Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 500.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, July 17. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with the time equally divided until 12:30. Further, I ask that at 12:30 the Senate proceed to the stem cell bills as under the previous order.

Mr. President, we made real progress this week in passing a very important bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, under the leadership of Chairman Judd Gregg, who did a superb job on a very important bill which adds billions of dollars to issues we spend a lot of time talking about and debating but that puts real money, real resources where they are needed: over $14 billion for issues surrounding tightening our borders, increasing the number of border security agents by 1,000, increasing the number of detention beds by over 1,000, and well over $14 billion for border security and immigration issues. It is a very important bill.

Over the course of this month I also intend to address other issues surrounding securing our homeland, issues such as the Department of Defense authorization and our military construction bills, all of which focus on getting money down to where it is needed, protecting our homeland, supporting our troops here and overseas.

Also, it was an interesting week in that we had very positive economic developments announced with not just the 5.4 million jobs that have been created over the last 30 months or so, not just the low unemployment--4.6 percent, which is lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s, but the fact that the deficit is coming down much faster than anyone had anticipated. That is in large part--in most part--because of the progrowth President-Bush-led policies of less taxation which promotes that strong economic growth. Revenues are coming into the Federal Government with lower tax rates, and the revenues are coming in much faster than anticipated because of those policies. And those increased revenues coming in, by definition, lower that deficit. The deficit is projected this year to be 30 percent lower than what we thought it was going to be just in February, earlier this year.

The important thing to recognize, as we have this great, what we call ``macro'' or large global prosperity, in the sense of our global or American economy here, with 5.6 percent growth in GDP last quarter, the fastest it has been in years and years--at the same time we have the squeeze that is on our average person, average taxpayer out there today. That is due in part to the high gasoline prices that we are going to see go up again--in part because of the international turmoil in the Middle East, the fact we are 60 percent dependent on the Middle East. Our response on this floor should be and will be to address issues surrounding lowering that dependence on foreign sources of oil. I hope we can do that in the next several weeks.

We had a very positive bipartisan announcement about opening exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It is bipartisan, so I am very hopeful about that.

Health care is another one of those issues that squeezes people so much because health care prices continue to go up two to three times faster than wages. When that is the case, you get squeezed as an individual. So in spite of the great macro numbers around the United States of America, the individual feels squeezed with gasoline prices and health care. So small business health plans are something we should come back to, something we need to come back to and address. Most people today work for what we call small businesses. These small business health reform plans allow small businesses and the individuals to have lower health care costs. They slow that growth of health care costs over time and hit at one of the major reasons they feel the pinch.

I mentioned energy. A lot of that focuses on the area called 181, in the Gulf of Mexico. And I mentioned health care costs with the focus on the small business health plans. We have the support of 56 Senators on the floor, and I need 60 Senators to actually pass that bill. So I hope a few more of our Senators will recognize, from a small business perspective, from the perspective of the individual employee, how important it is to allow small businesses to group together, to have the purchasing power to get those lower costs, to get those lower charges just like the big companies can get--the clout, the muscle you can get by grouping small business together.

It is common sense. The American people scratch their heads and say: Why can't you pass it? We have majority support.

We don't have 60 people yet supporting it. We need to work on that, and I think we have to do it sometime this year.

Let me just comment and then I am going to take a short break and I will come back to the floor to make a final comment on stem cells. On Monday we will begin the debate on the three bills--one, a fetal farming bill, a second bill that looks at alternative ways of developing pluripotent cells or embryo-like cells--very exciting research--and a third, the House bill which increases Federal support for embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos that are otherwise going to be discarded. Those are the exact words in that bill.

We will have very good debate. It will be on Monday and Tuesday of next week. We will have those votes starting at 3:45 on Tuesday. Each of those votes will have 60 votes for passage. People ask why. We all agree to that because we can spend weeks and weeks on the floor of the Senate and with all the filibuster and cloture and the like, that is what you end up with, is you have to have a 60-vote threshold. That is why we have agreed with that.

Mr. President, I will close and will come back and within 10 minutes or so speak on stem cells for about 4 or 5 minutes, and at that time we will formally close.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will begin debate on three important pieces of legislation under an agreement that was reached between both sides of the aisle several days ago. Those three bills are as follows:

The Alterative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, a bill sponsored by Senator Santorum and Senator Specter; second, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which is the bill from the House, H.R. 810--the House--Castle and DeGette, Senate--Specter and Hatch bill; and, third, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006--the Santorum and Brownback bill.

It was 5 years ago almost exactly--on July 18, 2001, before the administration laid out its policy--that I laid out a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within a strong ethical and moral framework. I proposed at that time on the floor 10 specific interdependent principles. I also laid out a proposal and told policymakers and my colleagues I felt it was our responsibility to assess and to reassess, on a periodic basis, whatever we or the administration does because of the rapidly advancing science that so characterizes this decade or the 21st century.

As this century progresses and as science advances--and it is skyrocketing in terms of the advances

that are being made--we are going to continually have to face our responsibility to face the moral and ethical challenges and limits. It is our responsibility, as individuals, as part of this body politic, to reassess whatever constructs we come up with that frame and that govern biomedical research.

It is uncomfortable, it is challenging, and it causes each of us to go back and study the science which can be confusing for everyone, including scientists as well as nonscientists, and to look at the framework--both moral and ethical framework that individuals have and that we have--in representing the people of our States, our constituents.

I said 5 years ago, on July 18, 2001, and I believe now that we must also do all we can to pursue promising alternative strategies that hold the magnificent potential for developing these powerful pluripotent cell lines without damaging or destroying nascent human life.

That is why, in the package we will be looking at Monday, I have asked the Senate to consider legislation to enhance support for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.

I have worked very closely with my distinguished colleague from Georgia, who is occupying the chair, on this very issue. I have asked Senators Santorum and Specter to work together, and they have done a tremendous job in crafting the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, in this regard. Their bill is very similar to the legislation that Senator Isakson and I and a number of other colleagues introduced last year. And I encourage every Senator to look very carefully at it because I believe every Senator should be able to support that bill.

There is no reason why that piece of legislation should not unite this body and be something that everybody can support.

Third is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006. People ask the question--and I have been asked over the course of today and the reason I wanted to come back to the floor and close and begin to frame the debate--what is fetus farming? It is the implantation, growth or gestation of an embryo in a human or in an animal for the purpose of aborting that growing fetus for research. Fetus farming is not currently employed. But it is forward thinking because it is a trend that we could inadvertently move to in trying to advance science, and that line should not be crossed. Therefore, Senators Brownback and Santorum have proposed legislation that would draw a clear line that should not be crossed--a clear line that is not there today.

Again, 5 years ago on July 18, when I outlined the proposal on the floor, it was covered in an article in the Wall Street Journal on that same day. I outlined my principles. Shortly after--1 month later--the President laid out the administration's policy on embryonic stem cell research.

A lot of people do not pay attention to it today.

The President's legislation was the first Federal legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research. It did so within an ethical framework, a moral and ethical framework. It showed respect for basic human life.

President Bush and I do not differ about the need for strong guidelines supporting embryonic stem cell research. His policy was generally consistent with the principles I set forth a month before his announcement in 2001. However, what has now sort of changed, since that point in time, is science has progressed over the last 5 years, and I feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research, those original limits--given what has happened in science today and what we have learned--are too restrictive.

Because people's views shift, let me refer back to the principle I presented 5 years ago. The fifth principle which I presented on the floor 5 years ago, No. 5, and I quote:

Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from

blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to

allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic

stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after

in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded.

I quote that to point out that that was my stance 5 years ago, and indeed when people ask: Why, Senator Frist, or Dr. Frist, are you supporting the House bill, you can see the consistency there.

This is very important. H.R. 810, despite its many shortcomings which I mentioned last week, is clearly consistent with that principle. And the bill applies this restriction almost verbatim. The very words ``would otherwise be discarded'' were from my remarks 5 years ago and is also in the House bill.

All three of the bills the Senate will address raise profound ethical questions. They will require a lot of thought, a lot of study over the course of the next several days. They are challenging to us as a body and challenging to us as individuals. They merit serious debate. That is why I am pleased, on an issue of this magnitude, that Senators will have an opportunity to have their ideas considered in an orderly, respectful and dignified way and voted on separately and clearly.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, for the next few minutes, we will be getting unanimous consents on two issues that will outline what we will be doing during the early to mid part of next week.

Before doing that, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Gregg, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Allard, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid of Nevada, and Mrs. Feinstein conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. President, in a few moments, we will be doing a unanimous consent request on water resources development as well as stem cells. Before doing that, I turn to my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Tuesday, July 18, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 93, S. 728.

I further ask that the committee-reported amendments be withdrawn and the managers' substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to as original text for the purposes of further amendment and that the only other amendments in order be the following, the text of which are at the desk, with specified time agreements equally divided in the usual form:

Boxer, Folsom Dam, 1 hour; Feingold-McCain, mitigation standards, 1 hour; Feingold-McCain, peer review, 4 hours; Inhofe-Bond, independent reviews, 1 hour; Inhofe, fiscal transparency, 1 hour; McCain-Feingold, prioritization report, 2 hours; McCain-Feingold, chief of engineers, 1 hour; Nelson of Florida, water projects, 1 hour; Specter, Federal hopper dredges, 1 hour.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours of general debate on the bill, and that following the disposition of amendments and the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 166, H.R. 2864, the House companion, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 728, as amended, be inserted thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, and S. 728 be returned to the Senate calendar.

I further ask that no points of order be waived by virtue of this agreement.

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

Mr. President, we are currently talking to some other Senators about the water resources bill, so I will have more to say about that later. In the meantime, I will go on to other business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today marks a significant milestone for Iraq--and for coalition forces. According to Ambassador Khalilzad, Muthanna will become the first province in which civilian Iraqis take charge of Iraqi security forces in that province. For the first time, the day-to-day security of the Iraqi people living in Muthanna will be in the hands of a civilian Iraqi.

For the half million people living in Muthanna, this means a tangible change in the security and governance of the province. Since 2003, American and coalition forces--the Australians, the British, and the Japanese--have worked together to ensure the security of Muthanna. But beginning today, the Governor of Muthanna will assume supervision of all provincial police. National police and Iraqi army troops within the province will remain under the national control of Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki.

The provincial Iraqi police service will assume the lead for domestic security in Muthanna. Multinational forces will move out of all urban areas in Muthanna and assume a supporting role. They will provide transition assistance teams and remain postured to assist but only at the approval of Prime Minister al-Maliki.

But more importantly, the handover of Muthanna is a critical step in the chain of events leading to Iraq standing entirely on its own. It marks a new phase in the history of Iraq. It means the increasingly capable Iraqi security forces and Government are ready to operate independently--and to replace coalition forces. And it means the President's strategy for Iraq is working.

Before March 2003, Iraq was a sworn enemy of the United States. The people of Iraq suffered under the oppression of a tyrant. Today, that tyrant is behind bars, and the world is safer and more secure for it.

Iraq's Government has transitioned from a brutal dictatorship to a democracy in which all Iraqis have a voice. Last year, millions of Iraqis defied the threats of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, streaming to the poll in three national elections. Iraq's Sunni population participated in greater numbers each time. And just over a month ago, we eliminated the shadow cast by al-Zarqawi.

The Iraqi security forces are growing, as are their capabilities and responsibilities. In July of 2004, there were no operational Iraqi Army division or brigade headquarters. In just 2 years, 2 divisions, 14 brigades, and 57 battalions control their own area of responsibility; 28 authorized national police units are in the fight with 10 battalions in the lead. Over 264,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces are taking the battle to the enemy.

Iraq now has a free and independent media. Thousands of reconstruction projects are in the works, slowly but surely strengthening Iraq's infrastructure and economy. And a fully constitutional national Unity government representing all Iraqi people is finally in place.

Many challenges remain ahead. But today is an important step toward a free, democratic, and prosperous Iraq governed by the rule of law. We-- the United States and our coalition allies--must continue to train and equip Iraqi security and police forces to ensure Iraq's 17 other provinces are fully prepared to follow in Muthanna's footsteps. As Iraqi forces stand in, coalition forces will step aside, and we will be one step closer to bringing our troops home.

In a region plagued by radicalism and instability, today's transfer is a critical milestone. It means we are one step closer to peace and stability, and it means Iraq is one step closer to assuming its rightful place in the global community of democratic nations.

Mr. President, this is one of the two issues that I mentioned a little bit ago on stem cells. I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, July 17, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 3504, S. 2754, and H.R. 810, as under the previous order. I further ask that the time be divided as follows:

Monday: 12:30 to 1:00, majority; 1:00 to 1:30, minority; 1:30 to 2:00, majority; and 2:00 to 2:30, minority, continuing to rotate every half-hour until 8:30.

Tuesday: 10:00 to 10:30, majority; 10:30 to 11:00, minority; 11:00 to 11:30, majority; 11:30 to 12:00, minority; 12:00 to 12:15, majority; 12:15 to 12:30, minority; 2:15 to 2:45, majority; 2:45 to 3:15 minority; 3:15 to 3:30, minority leader; and 3:30 to 3:45, majority leader.

Further, I ask that at 3:45 the Senate proceed to three consecutive votes as the order provides.

Mr. President, all that to say that we will be on stem cells on Monday and Tuesday with the 3:45 time period beginning three consecutive votes. The times that we just locked in are to have some order to the debate back and forth so people will know approximately when their debate time is.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 655) to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree with the House amendments and agree with the request for a conference.

I further ask that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio of 11 to 9, the full membership of the HELP Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the

consideration of S. Res. 528, submitted earlier today.

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