cell, and that is the wonderful thing about adult stem cells, about cord blood stem cells, about germ cells, is that they create a pluripotent cell. There is no rejection. So when you hear all the talk about embryonic stem cell research, the thing to remember is when you get the treatment, you are going to have the side effects like everybody else who has the transplant--if it works--and that is immune-suppressive drugs. You are going to have to have them. The only way not to have that is to do fetal farming or human cloning, where you clone yourself and then take part of what you have cloned back, which we already know is illegal and is banned. So it is important for the debate to focus on that.

Everybody in this country wants cures. Everybody wants to do the thing that will get us there the fastest with the least complications, and we want to invest our dollars in what will be most successful.

One of the things my dad taught me is to look around the world, and if you want to see what is happening, follow the money. If you look around the world today, the world as a whole, and you look at where the money is being spent, it is not being spent on embryonic stem cells. It is being spent on stem cells from us, just like we had the debate a moment ago. We now know ductal cells from somebody's pancreas can create new insulin-producing cells. We know now the mucosa, the lining of your mouth, can create cells to make you a new cornea. You don't have to have a cornea transplant in the future because your own cells are going to be able to create a new cornea. We also know that we have stem cells in our body that can take away cystoid macular edema, this aging process where we as seniors start to lose our vision--the cloudiness--the macular area of the retina starts to fall away. All of these wonderful things that we are doing versus nothing that has been accomplished.

I also would refer to the reference of the Senator from California to the renal success. It wasn't done with an embryonic stem cell, it was done with an adult stem cell. That research was all adult stem cells. So we end up tending to confuse what has really happened.

The fact is, all the success in treatment, all the success in terms of who is willing to invest private capital, where they are putting it, they are not putting it in embryonic. There is a reason for it. It is because in the long term it won't be the best treatment. It is fun science. As a doctor, I will tell you there could be no more fun or rewarding or interesting science than embryonic stem cell because you can turn things on and turn things off. There is no question about it. But what we are finding out is you can actually do that with our own cells, our own stem cells.

This idea of de-differentiation--and I want to explain that for a minute because we are going to hear a lot about it in the next 10 years--we take one of your stem cells, one of your multipotent--not totipotent, not pluri potent, but multi--and reverse its mechanism where we make it pluripotent. We are doing that in several stem cells now with an enzyme called reversa, where they are reversing the cell structure and making it revert back to what it was; in other words, grow in reverse to become pluripotent.

So I hope everybody will remember, this isn't a choice about cures or no cures. We are getting cures like crazy right now with adult stem cells and cord blood. We are going to be doing tons more when this germ cell comes forward. There is no question the scientific community is extremely excited about germ cell pluripotent stem cells because it has all the potential that an embryonic stem cell has and none of the problems.

With that, I yield back my remaining time, and I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Exhibit 1

Mr. President, let me clarify for the record. I think it is very important. There is a difference between cancer and teratoma. They use the formation of teratomas to make a differentiation of whether this is a part of the cell. That is not a cancer. Teratomas are not necessarily cancer. They are tumors but not necessarily cancer.

If you do not have a tumor, I would just as soon have a teratoma as cancer.

No. The Senator alluded to the fact that there is a gold standard of whether an embryonic stem cell is pluripotent or whether it produces a teratoma. That means it has components of the three layers of an embryo--exoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm--which create all the other tissues.

It has. Most of the time teratoma.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes to kind of outline some of the statements that have been made. To just show how off base from reality some of them are, we heard there was a ban on embryonic stem cell research. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. As a matter of fact, the American people paid $40 million this last year on embryonic stem cell research--human, $40 million. So there is no ban. And considering that, there is a significant industry in the private sector that is researching it.

We heard there are only 21 cell lines around, available. There are 400 cell lines available to scientists. There are 21 that Federal dollars can be spent on. So let's be real clear about what the real facts are.

We also heard from the Senator from Florida that all medical researchers believe that embryonic stem cell research is the best hope. That could not be further from the truth. All of them do not. As a matter of fact, there is a large number who do not believe that way at all, based on not ethical concerns, on scientific concerns. They think it is not an acceptable way.

We heard the Senator from Illinois saying that adult stem cells can only be collected in small quantities. That is not true at all. Many adult stem cell lines are reproductive of themselves. They are progenitor cells. They reproduce themselves. They come from amnionic membrane. They come from bone marrow. They come from endometrial lining. They come from placental tissue. They come from cord blood. They come from the spleen and the liver. They come from all sorts of areas in our body.

We heard the Senator from California say we should let the scientists decide, not the Senators. Let's talk about Tuskegee. We let the scientists decide that one. I can think of two or three more instances in the 20th century when we let the scientists decide, and we went down a path that all of us were grieved over.

When Senator Specter opened the debate today, there was, again, the assumption, in his first statement, that there is no embryonic fetal stem cell research. Not true. He also said none of the others have the potential of embryonic stem cell research. Well, I think there is a large body of science and a larger body of scientists who would disagree with that, especially as they study the new breakthroughs on germ cell pluripotent stem cells.

I am going to ask to have printed in the Record a Rand study on the available numbers of human embryos, where in fact there are 400,000. But they outline, in great detail, that the fact is, a very small percentage of those are available for fetal research. They also outline in great detail so the American public can know that for every two embryos you are going to thaw, one of those two will die during the thawing process.

So for this limited number, the most number of new cell lines, if you took all that are available today, would be less than what is available in the world today. It is 273 cell lines. So we have this great big demand, that we are going to get all this, but what we are going to get is less than what is out in the world today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rand study I referred to be printed in the Record.

Now, why do we want multiple cell lines? It goes back to the issue I have been talking about all day. It is called tissue rejection. That is the wonder of adult stem cells and germ cell pluripotent stem cells versus embryonic. With embryonic, there is rejection because there is an allergy to the foreign tissue. It is called the HLA, histocompatibility complex. The only way around that, with fetal embryonic stem cells, is to clone yourself--the only way you will get around it. And it will only work well in women. Only if you clone yourself with your own egg do you avoid all the allergy implications of foreign tissue.

So I think it is very important that we--it is OK to have this debate, but some of the claims we hear--we actually heard, and I know he did not mean this, Senator Specter talking about embryos injected into the pulp of the tooth to create a new set of teeth. He did not mean embryos. He meant pluripotent stem cells. But you do not want pluripotent. What you want is the epidermal stem cells that produce teeth in the first place. That is what is great about adult stem cells. We are going to be able to do that with adult stem cells.

He also stated that embryonic stem cell research is outstripping all of the research. That is not true. It is not true at all. The vast majority of success in stem cells today lies not with embryonic stem cells, it lies with everything but embryonic stem cells.

Now, I do not deny as a scientist that would be a wonderful area in which to work. There is lots unknown, and if you are a scientist today, and they say you can go to this area where there are all these areas where you can work and go and move and everything, it is a fun area of research. But it is loaded with hazards, just like the Senator from Kansas talked about, in terms of fetal tissue. The fact is, as we may someday learn how to turn on and turn off some of these cell lines, we do not know that yet. It is fine to perfect that in animals. It is not fine to perfect that in human clinical trials until we have that absolutely controlled. I do not have any trouble with what we are doing now, doing that in the private sector.

But the question is, do we ask American taxpayers to use their money to destroy embryos--embryos for which there are 2 million people in the country who would love to adopt--do we ask them to destroy that with their tax money so we can do that research, even though it is occurring in the private sector at a far greater rate than it is in the public finance sector?

So I think this really boils down to two questions: false choices and false promises. Let me outline them. The false promise is that only embryonic stem cells are going to solve the problem. It is not true.

The second promise is we are going to get treatments, but we are not going to have to clone. You are going to have to clone if you are going to get treatments from embryonic stem cells.

No. 3 is that adult stem cells and the pluripotent lines, as well as germ cell lines, will not be able to do what embryonic stem cells do. That is not proven anywhere in the scientific literature. That is a false promise.

And No. 4 is the false promise issue that you cannot take adult stem cells and dedifferentiate, move backwards, to make them pluripotent, which we are seeing great science with an enzyme today called reversa. So those are the false promises that are out there.

Now, there are four false choices, I believe. One is that there is no cure without embryonic stem cells. That, for sure, the evidence does not show. Another is that there will not be any research unless the Government pays for it. That is not true at all. The research is ongoing across the world in lots of areas without government research, and much more so in our country outside of government research.

The third choice is that there is no life in an embryo. The fact is there is. Now, we had one Senator talk about the fact that they are going to be incinerated. If you talk about the 108 snowflake babies, the other 2 or 3 organizations that are adopting those, those children belie that fact that there is wonderful potential with the amount of demand.

I am not saying that people who disagree with me on the ethical issues are bad or immoral people. I am saying I am not fighting this on ethical issues. I am fighting this on common sense, to see what things are happening and where we are seeing success and keeping up with the science. This debate in the Senate today is almost all about a year and a half old, as far as the science is concerned. I am talking about the new science. That is why I worked so hard to stay up on it.

Finally, the promise is what every scientist knows, what every embryologist knows and every cell biologist knows, which is the mighty mitochondria. You cannot clone without having potential rejections unless you clone yourself with your own egg. There is different DNA in the mitochondria and the cell cytoplasm. I appreciate the spirit of the debate, and I hope the American people understand that it is not a false choice of no research versus some. The question is, Do we destroy unborn children? Two, do we give Federal dollars to do that? Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, July 17, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony relating to the implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Provisions on Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Research and Development.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, July 17, 2006, at 3 p.m. to hold nominations hearings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Lesley Stewart of Senator Enzi's staff, and also Matt Blackburn of my staff for the duration of the stem cell debate.

Mr. President, I make a couple of points based on what we just heard.

The first has to do with stem cells. As the Presiding Officer knows, I am a practicing physician. I am still delivering babies on weekends and our breaks. I am concerned in our country because we are letting emotional issues far override what the science today says on stem cells.

We have a lot of people who have significant diseases who have been convinced that the only way those diseases will ever be solved is to use embryonic stem cells. The dishonesty in the debate is concerning to me as a physician because the real breakthroughs have not been with embryonic stem cells.

There are now 70 treatments being utilized every day in this country from stem cells derived from core blood and adult blood stem cells. There also is wonderful new research in the last year that says you can gain exactly the same pluripotent--a cell that will do anything--from germ cells, from altered nuclear transfer, from three different mechanisms to get the exact same ability to cure diseases and never destroy the first embryo.

We do not hear that in the debate. We do not hear the truth of what the science is showing us, and we do not recognize that even though the Federal Government is funding, in a limited amount, embryonic stem cell research, the fact is, where the private money is going--it is not going to embryonic stem cell research, it is going to other pluripotent stem cell research that doesn't have anything to do with embryos.

This debate, as a physician and as a scientist, concerns me because it is not based on facts or on truth. For us to continue to belie the fact of what the science is showing us today creates a false impression based on politics and false hope. There is great hope for people with diabetes, there is great hope for people who have neurologic injury, but it is not coming from embryonic stem cell research; it is coming from pluripotent stem cell research outside of that. During the debate next week, I plan on making that point. I am going to counter every point that belies science and does not recognize the true facts out there today.

The final comment I will make is that the Voting Rights Act does not expire for a year and a half. We ought to get it right. We ought to make sure everyone is protected in this country in terms of the right to access. To say we have to do that right now, even though we are probably going to do it, to claim that we do not want to do it is a false claim. No. 2, we have plenty of time to do it even if we do not get it done this year. Those are important things for the American public to know and be aware of. No one in this Senate thinks we should not reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. But we ought to do it in a way that represents the principles on which this country is founded and not the politics of the next election.

I yield the floor.