Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BROWNBACK. This is a series of front pages of articles of the various scientific publications where we have had, to date, tumors being developed by embryonic stem cells. These are in animal models because, of course, we do not have any human clinical trials that are taking place yet with embryonic stem cells. These are all in the animal field. But we are seeing continuously in the research results, as I stated earlier, that the embryonic stem cells injected into animal models are creating teratomas, creating tumors. This, as I quoted earlier, happened in the fetal tissue debate of 15 years ago, when they were creating teratomas or tumors, and we are now seeing the tumors come up again consistently in the research data on embryonic stem cell work. And here--this gets quite technical. But I wish to read some of the quotations in these various articles, that if any of my colleagues would like to look it up, this will be in the Record. Here is a research article from 2004, when cultures were transplanted in diabetic mice--we were just talking about a successful diabetic treatment in humans--this is in diabetic mice. They formed teratomas-- again those are tumors--and did not reverse the hyperglycemic state. This is the first page of a 2004 scientific publication. Here is an embryonic stem cell publication, and this is the front page of this article, that is out in a 2006 article: Embryonic stem cells derived neuroprogeny, more than 70 percent of mice that received these types of embryonic stem cells developed teratomas, thus posing a major safety problem is what this article noted, that 70 percent of mice developed tumors. It does not sound like that one is going very well. We have another one in the Stem Cell publication, again 2006 publication, developed severe teratomas, in this particular publication, using human embryonic stem cells again in lab rats, grafted into lab rats. That one is not going very well. Here is a 2005 article from a publication: Four weeks postimplantation, cells implanted in high numbers formed teratomas in the majority of the animals implanted. That one is not going very well. Here is a Brazilian publication involving brain tissue: Unlimited self-renewal in high differentiation poses the risk of tumor induction after engraftment. This is December of 2004. That one is taking place, and it is not going very well. Here is another publication. This one is from 2003. Conclusions: Transplanted ES cells can be grafted. The cells will, however, form a tumor if they leak into an improper space such as the thoracic cavity. Now we have a bigger problem. If the stem cells leak into another area, they form tumors in other parts of the body. That is not going very well. Here is another publication. This is a 2005 publication. When the cultured cells were transplanted into diabetic mice, they reversed the hyperglycemic case for 3 weeks, but the rescue failed due to immature teratoma formation and then formed cancer cells. So they did something for 3 weeks, and that didn't work out very well. Here is another publication. This is out of Washington University, 2004. Results suggest transplanting ES cells into the injured spinal cord does not improve locomotive recovery and can lead to tumor-like growth of cells, accompanied by increased debilitation, morbidity, and mortality. That one is not going well. That is a set of publications. This is just the front pages of these that I am entering into the Record. My point is not to belittle embryonic stem cells. My point is this is highly consistent with the fetal tissue work earlier and what is working. We have a route that is moving. Why would we move on forward, putting $620 million of Federal money into an area that has not worked for 25 years. I recognize my colleague from Alabama.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to start the discussion on this side regarding stem cells, regarding the major hope and promise of stem cells, stem cell research and adult stem cells, cord blood, amniotic fluid. I wish to start off with a story of a patient, David Foege. I have a picture of him here. David Foege lives in Florida and has suffered from end-stage heart disease. He experienced shortness of breath, tiredness, and an inability to concentrate and function in a normal fashion. Over 2 years ago, his cardiologist indicated that he should go to hospice, saying he had no other options. ``I would be provided plenty of morphine to ease my way into a `transitional state,' '' was the statement of his treating physician. Hospice does provide great service, but David learned about adult stem cell treatments through a company called TheraVitae. When I saw David last year, he had just returned from his first stem cell treatment. He has just returned from his second one a matter of weeks ago--just this week, as a matter of fact. We have a progress report from him about this amazing work which has taken place, this therapy which has occurred with adult stem cells. Listen to David's letter. It is really impressive and very interesting. I am one of 7 people in the world who have experienced 2 stem cell therapies! Susan and I have just returned from Bangkok, Thailand, after 45 days of adult stem cell cardiac treatment and rehabilitation. [One has to wonder why he is in Thailand for that.] The absolute cutting edge of technology, the utilization of my own stem cells reinjected into my heart, allowed the reshaping and a re-functioning of my heart from a life-threatening situation to a nearly normal heart function today. Following my stem cell [treatment] last year I went from a life expectancy of one day to 90 days to at least one year. The second stem cell treatment has jumpstarted me into the range of normal function. I reasonably can expect a normal life expectancy, which is approximately 10 to 15 more years. I can't `` tell you how great it is to the back in the greatest country in the world, the United States of America. The weather is fabulous here in Florida, and it is wonderful to sleep on my own soft bed. I am in awe of the Creator, who amazingly engineered us to have our own warranty in our body's toolbox with us at all times . . . our own stem cells! It does not check our politics, race, religion, or sex. Some of the diseases in addition to heart diseases which can be treated in 2008-2009 are the following [projected into the future]: Blindness macular degeneration, diabetes, stroke and Parkinson's disease, paralysis of any part of the body including back and/or legs, renal failure. Being one of the world's longest living renal transplant recipients of 23 years, I can't tell you how thrilled I am for others that they may not have to endure the hellish torture of a renal failure. This reasonable treatment is in the immediate future. It is an absolutely wonderful time to be alive. The only letters, or designation, I would like to have behind my name is David Foege, Alive! TheraVitae has the technology to soup-up our cells and differentiate them for maximum effectiveness. I would support embryonic cells, but they have a 100% certain side effect of growing cancer tumors. Our own adult stem cells do not. Best wishes and great health be with you. This opens a revolutionary door of opportunity to improve the quality of life like it has for me and cut the spiraling cost of health care in the USA. On my way to Costco without cane or wheel chair for 30 minute shopping walk, I remain Sincerely yours, David Foege, Ph.D. And alive That is a good way to start this discussion of these miraculous stem cells. They are beautiful, and they are working in at least 72 different human maladies. David Foege had treatments using two. The problem is, he has had to go to Bangkok, Thailand, for both of them instead of the United States. Adult stem cell therapy has no ethical problems, no ethical questions. They are his own stem cells. Yet he has had to travel to Bangkok because we don't seem to have enough research funding to be able to support this sort of research into areas that are giving cures--treatments, I want to say, emphasize treatments, not cures--to people to give them an enthusiastic life, to give them a chance to live and to sign off ``David Foege, Ph.D., and alive.'' We have now found these amazing stem cells in many places, not only in cord blood. Thanks to my colleague from Iowa, who worked with me and many others, we established a cord blood bank, and we are now--I just checked these numbers before we came over here--at the end of 2006, there have been 10,000 cord blood transplants to unrelated donors. I got those from the New York Blood Center, which was responsible for 2,500 of these units. That is 10,000 people probably alive who wouldn't be--maybe some would, in other ways or shapes. But still it is taking place. We now need to bank amniotic fluid. We just found in recent research--I want to show this chart as well. Some of my colleagues may have missed this. This came out in JAMA, February 28, 2007: ``Stem cells obtained from amniotic fluid.'' This is the fluid, of course, surrounding the child in the womb. Amniotic fluid-derived stem cells--AFS cells--can be coaxed to become muscle, bone, fat, blood, vessel, nerve and live cells. AFS, stem cells, might be capable of repairing damaged tissues resulting from conditions such as spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and stroke. I hope one of the efforts we can take on banking, that I could possibly do with my colleague from Iowa and many others, is banking amniotic fluid. This has been traditionally thrown away. It may hold the promise of incredible cures. It is a great source of stem cells. They are very malleable, the pluripotent stem cells that are taking place that are in this as well. That may be another one on which we can join together. There is much news to celebrate on the stem cell front, this being one. In the placenta, I believe, they are finding a rich source of these pluripotent malleable stem cells as well--here another throwaway, if you will. That is an area we are going to be able to find and probably use more and more into the future for these very malleable, pluripotent stem cells from which we can create--not create but use for additional amazing cures. I want to recognize the work of my colleagues who are on the other side of this debate, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, Senator Harkin from Iowa--many others who have pushed for a long time in these areas, and much good has happened. In the cord blood banking, that has gone very well. In the adult stem cell research, that work has gone fabulously, as I just read in this opening story of a gentleman just back from Bangkok--although he wished his treatments were taking place in the United States rather than in Thailand. Much good has happened. We have two major barriers. The first one I believe to be an insurmountable barrier, that first one being, What is the human embryo? If it is a person, as we have discussed many times, then it is entitled to human dignity and should be treated in a dignified fashion and not researched or taxpayer dollars used to research and destroy it. If it is property, it can be done with as its master chooses. We have discussed and debated this many times. Obviously, here the effort would be to treat the youngest of human beings as property to be researched on, to be destroyed with the use of Federal taxpayer dollars. Yet, if you follow that debate on forward, at what point in time does a human embryo become a person? We know that if you allow it to grow, at some point in time, under everybody's definition, it becomes a person entitled to protection and human dignity. Yet we are saying here: No, at the earliest phases, we are going to treat it as property, and with Federal taxpayer dollars we are going to pay to destroy it and to research on it. That is the obstacle which cannot be overcome because we believe in human dignity. We believe as a society in human dignity. So our debate, which we have had multiple sets of times, sets of different debates on this here, continues today. The central question will be, Will we sanction the destruction of nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? That is the central issue. Will we divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research, which is working? See the case of Dr. David Foege--and send these dollars to fund speculative research that likely will never produce any patient treatments? That is the second question with it. I mentioned the first to be an insurmountable one. I think the second is one of wisdom: Should we be funding something that is working or should we be speculating on something that is not and is producing, indeed, tumors? I will back that up with a number of research papers. These are the two central questions. These are the two questions we will be debating throughout this period of time. I doubt there is much surprise left on the vote, on how the votes will take place. It is an important debate. It does frame much of what we move forward with in this country and in places around the world. But these are the two central questions: Will we sanction the destruction of nascent human life with Federal taxpayer dollars? Will we divert taxpayer dollars from adult stem cell research which is working and send these dollars to fund speculative research that likely will never produce any patient treatments? Central to this debate is the issue of how we treat our fellow man. We would all agree, I hope, that individuals should be treated with respect. We would agree that we should avoid prejudices. We would agree that each individual has an inalienable right to life--my colleagues, my colleague from Iowa, myself, the Presiding Officer, those around, those watching would all agree that we each have an inalienable right to life--to live. We would all hold this for the newborn through the eldest members of our society. But when does that life begin? The question that has vexed this body for some period of time. Does it begin at birth? Does it begin before birth? When? Biology tells us that life begins much earlier than birth. Here I want to read from the ``Human Embryology'' textbook. It says this: Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. Such definitions are helpful in clarifying that human life does begin at the embryonic phase. Indeed, myself, my colleague from Iowa, the Presiding Officer all began at that embryonic phase, whether the embryo comes the old-fashioned way, via IVF or a product of various scientific methods such as SCNT human cloning. With the scientific fact in hand, we evaluate the facts in light of our ethical framework. For instance, we know that the human embryo is a human life. Then the question is, How should we treat it? Human life has immeasurable value, from the youngest to the oldest. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human as a means to an end. Any time throughout human history when we have done otherwise we have regretted it. Our value as people is intrinsic. I would say here, I am pro-life, whole life. I believe that all life is sacred, it is beautiful, it is unique, it is the child of a loving God, from beginning to end, it is true here, it is true in the womb, it is true of a child in Darfur, it is true of a lady in poverty, it simply is true. Yes, we want to treat people and help people who have medical conditions. But we must not trample upon any human to achieve such an end. This is because human beings are distinct and unique amongst all creation. I would note that Ronald Reagan had, I thought, a very folksy way of defining whether this was human life and whether it should be protected. In his 1983 essay on ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation,'' he put this in a very commonsense way. Anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life, should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. Very commonsense, folksy way, but he does hit the point. Will we do what is ethical with respect to our fellow man? This is one of the central questions of this debate. Now during this debate some will argue that we should proceed with ethical embryonic stem cell research. Here I would distinguish between embryonic and some of the unquestionably ethical alternatives which we can talk about. With respect to embryonic stem cell research, though, as embodied in the guidelines of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, S. 5, how is it possible to ethically do something that is completely unethical--destroy another human life, innocent human life-- for research purposes? Arguments that the bill provides ethical guidelines, though well intended, I believed are misplaced. The ethics of S. 5 have nothing to do with protecting innocent life from destruction. They will fund, with taxpayer dollars, the destruction of innocent human life. The ethics of S. 5 have to do with the process of how you donate young human embryos for destruction. Mr. President, we have had this debate before. We have had it on the floor on this issue, and we have had it before regarding other issues. We had it with the fetal tissue research from abortions. I wish to take the body back to 1991, the Coalition for Research Freedom, in a letter signed by many prominent patient advocacy groups who are advocating embryonic stem cell research today, were advocating fetal tissue research in 1991. They wrote this: Fetal tissue transplantation research is widely recognized as one of the most promising research avenues for such disease and disabilities as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Huntington's, leukemia, epilepsy, spinal cord injuries, and many other chronic health conditions. Doesn't that sound familiar, Congress responding to the emotional outcry with legislation to provide for funding for unethical research, research that can only take place with the trampling of the rights of a fellow human. That was 1991. Those were the promises. That was the move forward by this body. That is what was pushed on forward. We know what happened. It was on the front page of the New York Times in 2001. The news story began like this: A carefully controlled study that tried to treat Parkinson's disease by implanting cells from aborted fetuses into patient's brains not only failed to show an overall benefit but also revealed a disastrous side effect, scientists report. In about 15 percent of patients, the cells apparently grew too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls movement that the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably. The story continues: ``They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend,'' Dr. Greene said. And the patients writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about. ``It was tragic, catastrophic,'' he said. ``It's a real nightmare. And we cannot selectively turn it off.'' One man was so badly affected that-- We will see what happens. Hopefully, the sound will come back in a little while. One man was so badly affected that he could no longer eat and had to use a feeding tube, Dr. Greene said. In another, the condition came and went unpredictably throughout the day, and when it occurred, the man's speech was unintelligible. For now, Dr. Greene said, his position is clear: ``No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only.'' The pattern repeats itself. It is a double tragedy. First, the young human life is destroyed. Second, it is patients who will likely be harmed. There are no embryonic human treatments or applications, despite 25 years of embryonic work in animal models and a decade of work with human embryonic stem cells. I repeat that. Twenty-five years of embryonic work in animal models, there are no human treatments, and a decade of work with human embryonic stem cells, no treatments. But what we have learned about embryonic stem cells is that these cells are very good at forming tumors, in particular. The literature abounds with such stories. One example is in an area published last year in Stem Cells. You read the article and find: The expression of the insulin gene could be demonstrated only when the cell is differentiated in vivo into teratomas, those are tumors. This is one example and there are many others. I wish to point this out because this was the same result we saw taking place with fetal tissue research, was that tumors were formed. That is what took place. I wish to go to several of the articles now that are published articles on the formation of tumors by embryonic stem cells. Note this one on the insulin gene, this was in the publication Stem Cells, published August 2 of 2006--have another one published April 6, 2006. They noted there as well the potential for teratoma development in embryonic stem cell lines, even after prolonged differentiation. I have a series of articles. Here is one in Neurochem, 2006, June. They were noting there frequent tumor-related deaths in transplanted animals taking place in that one. Here is one in Stem Cells in June of 2006. There they note that rats grafted with human embryonic stem cells predifferentiated in vitro for 16 days developed severe teratomas--again, tumors. The literature is full of that work. These are developing tumors. We note in Stem Cells publication, June of 2006, more than 70 percent of mice that received embryonic stem cells neural precursor cells developed teratomas, developed tumors. I have a series of those publications, all noting the stem cell therapy in animals produced tumors. Strange. That is what we found took place in fetal tissue research when we were dealing with an older set of cells that had been developed, and now when we back it up to a younger set of stem cells or cells we are using, we are seeing this same feature, forming teratomas or tumors throughout each of the research animals and in some cases in almost every circumstance. That is what we found then, and we are finding the same thing now, consistent on the research. I have, for those who are interested, if any of the offices are interested, 17 different examples of the formation of teratomas by embryonic stem cell work in lab animals. Let's not go down this road of unethical, speculative research. I am sure the research is interesting to some. But the Government needs to pursue what is best for Americans suffering from diseases and injuries. That is what our standard should be in this. We have an enormous ethical hurdle of killing young human life for this research purpose, and we have an area that needs more funding in the adult stem cell, cord blood, amniotic fluid, and that money is being diverted to other places. Now let us move from that ethical to the practical question: Should we put millions or billions of dollars into interesting, speculative research on tumor-forming embryonic stem cells or should we put our money where we are already getting strong results with adult stem cell work, cord blood, amniotic fluid, other areas where there is no ethical problem? Adult stem cells have no ethical strings attached. You can get them from an adult patient without causing the patient harm, you can harvest them from the rich cord blood, and as noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association on March 7 of this year, they can be obtained from amniotic fluid, which I previously cited, without causing harm to the unborn child. Defying the naysayers, who said this could not work or would not work, there are so many confirmed adult pluripotent stem cells, pluripotent cells, that means they can form a number of different types of cell types, previously thought to only exist in the embryos, can turn into virtually any cell in the body. And here I want to show--first, let us go to the chart of the areas that were having treatments taking place by adult stem cell therapy. I wish to hold this up. I do not think this is a complete set of areas but 72 current human--this is in humans--clinical applications using adult stem cells: blood conditions, autoimmune, bladder disease, cancer, cardiovascular, liver disease, ocular, wounds and injuries, metabolic disorders. You can see the list of 72 different areas that are being treated with adult stem cells in humans, in human trials. I wish to hold up to my colleagues--I will be happy to provide this to any offices that would like it--it is about an inch-thick binder of ``New Reasons for Hope.'' These are recent developments published since Congress's stem cell debate and vote of 2006 and the adult stem cell research and other alternative to embryonic stem cell work and research. This is from June 2006 to March of 2007. Here are the number of additional areas that we have gotten successful work taking place in each of those. I wish to show this as a folder--I have shown it before to my colleagues--if anybody would like to see this. These are the recent advances in adult stem cell research and other alternatives. This is a binder about 4 inches thick, full of the front pages, just the first pages of the research in these fields of what is taking place. There needs to be more taking place in this field to get more of the treatments for more people like David Foege. If people want to go to the Web site of ClinicalTrials.gov and pull up the latest number of trials and studies of places that are recruiting patients or are filled and no longer recruiting, it pulls up 1,422 studies currently ongoing. This is the first of 50 pages from ClinicalTrials.gov of the various areas and uses of adult stem cells that are going on right now. Let's look at the money chart. Presently, there is no prohibition against anybody developing new embryonic stem cell lines legally. If a private group or a state wants to develop a new embryonic stem cell line, they can. The limitation is on the use of Federal taxpayer dollars in research areas on newly established embryonic stem cell lines. But if a private group wants to develop an embryonic stem cell line or a State, they can do that now. Let's look at the funding that has gone into embryonic stem cell research, both human and nonhuman. In fiscal year 2006, the last year that we have full data for, human embryonic stem cell research, $37.8 million, nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $110.4 million; for 2002 to 2006, human embryonic stem cell research, $132.1 million, nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $481.7 million; for a total of $613.9 million in embryonic stem cell research. We are putting a lot of money into embryonic stem cell research. Still the scoreboard of where we are getting humans treated after $613.9 million, stem cell research human applications, adult, we have two treatment areas with binders full of information, with 1,422 study trials. We have zero on the embryonic, after 25 years of knowing about this, 10 years of knowing about it in humans, and after $613 million in funding. After some period of time, should we not think, wouldn't it be better if Dr. David Foege were being treated in the United States instead of Thailand and we had more of that work that is getting him treated taking place here rather than in other places around the world? Wouldn't it be better to take the $613 million that could yield more treatments, if that is what we are after, wouldn't it be better to take that $613 million and say: Let's put more in adult stem cell research where it is yielding results? Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that the right thing to do? Where we have all of this that is producing results, after 25 years we don't have anything here. That is not fair to say. I am sure we have interesting research information that has come up through that research of that $613 million. I am sure there has been useful research, but it involves the destruction of young human life. Before people who are watching this think: You have a cure for me in the adult stem cell area, I want to make sure to put forward that many of these are in clinical trials today. Not all of these are widely available yet. However, there has been success in all of these areas using adult stem cells. For some of these treatments adult stem cells were the main component. In others adult stem cells were the part that helped the main component to work. All of these are real and legitimate. On the eve of last summer's biological debate, some scientists took it upon themselves to criticize this list by publishing a letter in the Journal of Science. In January this year, Science published a response to this initial letter. It is important that we put forward here the context of the adult stem cell treatment that has yielded so many human treatments to date. I want to put this in context. In their letter ``Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?'' S. Smith et al. claim that we misrepresent a list of adult stem cell treatments benefiting patients. But it is the Letter's authors who misrepresent our statements and the published literature, dismissing as irrelevant the many scientists and patients who have shown the benefits of adult stem cells. We have stated that adult stem cell applications have ``helped,'' ``benefited,'' and ``improved'' patient conditions. Smith et al.'s Supporting Online Material repeatedly notes patient improvement from these cells. We have never stated that these treatments are ``generally available,'' ``cures,'' or ``fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).'' Some studies do not require prior FDA approval, and even the nine supposedly ``fully approved'' treatments acknowledged by Smith et al. would not be considered ``cures'' or ``generally available'' to the public at this stage of research. The insistence that no benefit is real until after FDA approval is misplaced. Such approval is not a medical standard to evaluate patient benefit, but an agency determination that benefits outweigh risks in a broad class of patients. Physicians and patients use an evidentiary standard. Our list of 72 applications, [is] compiled from peer-reviewed articles, documents observable and measurable benefit to patients, a necessary step toward formal FDA approval and what is expected of new, cutting-edge medical applications. As this debate moves forward, I look forward to sharing the stories of some of the real patients who have benefited from ethical adult stem cell research. We need more patients treated. We have more patients who need treatment. We have an area of high-yield Federal dollar investment where it should go, and we don't have the ethical barriers. We should be putting that money there; 72 to 0, that is the score. There are at least 72 human treatments and applications using adult stem cells. There are no human treatments with embryonic stem cells. With the rate of tumor formation which I previously noted, none seemed to be on the horizon soon. This is acknowledged by some scientists. Notably, Science carried a piece in 2005 in which the authors note: . . . the clinical benefits of the research are years or maybe decades away. This is a message that desperate families and patients will not want to hear. Yet we do have a message that desperate families and patients do want to hear; that is that we have treatments on the horizon, and we do in the adult and cord blood and amniotic fluid. We need the research money. Harvard stem cell researcher David Shaywitz wrote in a 2005 Washington Post op-ed: While stem cell advocates have helped voters connect embryonic stem cell research with compelling images of patients who might one day benefit from treatment, such therapies are unlikely to emerge soon enough to benefit most current proponents. . . . . . . scientists must do a better job of articulating the limitations of our existing acknowledge, taking care to emphasize not only the ultimate therapeutic potential of these cells, but also how far we are from achieving such therapies. Which road will we choose? Will we choose the ethical adult stem cell road that holds great promise and is currently producing treatments, or will we choose the unethical embryonic stem cell road that tramples on human dignity and has produced tumors to date? That is the point of the discussion. This is not just an academic discussion, nor is it just a policy discussion. It involves real people. I showed you one person who was a real person. I started off with talking about David Foege who is excited about being alive. Let me show you Jacki Rabon, a paraplegic. I met Jacki last year. She has continued to improve. I want to share her story with you. She lives in central Illinois. She had come to DC last year with her mother and sister because she wanted to tout her successful adult stem cell treatment. The courage of Jacki and many others like her is truly amazing. Years earlier, as an active 16-year-old, she was paralyzed in an automobile accident. As the car was flipping multiple times, Jacki was thrown from the vehicle and landed on her back on a country road. Her dreams of earning a volleyball scholarship for college were shattered. In a letter sent to me last year, Jacki wrote this: That day changed my outlook, my future aspirations and my complete life. Before the accident I was a very active 16- year-old. I played volleyball in school and was very good. I had hopes of going to college on a volleyball scholarship. I truly was living a nightmare after this tragedy. I really thought my life was over. I couldn't imagine not playing volleyball anymore, jumping on my trampoline with my young nephew, chasing after my niece or just taking a walk around my small community. Not only does something like this change the victim but it also disrupts and seriously affects your family. I spent a little over a month in the hospital. I had back surgery to stabilize my back. I had a fracture at the T12 area, which made me a paraplegic. I had no feeling below the belly button. I had to learn to become independent again. I had to learn to dress, bathe, transfer from place to place, and take care of my personal hygiene and toiletry issues. It was so difficult and I struggled with these once simple tasks. After I accomplished these I was released and allowed to come home. I was simply told, ``You'll never walk again.'' That was my prognosis! I got back to school a few months later and that was another adjustment. Everything looks and works differently when you are sitting in a wheelchair. I had to deal with a lot of depression and sadness. But I tried to continue with my life the best way that I could. I truly believe that my faith got me through. If it wasn't for this amazing love of God and my strong will and determination I don't know if I could have proceeded with what my life had become. But I have great determination along with the comforting faith and I didn't intend on giving up that easily. I wanted to give life another opportunity with my new ``lifestyle.'' Can you imagine the anguish of being a 16-year-old, your whole life in front of you, and then being confronted with this sort of tragedy? Jacki was very fortunate, however, to have so many people who were looking out for her. Her pastor saw a PBS show called ``The Miracle Cell,'' about a procedure called olfactory mucosa transplantation being done in Portugal by Dr. Carlos Lima. The work involved transplanting adult stem cells from spinal cord patients' own sinus area into their spinal cord at the initial injury site. This gave Jacki real hope. Continuing her letter, she wrote: I listened to amazing recovery of returned sensation and even the ability to walk again with continued rehab from others after having this surgery. I remember thinking, ``There's my chance!'' I knew I wanted to pursue this possibility for me. My mom and I started researching this procedure on the Internet and collected as much information that we could. We discovered a Spinal Cord Injury Institute getting ready to open in Detroit, Michigan, that summer. This institute was closely associated with Dr. Lima. We called to see if we could get an appointment to go and meet Dr. Steve Hinderer and asked about the procedure in depth and inquire about my chances of getting it done. I did go to Detroit and was told that I could well be a good candidate. I was given the guidelines and criteria for having this done. After many months of additional testing, x- rays, etc., I was accepted. This was very exhilarating for me. I had read about the success stories of the individuals that have gone before me. Their various success stories gave me so much hope! I had so much support from my family, friends, church, community and surrounding areas to raise the $50.000.000 needed to have this surgery. Without this overwhelming support I could not have gone forward with this incredible opportunity. I went to Portugal in October 2005. I had the procedure done on October 29th. My experience in Portugal was not all pleasant. My mom and I had to deal with the language barrier and the unfamiliar culture. I returned to the states on November 5th. I rested at home for a few weeks then went to Detroit to the Institute for aggressive rehab. Rehab was very tiring and indeed very aggressive. It was an exhausting experience but a very rewarding one. It was there that I took my first steps on the parallel bars. I was up! My progress since undergoing this surgery has been amazing! I have a lot of hip movement, some tingling and heaviness in my legs. I have continued with my rehab regimen at home. I have leg braces that were fitted to me. I can walk on parallel bars and have begun walking with a walker. I am up on my feet again! That's the most satisfying feeling. Unless you have been confined in a wheelchair for an extended amount of time you can't really know how rewarding it is to be standing again. This brings me to the ongoing debate over adult stem cell research. I did not think a lot about this issue before the accident but now it has sparked a great interest within me. First, I am very much against embryonic stem cell research and advancement. I do not support this aspect at all. The killing of human life is appalling to me. But with adult stem cell and non-embryonic stem cell research I have become an advocate. My personal experience with adult stem cell transplantation should awaken the United States to the unlimited possibilities. This technique is simply, ``your body healing itself.'' Medical research in the United States has always been respected and admired for the advances toward cure for cancer, arthritis treatments and medication, heart disease and other well-known diseases and ailments. But when it comes to spinal cord injuries the U.S. is very much in the negative category. We as taxpayers pay more money in the daily care of a spinal cord injury victim than we do on a cure. Now why is that? The medical society treats the injury at the onset then teaches the individual to live in a wheelchair and function accordingly. Then they are sent home and told, ``You will never walk again.'' I experienced that first hand. But I am walking again. I have goals of walking by the end of the year with my braces and crutches. This was made possible by the procedure in Portugal--Portugal, not the United States--and aggressive rehab. But I had to leave the comfort of my home and country and travel to a foreign area to get this done. Now that is sad, isn't it? This tragedy that happened to me can happen to anyone. It could be your wife, husband, son, daughter or friend. What would you want for them? Simply a statement, ``You'll never walk again'' or ``Never give up hope there is a better option for you.'' Jacki Rabon writes: Wake up United States! We are missing out. Let's look at the issue in a more personal level--I can walk again. Sincerely, Jacki Rabon, Waverly, IL. These are the moving words this courageous young lady wrote last summer. Jacki's progress does continue. We received an e-mail from Jacki's mom, Becki, in the last few weeks. Becki Rabon writes: Jacki is doing wonderfully. She did have a slight hip problem a few weeks ago. She was experiencing a lot of pain. We had x-rays, Ultrasounds and lab work done. Thank God, it was only tightness in her hip muscles. The pain of course was not good . . . but it was in a way that is good since Jacki is getting more feeling in her hips. Otherwise, she is still walking with her braces and a walker at our church. She walks independently now. All I do is help her with getting the braces on and stabilizing the walker while she stands up. Then she can walk by herself. The distance has increased considerably. The next step for her is to start walking outside and at home. She needs to be on more normal terrain. This is an amazing story, and the science that has gone into Jacki's treatment is truly revolutionary, miraculous. Adult stem cell therapy-- what could it do with another $600 million? How far along could we be? A June 2006 study in the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine reported on Dr. Lima having transplanted nasal stem cells into seven patients with spinal cord injury. The patients regained some motor function and sensation, and two patients showed bladder control improvement. Most of the adult stem cell work in this area is still being done in lab animals, but it is already starting to have human applications. You have to ask yourself, why would we want to go down the unethical embryonic stem cell road when the doors are already being opened by adult stem cells and you already have these types of human stories taking place? Why, when we have something that is working? Shown in this picture is Jacki Rabon. I am going to tell an amazing story about Dr. Dennis Turner. He came in to testify in the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Science and Technology. He testified in 2004. He suffered from Parkinson's disease. I want to read portions of his testimony. I show you a picture of Dr. Dennis Turner. He stated: For 14 years I've had Parkinson's Disease. This irreversible disease involves the slow destruction of specialized cells in the brain, called Dopamine Neurons. By early 1991 I suffered extreme shaking of the right side of my body, stiffness in my gait and movements. After some years of medication, I developed fluctuation and poor response to Sinemet. This made daily activities needing the coordinated use of both hands hard or impossible, such as putting in contact lenses. My disability prevented me from using my right arm. Other than my Parkinson's symptoms I was physically very active and fit. Because of this Dr. Levesque felt that I'd be a good candidate for an experimental treatment. He explained that he would take a very small tissue sample from my brain, removing its adult neural stem cells. He would then multiply and mature these cells into Dopamine Neurons, then inject these cells back into the left side of my brain. He proposed treating only the left side because it controls the right side of the body, the side with the most severe Parkinson's symptoms. Dr. Levesque did not tell me that this treatment would permanently cure my condition. Science has yet to learn what causes Parkinson's Disease, much less how to remove it. However, since this cell-replacement approach had never been tried in a human patient we hoped for the best. And since my only other realistic alternative was to continue growing worse until I eventually died, I decided to have the surgical procedures in 1999, one to remove the tissue and another to inject the cells. I was awake for both procedures, under local anesthesia. Soon after having the cells injected my Parkinson's symptoms began to improve. My trembling grew less and less, until to all appearances it was gone, only slightly reappearing if I became upset. Dr. Levesque had me tested by a Neurologist, who said he wouldn't have known I had Parkinson's if he had met me on the street. I was once again able to use my right hand and arm normally, enjoying activities that I had given up hope of ever doing. Since being diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease my condition had slowly, but continuously worsened. I can't say with certainty what my condition would have become if Dr. Levesque had not used my own adult stem cells to treat me. But I have no doubt that because of this treatment I've enjoyed five years of quality life that I feared had passed me by. Last year, after 4 years of being virtually symptom free, my Parkinson's symptoms began reappearing in my body's left side. Today I have various degrees of trembling in both hands, although I feel that the left is slightly worse. Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to have Dr. Levesque use my adult stem cells to treat me a second time, since in my case they were safe, effective, and involved no risk of rejection. Because of my improvements through Dr. Levesque's treatment I've been able to indulge in my passion for big game photography these past 5 years. This man suffering severe Parkinson's for 5 years being able to indulge in his passion for big game photography. While on safari in 2001 I scrambled up a tree to avoid being run over by a Rhino. I swam in the South Atlantic with Great White Sharks. Two weeks ago I returned from Africa after photographing Cheetahs and Leopards in the wild. This is a man with severe Parkinson's. Here are a few examples of the pictures I took. They represent memories and experiences I feel I have Dr. Levesque to thank for. I came here to offer him my sincere gratitude, and to offer others with Parkinson's a concrete reason for hope. This summarizes my history with Parkinson's and the positive effects I experienced through a treatment that used my own adult stem cells. I'm very happy with its results and would dearly love to have a second treatment. Mr. President, I cite this example because here is a route forward for us. We want to treat people with Parkinson's. Here is a route forward that has been shown in a human clinical trial setting, with positive results for a period of time. Why would we want to waste that? Why wouldn't we want to fund that and to use it aggressively?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. My colleague states the obvious. It is when you get that first set of chromosomes from your mother and father that your hair color, so many of your features are determined. It doesn't change. That is your genetic material, and you get it from the very earliest instance.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to resume the discussion on embryonic stem cell research. I wish to resume the discussion on adult stem cell successes and why we should not move forward on destroying more human life for the purposes of research. I wish to start out with a simple picture, a picture of one child, Hannah. She was a frozen embryo. I wish to just go through this briefly because we talk about frozen embryos as though this is something you can discard and there is really no significance here, or if there is, it is minimal, it is not really human, it is just something that is sitting there in a frozen state and we should just research on this person. I note this because Hannah was a frozen embryo. She was adopted. She was implanted. Then here we are looking at her in April of 2001 at age 28 months. I met Hannah. She has been in my office. She is a bright, young, vivacious girl. I point out that she starts out as what we are talking about researching on here--she starts out being frozen, alive, adopted as an embryo, arrives in a clinic, is thawed, implantated, and develops a heartbeat. Here is a picture of her at 21 weeks. We can see her, and we can see the development. The reason I point this out, and I guess it should be obvious to everybody, but what we are talking about is something in embryology books that is defined as human. It is defined as a person with a 46- chromosomes. It is defined as a unique person who will never be recreated. We are defining and talking about somebody. If these frozen embryos are adopted, they can be implanted and grow into human beings. Hannah as she was in April of 2001, Hannah who was in my office. I urge more people to look at this as a possible option. A number of people have embryos at IVF clinics, frozen embryos at IVF clinics. This is a viable option if people don't want to have them implanted in themselves. If they are extra, they could consider that there are a number of people who cannot conceive who want to adopt. I urge people to look at this as a possible and viable option and a beautiful option that people would look at. This is happening quite a few times in places across the United States. It is important. It is a great option. My wife and I have adopted two children--not at the frozen embryo stage but at a later stage. I can say with all candor, it is a wonderful thing. It has been a great gift to our family to have two of our children who are adopted. With the rest of our family, it has just been fabulous for all of us. I hope people will look at this as a viable option. It is a viable option technologically. This is something people can do. You can do this today. This can take place. It does take place. It is a regular event that takes place. It is something you can feel good about in doing and having a beautiful child who is here and functioning and in the world and bringing joy to people's eyes. Our two adopted children are both 9, and they bring great joy to everybody they are around. Even when they are bugging their older sister, they bring her joy. It is just a great thing to do, and I really hope we can do a lot more of this if people would consider this as a real option rather than just saying these are extra embryos or these are throwaways or they are going to be disposed of anyway. Why not look for the best option? Why not look for this beautiful option which is out there instead of saying: Well, we can't do anything with them anyway; let's just discard them. There is another option here. There is a different chance. There is another hope. That child, then, can bring into the world so much joy and possibilities that are endless. Why not that one? What is wrong with that option? I hope people will really look at this as a real chance and something they can do. In my earlier remarks, I read a definition from an embryology textbook which affirmed that each individual life begins as a 46- chromosome embryo. The Presiding Officer did. I did. Senator Harkin from Iowa did. Textbook definitions are good, but living examples are often even better, and that is what I am showing in this chart. Of course, each one of us alive today is an example that life begins at an embryonic stage because we were all once embryos. Another clear example of this truth is those children today--137, I am told, with 16 currently in utero--who used to be numbered among the so-called spare or leftover embryos. That is not as many as I hope it will be, and I hope in the future we can have a lot more. Last year, I had the privilege of meeting one of these young children, a young girl named Hannah. We can see her life growth along this continuum in this chart. Of course, if she is terminated in any phase along this way, she is not out here. Life is that continuum. I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to this and in particular ask, how can we just wantonly destroy these embryos for research purposes with taxpayer funding because they are allegedly spare, left over, or just going to be destroyed anyway? It is wrong to turn living human persons into research objects to be exploited. I believe those embryos which have been adopted make this point very well. I also wish to note that currently in the United States, it is not illegal anywhere in the country for a person to donate an embryo to develop a stem cell, an embryonic stem cell line. It is not illegal anywhere. What we are talking about in the Senate today is expanding the Federal taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research. We are talking about taxpayer funding of this research that is considered highly unethical to a number of our fellow Americans. It is something we do not need to do. On the point of not needing to do fund this research with taxpayer dollars, I ask unanimous consent that an article be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, my point in saying this is that we know this is true. We know that in the medical health field, if there are some great results that are coming that could be patentable or provide treatments--that the medical sector of our economy is growing as a percentage of the gross national product, that I think is somewhere around 15 percent now, growing faster, that there is a heavy investment in medical research taking place, we know that in the pharmaceutical industry, we know that in the medical treatment areas that is taking place. So why is that not happening in embryonic stem cells? The reason is because it is not producing any results. Instead, we have health ministries and corporations going abroad to make these investments in the adult field when they feel like there is not sufficient interest here taking place. That should tell us something; that is, the private sector is not putting money in. Indeed, the private-sector research is waning. These are all indicators that we ought to be looking at and asking ourselves: What is taking place? Now earlier I covered some of the advances in stem cell research that has happened, and I note I wish to build on the statement put forward by today's AP story on Type 1 Diabetes being treated in Brazil with adult stem cells and my comments about the lack of private-sector investment. I wish to hit another point as to why the private sector is not investing in embryonic stem cell research. I made it part of this presentation earlier, but I wish to make it stronger now; that is, that embryonic stem cells produce tumors. This is continuing to come out in all the data, and I think it is part of the reason why you do not see private investors going into this field. If this is the pharmaceutical field and the drugs you are treating people with are producing tumors, it is unlikely that that drug is going to get approved by the FDA, it is unlikely it is going to move forward in any sort of drug delivery system or it is going to be accepted by the public if there is a high likelihood that you are going to get tumors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to put this set of documents in at the end of my statement.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct, and that Federal taxpayer funds could be used to experiment on those human embryonic stem cell lines where the life-and-death decision had already been made.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on bipartisan legislation that Senator Landrieu and myself are introducing, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. We do this today with 26 other cosponsors. It is important to talk about this matter as we set up for the bioethical debate which will be taking place after Easter and discuss some of the parameters and issues surrounding this topic. We have a continuum of discussion points, as this body and the rest of the country and, indeed, the world is engaged on the subject. There is an ethical way to move forward on stem cell research that is producing treatments and applications for human maladies, now in over 70 areas. The science continues to grow, and it is promising. I have held press conferences involving people with spinal cord injuries who could not walk and are walking again with the aid of braces. I have hosted people at press conferences who are suffering from congestive heart failure yet are now able to go up flights of stairs they couldn't even imagine previously with treatments utilizing their own adult stem cells. I have visited with cancer patients who have been treated with cord blood stem cells who are cancer-free now. We have new discoveries taking place. For example, in the amniotic fluid surrounding the child in the womb exists an abundant supply of stem cells that are malleable into many different types of cells. We just learned about this breakthrough less than 6 months ago, and there are no ethical problems with it whatsoever. It is a beautiful science that is developing. In the near future, I believe we are going to see these adult stem cell advances taking root and moving forward in a glorious fashion: so that people can literally walk again who were not able to walk; so that people can literally be cured of heart conditions who had no cure and were only hoping for the possibility of a transplant; so that people, instead of having a mechanical bladder control on their side, are able to have a bladder grown of their own adult stem cells around a matrix and a frame that can be inserted back in the body that would be functioning again. The science is beautiful. The ethical quagmire is significant as well: if we decide the route to pursue is to clone human beings; if we decide the route to pursue is to treat some humans as property, as a commodity to be researched and to be used. Human cloning and treating some humans as property are not the way to go. What we are seeing from the clear science that has taken place in the past and the present is that human embryonic stem cells produce tumors. This has occurred in cloning situations and in noncloning embryonic stem cell situations. Embryonic stem cells produce tumors. A tumor in this situation is a growth of tissue that doesn't fit the intended purpose. Scientists are experiencing significant problems in this embryonic area. While we are developing treatments and applications using adult stem cells, cord blood, and, hopefully in the future, amniotic fluid, we are not seeing the same success using human embryonic cells. The legislation that we put forward today, with 28 sponsors, would affirm that the United States places tremendous value on the dignity of each and every human life at whatever stage that life is in, from the very earliest moments to the very end of life. It would recognize the dignity of human life in this country and around the world. We don't want to see people recruiting women in a foreign country to give eggs on a massive scale for research purposes for the development of human clones. This legislation affirms that we stand for human dignity, from the very young human embryo to vulnerable women who could be coerced into donating eggs at potentially significant health risk to themselves. The legislation would make clear that the cloning of human persons is not something that we as a society will accept. The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is endorsed by the President. It will bring the United States into conformity with the United Nations, whose General Assembly called on all member states ``to prohibit all forms of human cloning'' by a strong 84-to-34 margin. The problem with cloning human beings is that it violates the inherent dignity of a human being on so many levels. Cloning transgresses our heritage's sacred values about what is good and what is true and what is beautiful. Western civilization is built on the tenet that every human life has immeasurable value at every stage. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human purpose as a means to an end. Upon this principle are our laws founded. Without this principle, much of our law has little basis. That inherent beauty and dignity of each person at every phase of life, no matter where they are or who they are, no matter what they look like, no matter what their physical condition is, they are beautiful and unique. They are sacred. They are a child of a loving God, period. Human cloning for whatever purpose is wrong because it turns humans into commodities or spare parts or even research animals. In recent debate, human cloning has been referred to as therapeutic cloning, research cloning, or simply SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer. These are presented as contrasts to reproductive cloning. But it should be noted that ``therapeutic,'' ``research,'' and ``reproductive'' are merely adjectives used to describe what is done with a human clone or with a cloned human. SCNT is just the scientific description of the cloning process. It is like calling a butterfly a lepidoptera--it still is a butterfly. A CRS report for Congress notes: [A] human embryo produced via cloning involves the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT the nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus from a mature body cell, such as a skin cell. In cloning, the embryo is created without sexual reproduction. That is the CRS report definition of a human clone. Stem cell pioneer Dr. James Thomson has said: If you create an embryo by [SCNT cloning] and give it to somebody who didn't know where it came from, there would be no test you could do to that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is. . . .If you try to define it away, you're being disingenuous. These quotes note that the SCNT process is cloning. With reproductive and therapeutic cloning, human beings are turned into commodities or in some cases spare parts to be dissected in the laboratory, with the claim that some day they may be administered to other humans to provide a treatment. Treatments are praiseworthy but not at the expense of the destruction of other members of the human family. We all want to treat people. I want to find a cure for cancer. However, it is wrong to turn humans into a means to an end. It is also wrong to exploit women for their eggs. That is the other side of the human cloning story. SCNT cloning, as proposed by proponents of the technique, would require millions of human eggs. Poor and disadvantaged women in particular would be vulnerable to exploitation via financial incentives for donation. This is troubling because retrieving such eggs violates the dignity of a woman and may cause serious harm to her health. The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is the only effective ban on human cloning. Any other so-called human cloning bans outside of this one are bans in name only and, in fact, most of them provide for human cloning for research purposes. So, under other bans, you can actually create a clone. They won't call it a clone; they will call it a product of SCNT. They will say you may create and do research on the clone; we just won't let you implant it. What is the clone, then, at that point in time? Is it in the human species at that point? Is it genetic material at that point in time? Indeed, it is. Biologically, it is a human. Others would only regulate what could be done with a human clone, normally requiring its destruction, but they do nothing to prevent the process of human cloning, which inherently violates human dignity. We should take a stand against turning young humans into commodities, research animals, and spare parts. We should not destroy young human lives for research purposes. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this human cloning prohibition ban.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, along with my colleague Dianne Feinstein. Thirty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon signed the original National Cancer Act, and today, we are moving forward with a new, comprehensive bill that takes us one step closer to ending death and suffering from cancer within 10 years. This bill addresses impact-oriented issues such as the development of cancer prevention drugs and a screening for the most lethal cancer. Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in America. Individuals afflicted with lung cancer historically have had only 15 percent survival rate. Our legislation includes a new demonstration program to continue research on a screening that uses a spiral CT scan. Screenings using this tool and appropriate follow-up procedures have shown very encouraging results in early detection. We also include accountability mechanisms in this bill. We request a report from the Federal Government regarding the manner in which Federal cancer research funding is being spent by requiring an estimate of the number of individuals who have benefited from such investment and the number of new treatments developed. Another issue our legislation addresses is the fact that less than 5 percent of adults diagnosed with cancer each year will be treated through enrollment in a clinical trial; this is often due to lack of awareness. Our bill creates an education program about the availability of clinical trials. Our legislation also includes efforts to ensure the availability of compassionate access options. Making decisions about treatment options for cancer is a decision best made between the cancer patient and their doctor. Compassionate access offers cancer patients, who have exhausted all of their treatment options, access to promising investigational treatments that have not yet received full approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Finally, our bill includes measures to accelerate the progress of the National Cancer Institute's initiative of mapping the genome of the most lethal cancers in America, which will lead to earlier cancer diagnosis and the use of personalized medicine. I look forward to working with my colleague Dianne Feinstein and others in moving forward with this legislation in the Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on bipartisan legislation that Senator Landrieu and myself are introducing, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. We do this today with 26 other cosponsors. It is important to talk about this matter as we set up for the bioethical debate which will be taking place after Easter and discuss some of the parameters and issues surrounding this topic. We have a continuum of discussion points, as this body and the rest of the country and, indeed, the world is engaged on the subject. There is an ethical way to move forward on stem cell research that is producing treatments and applications for human maladies, now in over 70 areas. The science continues to grow, and it is promising. I have held press conferences involving people with spinal cord injuries who could not walk and are walking again with the aid of braces. I have hosted people at press conferences who are suffering from congestive heart failure yet are now able to go up flights of stairs they couldn't even imagine previously with treatments utilizing their own adult stem cells. I have visited with cancer patients who have been treated with cord blood stem cells who are cancer-free now. We have new discoveries taking place. For example, in the amniotic fluid surrounding the child in the womb exists an abundant supply of stem cells that are malleable into many different types of cells. We just learned about this breakthrough less than 6 months ago, and there are no ethical problems with it whatsoever. It is a beautiful science that is developing. In the near future, I believe we are going to see these adult stem cell advances taking root and moving forward in a glorious fashion: so that people can literally walk again who were not able to walk; so that people can literally be cured of heart conditions who had no cure and were only hoping for the possibility of a transplant; so that people, instead of having a mechanical bladder control on their side, are able to have a bladder grown of their own adult stem cells around a matrix and a frame that can be inserted back in the body that would be functioning again. The science is beautiful. The ethical quagmire is significant as well: if we decide the route to pursue is to clone human beings; if we decide the route to pursue is to treat some humans as property, as a commodity to be researched and to be used. Human cloning and treating some humans as property are not the way to go. What we are seeing from the clear science that has taken place in the past and the present is that human embryonic stem cells produce tumors. This has occurred in cloning situations and in noncloning embryonic stem cell situations. Embryonic stem cells produce tumors. A tumor in this situation is a growth of tissue that doesn't fit the intended purpose. Scientists are experiencing significant problems in this embryonic area. While we are developing treatments and applications using adult stem cells, cord blood, and, hopefully in the future, amniotic fluid, we are not seeing the same success using human embryonic cells. The legislation that we put forward today, with 28 sponsors, would affirm that the United States places tremendous value on the dignity of each and every human life at whatever stage that life is in, from the very earliest moments to the very end of life. It would recognize the dignity of human life in this country and around the world. We don't want to see people recruiting women in a foreign country to give eggs on a massive scale for research purposes for the development of human clones. This legislation affirms that we stand for human dignity, from the very young human embryo to vulnerable women who could be coerced into donating eggs at potentially significant health risk to themselves. The legislation would make clear that the cloning of human persons is not something that we as a society will accept. The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is endorsed by the President. It will bring the United States into conformity with the United Nations, whose General Assembly called on all member states ``to prohibit all forms of human cloning'' by a strong 84-to-34 margin. The problem with cloning human beings is that it violates the inherent dignity of a human being on so many levels. Cloning transgresses our heritage's sacred values about what is good and what is true and what is beautiful. Western civilization is built on the tenet that every human life has immeasurable value at every stage. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human purpose as a means to an end. Upon this principle are our laws founded. Without this principle, much of our law has little basis. That inherent beauty and dignity of each person at every phase of life, no matter where they are or who they are, no matter what they look like, no matter what their physical condition is, they are beautiful and unique. They are sacred. They are a child of a loving God, period. Human cloning for whatever purpose is wrong because it turns humans into commodities or spare parts or even research animals. In recent debate, human cloning has been referred to as therapeutic cloning, research cloning, or simply SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer. These are presented as contrasts to reproductive cloning. But it should be noted that ``therapeutic,'' ``research,'' and ``reproductive'' are merely adjectives used to describe what is done with a human clone or with a cloned human. SCNT is just the scientific description of the cloning process. It is like calling a butterfly a lepidoptera--it still is a butterfly. A CRS report for Congress notes: [A] human embryo produced via cloning involves the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT the nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus from a mature body cell, such as a skin cell. In cloning, the embryo is created without sexual reproduction. That is the CRS report definition of a human clone. Stem cell pioneer Dr. James Thomson has said: If you create an embryo by [SCNT cloning] and give it to somebody who didn't know where it came from, there would be no test you could do to that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is. . . .If you try to define it away, you're being disingenuous. These quotes note that the SCNT process is cloning. With reproductive and therapeutic cloning, human beings are turned into commodities or in some cases spare parts to be dissected in the laboratory, with the claim that some day they may be administered to other humans to provide a treatment. Treatments are praiseworthy but not at the expense of the destruction of other members of the human family. We all want to treat people. I want to find a cure for cancer. However, it is wrong to turn humans into a means to an end. It is also wrong to exploit women for their eggs. That is the other side of the human cloning story. SCNT cloning, as proposed by proponents of the technique, would require millions of human eggs. Poor and disadvantaged women in particular would be vulnerable to exploitation via financial incentives for donation. This is troubling because retrieving such eggs violates the dignity of a woman and may cause serious harm to her health. The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is the only effective ban on human cloning. Any other so-called human cloning bans outside of this one are bans in name only and, in fact, most of them provide for human cloning for research purposes. So, under other bans, you can actually create a clone. They won't call it a clone; they will call it a product of SCNT. They will say you may create and do research on the clone; we just won't let you implant it. What is the clone, then, at that point in time? Is it in the human species at that point? Is it genetic material at that point in time? Indeed, it is. Biologically, it is a human. Others would only regulate what could be done with a human clone, normally requiring its destruction, but they do nothing to prevent the process of human cloning, which inherently violates human dignity. We should take a stand against turning young humans into commodities, research animals, and spare parts. We should not destroy young human lives for research purposes. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this human cloning prohibition ban.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, along with my colleague Dianne Feinstein. Thirty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon signed the original National Cancer Act, and today, we are moving forward with a new, comprehensive bill that takes us one step closer to ending death and suffering from cancer within 10 years. This bill addresses impact-oriented issues such as the development of cancer prevention drugs and a screening for the most lethal cancer. Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in America. Individuals afflicted with lung cancer historically have had only 15 percent survival rate. Our legislation includes a new demonstration program to continue research on a screening that uses a spiral CT scan. Screenings using this tool and appropriate follow-up procedures have shown very encouraging results in early detection. We also include accountability mechanisms in this bill. We request a report from the Federal Government regarding the manner in which Federal cancer research funding is being spent by requiring an estimate of the number of individuals who have benefited from such investment and the number of new treatments developed. Another issue our legislation addresses is the fact that less than 5 percent of adults diagnosed with cancer each year will be treated through enrollment in a clinical trial; this is often due to lack of awareness. Our bill creates an education program about the availability of clinical trials. Our legislation also includes efforts to ensure the availability of compassionate access options. Making decisions about treatment options for cancer is a decision best made between the cancer patient and their doctor. Compassionate access offers cancer patients, who have exhausted all of their treatment options, access to promising investigational treatments that have not yet received full approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Finally, our bill includes measures to accelerate the progress of the National Cancer Institute's initiative of mapping the genome of the most lethal cancers in America, which will lead to earlier cancer diagnosis and the use of personalized medicine. I look forward to working with my colleague Dianne Feinstein and others in moving forward with this legislation in the Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote the afternoon of March 27 on the confirmation of the nomination of George H. Wu, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California. I wish to address this confirmation so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 115, I support the confirmation of George H. Wu. My vote would not have altered the outcome of this confirmation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have arrived at a key moment for U.S. policy in Iraq. History recalls Operations Desert Shield and Storm in 1990 and 1991. It recalls the no-fly zones we maintained in the 1990s. It recalls the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It recalls our sanctions against Saddam Hussein. And when history records Operation Iraqi Freedom, it will remember whether Congress provided the direction necessary to complete the mission or chose to cut it off prematurely. History win judge today's vote. The American people await this vote. The Iraqi people await this vote. Al-Qaida awaits this vote. The surge is now underway. I did not support the surge, but I hope it works. The first reports have been encouraging, but the fog of war remains thick. Over the next few months, we will be able to assess whether the surge is working or not. Now is hardly the time to set a date for retreat. I am not saying we should have an open-ended commitment, but I am saying that our mission over there--and not politics over here--should drive our policy. I know many of my colleagues believe we have nothing to gain by staying. But I believe there is a way forward. Everyone agrees that a political solution is crucial to success. And it turns out that the political solution Iraqis ought to pursue is the most American of all: Federalism. Thankfully, in the early days in America, we did not have the kind of factional violence and terrorism we have seen in Iraq. But it certainly included rivalries between the colonies and different visions of the future. The great solution chosen by the founding fathers was federalism-- something embodied by the Senate itself. An Iraq with several federal regions, with Baghdad as a federal capital represents the best chance for Iraq to achieve stability. If the surge works, federalism can provide the framework necessary to stabilize Iraq over the long term. If the surge fails, and Iraq's sectarian violence deepens, a federal Iraq will be the only choice available to separate the warring factions while keeping Iraq from breaking apart--something that we cannot allow to occur in such a vital region. I believe that instead of giving the terrorists a reason to be hopeful and sending mixed signals to our forces in the field, we should be talking about the possibility of a federal Iraq. The Iraqi Constitution calls for it. The Iraqi Parliament passed a law supporting it. The Kurdish region proves that it can be successful. Yes, a federal Iraq may require the presence of U.S. forces for some period of time. But as we have seen in Bosnia, our deployments in support of a political solution endorsed by all sides can bring lasting peace and a chance for a brighter future. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Cochran amendment. We need to stop talking about how to retreat and start talking about winning in Iraq. A conversation about a federal Iraq is the best way for the Senate to contribute to success in Iraq.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the bill that creates a BRAC-type process for the rest of Government. I think this is one where we have a lot of priorities that people are interested in, yet nobody is for wasteful spending. So here is a process where we can actually reduce Federal spending in low-performing areas and be able to get the resources to spend in places we want to. It would be a BRAC- type system, which we are familiar with, and it would apply it to the rest of Government. The commission of reports gives us one vote, up or down, without amendment, limited timeframe. This is a way we can responsibly, both parties, look at ways we can fund priorities in the future without raising taxes, and I hope that is what we are all about. We are familiar with how that BRAC process works. A lot of people aren't particularly happy when the report comes out, but it has worked and eliminated some $50 billion worth of lower priority military base spending. I don't know anybody who runs for Federal office or public office anywhere who is for wasteful Government spending. Here is a way of getting at it. Because the system is built to spend, this would actually change that system to give us a process that can be fair to both sides of the aisle, and ongoing in its effort to be able to get this allocation on a more appropriate basis. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote for the amendment, and I call up amendment No. 581 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for staying here late this evening. I hope anyone who is not watching this is watching the KU-Southern Illinois game on right now, which is quite a barn burner going on. I have an amendment I want to talk about, because we are going to go into the long voting session tomorrow and will not have a great deal of time to talk about it then. But it is an important amendment. It is an important amendment for the budget. It is an important amendment for the long-term process. A lot of my colleagues will be very familiar with the BRAC process, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process. It was enacted at least a dozen years ago, probably a little more than that. It is a process by which we have a commission look at military bases. They consider the military bases, consider whether they are useful where they are currently located, if it would be better for them to be realigned, if it is better for a base to be closed and that money put somewhere else. It has been a very effective process for us to be able to take spending and put it in higher priority areas, whereas historically if you tried to eliminate a military base, it was virtually impossible to do, because you would go at the military base in a particular State, and it would not matter how old the base had been or whether it was out of position, the Members of that State would defend it. We were rarely able to close a military base. So we enacted the BRAC process. That process created a commission, and they looked at all the military establishments. It then said that these 65, 125, 233 bases should be closed. We have higher priorities for this money. The process is chopped off on by the President, and then it comes to Congress, one vote up or down, agree, disagree, deal or no deal. By that means, we have realigned over $40 billion in annual appropriations, total appropriations on military bases. It has been a very good process to eliminate wasteful Federal spending in places where it is not needed. We need that process for the rest of Government. We spend about $2.9 trillion on an annual basis. We have not found effective ways to eliminate wasteful Federal spending. I have yet to find somebody running for public office at the Federal level--or any level, for that matter--who says they are for wasteful government spending or they are for duplicative government spending. If everybody is saying they are against it and they are against waste, fraud, and abuse and they keep looking for that line in the budget to wipe it out, here is a realistic way we can deal with that, take that BRAC process and apply to it the rest of Government. What could it yield? Let me give some examples using this quick report card. Regularly, the Government puts out a report card on the effectiveness of our own Government spending programs, whether they are hitting their targets or not. They score them. You can look here at a few of agencies. For the State Department, they reviewed 40 programs for this OMB report card. They score them for effectiveness in what the program was targeted for. They were at a median score of 77.93 percent. I gave them the letter grade of a C-plus, based on the regular report card system. Here you can see the Department of Education, HUD, EPA. For the Department of Education, 74 programs were scored. They had a median score of 44.5, which I gave a letter score of an F. That is what my kids would get. That is what I would give if I were teaching, saying: This is not an effective Government program. Why is it we can't go in and find some of these education programs that are not being effective and eliminate them? It is because the system is built to spend. There is an old maxim that Ronald Reagan used that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government program. Once in place, they seem to sustain themselves. They get a support group around them, and then the specific controls over the general. If it is a program that somebody in Vermont wants to maintain or Kansas wants to maintain, even though maybe its effectiveness is very low, we defend it because it is for our States. That is the specific. If the general interest would say this should be eliminated, let's change the system so they can save money. We can do so using the military base-closing process and use that money for higher priority needs. I want to eliminate deaths by cancer in 10 years. This is going to take a real research effort and focus. To do so, we spend $2.9 trillion in the budget now. We have enough money, but it is not in the right places. Let's use this system to reduce and eliminate wasteful spending and then be able to target higher priority areas. This is a program which both Republicans and Democrats, in whatever philosophical position you may put yourself, would say is a good idea. This is something which is bipartisan, nonpartisan, and it is for good governance and good government. It changes the system because the system is built to spend. It is built to spend almost perennially. It needs to be adjusted. I want to quote from former President Clinton's adviser Paul Weinstein, of the Progressive Policy Institute, who testified before the Senate about this approach: Our organization has believed that the best way to achieve comprehensive reform in the executive branch is to combine the commission function with a mechanism to require Congress to vote on its recommendations. Senator Brownback's CARFA [Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies] legislation would provide this type of commission. Here again, we have to realize the difficulties of this system. The strength of the system is spending money. The strength of the system is not saving money. Change it to combine both a commission and a requirement for legislative action. Under the CARFA proposal, once every 4 years an agency would be reviewed for recommendations being made on whether eliminations should be made in that agency. It would then be put together in a package and sent to the President to either agree or disagree. It would then go to the Congress for the Congress to look at, as we do the BRAC process now. It would then be required to be voted upon with a limited time period for debate without amendment. You look at it, and then you get a chance to look at the overall practices and the package, and then you can say I agree, vote yes, I disagree, vote no, deal or no deal. This is a process which has worked. I submit to my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, all persuasions, we have a lot of high-priority needs. We don't have the money focused in the high-priority areas. Too often, it is focused on things that we are maintaining from the past that maybe have less saliency today but still have a protection group around them, and we haven't found a way to eliminate them or get in and do it. Here is a way to do it, and it doesn't favor one side's program or the other's. It says: We are going to have this in a bipartisan commission, and we are going to change the process so we can save the money. Then that money will be used for higher needs. This is an effective way for us to move forward. I urge my colleagues, when we get a chance to vote on my amendment, to look at this and say: That is something which I want to endorse, something I want to support, because it is going to allow us to more effectively spend the Federal money. One of the things people tell me that drives them the most crazy about Federal spending is wasteful Federal spending. Here is a way. We redesign the system to get at it. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to talk about some of these economic issues, and I join my colleagues from Minnesota and Pennsylvania in a discussion of these items. I note from the discussion of my colleague from Pennsylvania that he focuses on human capital, which I absolutely agree with. I have a few charts I will cover in a few minutes about an investment in human capital I hope we can all agree on, and that is trying to encourage and rebuild the family structure in the country. This is something I have worked on across the aisle with my colleagues, particularly in the District of Columbia when last year I was chairman of the DC Appropriations Subcommittee. We were deeply concerned about the lack of family formation in the District of Columbia, so it became the key area and the initial place to begin to develop human capital being within the family structure. We are finding in the District of Columbia and in many urban areas in particular, and all across the country, but in the District of Columbia in total we had 63 percent of our children born out of wedlock. This puts a child in a situation where it is more difficult to develop human capital. You can develop a child and a child can be raised well in that setting, but it becomes much more difficult. I worked with the Mayor at that time, Mayor Williams, and I worked with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and we put together a program called the Marriage Development Account. If you were at 85 percent of poverty or below and got married, we would put in a Federal dollar, raise two private sector dollars, and you as a couple would put in a dollar. We would match this 3 to 1 to encourage the formation of married units--a family--around which to build a family. This has broad bipartisan support, left and right support this, and I am hopeful we can look at ways in reforming welfare programs in particular to encourage the formation of families as one of the key and vital steps for human capital development and growth. This is something we ought to be able to agree on across the aisle. We have agreed previously, and I hope we can do that now, because we have to develop human capital. We particularly have to do it now, and the best place to start is the family and developing the human capital there. Clearly, one of the best ways we can break the poverty cycle is forming more family units. That shows up in all of the data. It is broadly supported in a bipartisan fashion and it is something where we need to change the welfare policies. I wish to also look at this idea that tax policies since 2003 have been more beneficial to upper income households and less beneficial to lower income households in the United States. Here again, I have a series of charts. I will first start with conditions under the Clinton administration and look at impacts of Federal policies as far as a share of the overall economy. This is an instructive chart when you look at income, after-tax income, distribution data during the Clinton years. Let's consider the distribution. The data for all of these charts comes from CBO's December 2006 historical effective Federal tax rates. The data are from 1979 to 2004. First, it is interesting to look at what happened to after-tax income between 1992 and 2000. These would be the Clinton administration years. The only group of households that saw a share of the Nation's after-tax income increase was the top 20 percent. Their share during the 1992 to the 2000 time period--you see these arrows all going down: the lowest 20 percent, the second lowest 20 percent, middle, second highest, everyone is down, down, down; up is the top 20 percent. Their share of after-tax income went up during the Clinton administration years and their tax policy. Now let's postulate the same question--because the charge is often made that the tax cuts have only benefitted--the wealthy in this country. I have seen the charts repeatedly, and it is important to discuss what the data have shown. What happened for 2000 through 2004 is the opposite of what happened during the Clinton years as far as who grew what share of after-tax income that happened during 1992 to 2004. It went the opposite. The only group that didn't see a share of after- tax income increase was the top 20 percent. Everybody else saw their share of the after-tax income grow: the lowest 20 percent, the second lowest 20 percent, middle, the second highest. The only people who went down were the top 20 percent. It is important to point out, when we have talked about these things in generic numbers and phrases--about only the upper income households having benefitted--but we ought to look at the actual data we have available to us. Again, I will go back to what happened in 1992 and remind people these are the Clinton years. The lower income all saw their share of after-tax income decrease; the upper income group saw theirs go up. In 2000 to 2004, we saw a reversal of those arrows under these tax policies that are being so castigated as being against lower income. The share of after-tax income received by the top 1 percent of households grew 42 percent, from 10.9 percent in 1992 to a peak of 15.5 percent at the end of the Clinton years. Again, we are talking about the Clinton years, the share of after-tax income, the top 1 percent of all households, up 42 percent during the Clinton era and the Clinton years. That is what took place. What happened from 2000 to 2004 is after-tax income received in the top 1 percent of households actually declined. This declined at the end of the first Bush term. They do not support the assertion that there has been a massive shift of income to the highest income households since 2000. The data don't support it. The critics of the pro-growth tax policies enacted after 2000 assert that the highest income households have disproportionately benefitted. That simply is not supported by the data. Let's look at the top 10 percent of households paying their share of income taxes. Since 1984, the top 10 percent of households have paid an increasing majority of all Federal income taxes. In 2004, the final year of data available in CBO's report, the share of Federal income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of households reached a high of 70.8 percent--70.8 percent. So you can see it was continuing to grow. It is worth noting that in 2004, the bottom 40 percent of households paid a negative share of Federal income taxes. I want to show that chart. That is, they received resources from the income tax system. In other words, they were paid by the income tax system--not paid into. They received from the income tax system. Since 2000, the ``relative Federal income tax burden,'' or the share of all Federal income taxes paid compared to the group's share of all income, has declined for all income groups except the top 20 percent--except the top 20 percent. So again we have these tax lines going in a different direction. Striking is the fact that the relative Federal income tax burden of the top 1 percent of households declined for 1992 to 2000 during the Clinton administration. So again we have this comparison of Clinton policies to Bush policies. This is the relative Federal income tax burden of the top 1 percent of family households income. That declined, the percentage, their share that they paid of the overall tax burden, and it went up in 2000 and 2004 in the Bush years. In 2004 it not only increased but it was higher than in 1992 when President Clinton took office. The CBO's report also reveals that for the time period from 2000 to 2004, the effective total Federal tax rate reduction has been the highest on a percentage basis for the lowest income groups. In other words, you have the most decline as far as the Federal tax rates for the lowest income groups. I think that is as it should be. We shouldn't be critical of the tax policy saying it is harming low income and benefitting disproportionately high income when the data don't support that. The same is true if you look at the income tax rate reductions. Again, the lowest 40 percent of households have a negative effective income tax rate and a negative income tax share. In other words, they were paid back by the Federal income tax system. Clearly the tax policies enacted since 2000 have benefitted all income groups and have not resulted in a shift in income shares in favor of high-income households or in tax burdens toward lower income households. Indeed, the data say the opposite. The top 10 percent of households are paying a bigger share of total Federal taxes and total Federal income taxes than in any prior time covered by the report. I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence, but the falsehoods about tax cuts and a bigger share of the pie for the wealthy need to be addressed. I think it is important that we do address these. I also note in yesterday morning's Wall Street Journal in discussing this budget, it says the Senate Budget Committee chairman is pulling off a neat magic trick--and here I am quoting the Wall Street Journal: . . . of claiming his budget includes ``no tax increase,'' even as it anticipates repeal of the Bush tax cuts after 2010. These are the same tax cuts I have been discussing, the tax cuts that have helped stimulate growth, that have helped stimulate employment, that have helped reduce the tax burden on the lower income people in the United States. The Wall Street Journal goes on to say: How does he pull that rabbit out of his hat? By positing what amounts to a giant asterisk where the tax increase is supposed to go and hoping no one will notice. In other words, the taxes go up after 2010, since the tax reductions put into place in the Bush tax cuts are not continued. The article continues that the chairman has: . . . no intention of extending the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against and whose repeal would slap the economy in 2011 with the largest tax increase in U.S. history. But Senate Democrats don't want anyone to know this, at least not before the 2008 election. . . . All of this is really sleight-of- hand to disguise that Democrats are intent on repealing the Bush tax cuts. What would the impact of that be? People talk about it in generic terms, but let's unpack it a little bit. The Wall Street Journal reports that: This would raise the tax on capital gains to 20 percent from 15 percent, more than double the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent from 15 percent, and sharply increase marginal tax rates at all levels of income. This will hurt growth, this will hurt investment, this will hurt job creation, and this will hurt wages. This backdoor tax increase sends a bad signal to the economy. That bad news, if allowed to stand, will be bad news for the economy throughout for the working men and women of this country. This isn't fiscal responsibility; it is bad tax policy that hurts people. This budget will only increase the burden on families. We need to step back and be willing to get control of entitlement spending and across-the-board spending. We need policies that encourage the formation of families, and support the preservation of traditional families, as a way of developing human capital. We need to help those who need a hand, but we are quickly reaching a point where we are asking too few people to carry too much of a burden on the tax rates. We are on the verge of killing incentive and initiative. We need to get serious about reforming a tax system that even the most educated Americans cannot comprehend. We need to put in place an alternative flat tax and let people choose a tax system. This current tax system is unintelligible, burdensome, manipulative, and it needs to be changed. We are in desperate need of a tax system that is simple, efficient, and globally competitive. We need to just have a fair system. Our tax system needs to treat everyone the same, not heap dizzying layers of regulation on top of regulation or carve out loopholes for the privileged who have the ability to hire lobbyists. Despite the chairman's call for simplifying the Tax Code, there is nothing in his budget that promotes greater simplicity. Despite the chairman and his colleagues in the majority being fully aware of the need for entitlement reform, they choose to totally ignore our looming fiscal problem. They choose, in this budget, to completely ignore the urgent need to address entitlement reform, especially as the first baby boomers begin retiring next year. This budget does not contain any proposals that, on net, would reduce mandatory spending or the debt. The majority, evidently, wishes to simply wait for a fiscal train wreck to happen. If we sit on our hands and let this budget and its ``magic act'' budget enforcement provisions take effect, all we will do is impose the largest tax increase in American history at the worst possible time-- when the fiscal train wreck begins as the baby boomers enter their golden years of retirement. That is not a budget; that is recipe for disaster. I look forward to further debate on this budget, and I really hope we can start working together on it in a bipartisan fashion to address the clear problems we have. We can do that, and we need to do it. Now is the time. The sooner we act, the more options we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for having this discussion on the budget. I am ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee. I wish to discuss some of the things Senator Schumer was talking about on economic performance. What I would like to do in making this presentation--I will speak for 10 minutes now and 20 minutes later--is to talk first about what has taken place in the economy recently and then to talk about human capital development that is important for us to develop more and into the future. I think we have a bit of a different presentation on the factual setting of what has happened as a result of the tax cuts. I believe there would be agreement that if the economy has not substantially performed as well as some may suggest, as the Senator from New York suggested, then the answer is certainly not a big tax increase. That would clearly not be the case if what we want to do is stimulate economic growth. I believe there would be a broad basis of support and a realization of that from economists and people around the world. If your economy is not performing well, the answer is certainly not to put on a trillion-dollar tax increase to try to stimulate that economy to perform better. That would be clearly the wrong answer. Yet we are finding that in this budget. I am here to discuss what has taken place in the economy. One of the key questions the Senate will address during this debate is what procedural rules to put in place to help instill budgetary discipline on this institution. Unfortunately, those proposed fiscal discipline measures which appear in this budget amount to a little more than a guaranteed tax increase for the American public on the magnitude of $900 billion to $1 trillion. As my colleague from New Hampshire has noted, it is the largest tax hike ever on American workers and their families--the largest ever. That certainly would not be the prescription I would hear from most economists as to how to get the economy performing better, to put on a $1 trillion tax hike. As part of the majority's rhetoric, we will hear much talk about how the fiscal policies--most notably the pro-growth tax policies--of the past 6 years have not benefitted everybody in this society. To substantiate that assertion, one can only rely on bits and pieces of data and not the full view and the big picture of what has happened in the economy, which is what I would like to cover, and cover now, and cover with charts, to let people see what the facts are and draw their own conclusions. It is undeniable our Nation was heading into recession during the year 2000, the last year of President Clinton's administration. I was in the Senate, and one could certainly see that in the economic data. The dot-com bubble was bursting; economic growth turned negative in the third quarter of 2000. The unemployment rate bottomed out in April of 2000 and began its rise. In the period from January 2001 to August 2001--the first year of the Bush administration--only 1 month registered positive job growth. In that period, 700,000 jobs--nearly three-quarters of a million--were lost. Then came the horrors of 9/11, and the Nation's economy tumbled further. It was like hitting a brick wall and falling. From September to December more than a million jobs were lost. We all remember the trauma to us as a country, and the trauma to the economy at that time. I have a number of charts I will present today, and I hope they will put some perspective on our debate. We can argue about the degree to which pro-growth and pro-job tax relief enacted in 2003 caused the economic turnaround. I think that is a legitimate debate. I would note, however, that recent economic conditions display a striking contrast to the conditions that prevailed prior to enactment of pro-growth tax relief under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that was passed in May of 2003. Consider these charts and the data behind them, and then draw your own conclusion. Let's look at this chart on economic growth since 2000: inflation- adjusted annualized GDP growth. You can see where we were prior to and then in 2000 and 2001 with negative economic growth rates taking place. You can see anemic growth rates taking place afterwards. You can see what took place: tax relief enacted in May of 2003 and the strong spike, continuous spike in growth that took place. Since the enactment of tax relief in 2003, annualized growth in the inflation-adjusted GDP, our gross domestic product--that is, the size of the pie, the size of the economy in the country--has averaged a robust 3.5 percent growth rate. That compares with the relatively tepid average of 1.3 percent from the first quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2003. So you look at this period before tax relief: 1.3 percent; you look at the period since the tax cut enactment: a 3.5-percent average growth rate. I would much rather have a 3.5-percent growth rate than a 1.3- percent growth rate. What about investment? That is a key part of our growth, to make productivity grow, to make wages grow. Business investment is a key component of economic growth. Since the enactment of tax relief in 2003, growth in real business fixed investment has averaged 5.7 percent. With tax relief enacted. You can see where we were beforehand, negative investment; afterwards, positive investment at a nice rate, 5.7 percent. Prior to the enactment of tax relief, from the first quarter of 2001 through the second quarter of 2003, business investment declined at an average rate of 5.6 percent; but it increased 5.7 percent on average afterwards--a direct mirror opposite with the investment and tax cuts that took place. Let's talk about unemployment rates. That is certainly a key. We want to have people employed in this economy, and employed at an aggressive growth rate. The unemployment rate has declined from a peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003, when tax relief was implemented, to 4.5 percent in February of 2007. So you can see again, with tax relief enacted, a decline in the unemployment rate takes place. At 4.5 percent, the unemployment rate stands below the average rate of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Where we sit today stands below those average unemployment rates. Again, tax relief was enacted. We can argue about, did that cause it or not, but I think you have to clearly say we have had a nice improvement that has taken place in the time period following enactment of tax relief. What about payroll employment changes since 2000? There have been 42 months of consecutive gains in payroll employment. Close to 7.6 million new payroll jobs have been created during the period since September 2003--again, that period when we did the tax relief. From June of 2003 through February 2007, payroll employment gains have averaged a healthy 169,000 per month. In contrast, 91,000 jobs were lost on average in the period between January of 2001 and May of 2003. Again, you get this mirror situation where you were losing jobs prior to this time period, and you are growing them at a nice, strong, clip and engagement rate which is taking place after the enactment of tax relief. Good, positive rates have taken place. With that, Mr. President, I believe in our time agreement I had until 12:50, and then I have 20 minutes at a later point. I will go through a series of additional charts later, but my colleague from Pennsylvania, I believe, was going to speak. I do not know if the manager would like to take the time of Senator Casey at this point in time. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill if her side desires to have the floor at this point in time.