Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

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

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

Mr. COBURN

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

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

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be on the committee with the Senator from Pennsylvania, and it is a privilege to represent Jerome Holmes during his debate and consideration for the Tenth Circuit Court position. A lot of discussions have occurred in this body in the last couple of years on judges. One of the things which was prominent in my election to the Senate was the issue of judges. It really comes back down to what the American people would like to see in those people who sit on the highest courts of our land and what are the qualities and characteristics we would like them to have and do they go through a process where those are fairly vetted and taken out of the political arena to see what those qualities are. Thinking about Jerome Holmes, Senator Specter very well outlined his history. So there is no question that he has impeccable credentials and that he is considered well qualified by the American Bar Association. But what he does have is two things. One is a constitutionally correct and appropriate opinion as to the position of judges in our society. Their job is to take the Constitution, take our statutes and our treaties, and, in the light of Supreme Court precedent, rule only on those things--not to create new law, not to invent a cause they want to make. They are to be very limited in their role. Jerome Holmes understands that. The second characteristic he has is that of integrity. We hear that word bantered around a lot, and we hear modifiers placed on it. You cannot modify integrity. You either have it or you don't. Your life either represents it or it does not. What people see you do and how you do it is either of integrity or not. This is an African-American male who was raised in this city, who struggled to accomplish the highest levels of his profession. He excelled every step of the way. Not only did he apply his efforts in terms of his profession, but he spent a great deal of his time applying his skills, knowledge, and intellect to help other people outside of the field of law. He is a man committed to our country, who has full recognition of what his responsibilities will be as an appellate court judge in the Tenth Circuit in this country. He also fully well knows that his role is to follow the precedent set by the highest Court in this land and to do that in a way which gives everyone before him a truly blind cause of justice for their benefit. We cannot ask more than that of our judges-- that in fact they have not only integrity and intellect, but the last thing we can ask is, Do they have heart? Do they have compassion? Have they experienced the real problems of life personally, so that they can see into the lives of others and how they deal with those things in the predicaments and situations which we face and whether they follow a response that is one of integrity. I have no question in my mind that Jerome Holmes has the qualities and characteristics which will make him an excellent appellate judge. We are going to hear some opposition to him. The opposition is basically because he believes in a colorblind society. He has written commentaries based on what he believes personally. He has been critical--and rightly so, as many in this body have been, and others-- of decisions the Supreme Court has made. But to be critical doesn't mean one will not follow what is called stare decisis, the precedent set down by the Supreme Court. It takes great courage for an African-American male to look at affirmative action in a light that says that in the long run, it hurts race relations rather than helps them. Those are my words, not his. But, in fact, what he has done is said this goes against what he believes to be fair and honorable, as we approach the problems within our society. What he really believes is that everybody should be judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. So we will hear a lot over the next 4 hours--2 hours today and 2 hours tomorrow--from those people who would question his position. It is OK to question it, but it is not OK to oppose him on the basis of what his personal beliefs are. If we do that, there is not a judge who can qualify. Not one judge could qualify for any court in this land if we take all their personal opinions and put them out in the open and say: This goes against something I believe. So I am honored that I have the privilege to stand on the Senate floor and defend the criticisms that will come before him. I also know he has heart, he has intellect, and he has integrity. That is what we want. It doesn't matter whether he is Black or White or whether he is Republican or Democrat, we want those qualities in our judges. That is how we assure our freedom--we take the political arena away and out of the courts, and we let the Constitution and our statutes and our treaties reign supreme. That is the best equality for all that we can give to the next generation. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. COBURN

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

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

Mr. COBURN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank you for having this important debate regarding our Nation's aging infrastructure and for allowing this body to discuss the merits of Corps of Engineers reform. As you know, I supported allowing this bill to come to the Senate floor for consideration. Congress has not passed a water resources authorization bill since 2000, and particularly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this debate is long overdue. While many attempted to derail consideration of this debate, I did not because I believed that we must have this discussion in the open. That being said, I have deep concerns regarding the legislation that is before us today. Specifically, I am concerned that we are missing a historic opportunity to incorporate the many lessons learned since the last WRDA bill passed in 2000. Consider the following developments that highlight the critical need for reform of the Corps of Engineers: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in March 2006 that ``the cost benefit analyses performed by the Corps to support decisions on Civil Works projects . . . were generally inadequate to provide a reasonable basis for deciding whether to proceed with the project . . .'' GAO-06- 529T--Corps of Engineers: Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program (March 15, 2006) In remarking on the fact that the Corps reprogrammed over $2.1 billion through 7,000 reprogramming actions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the GAO noted that the Corps' practice was often ``not necessary'' and is ``reflect[ive] of poor planning and an absence of Corps-wide priorities for its Civil Works priorities.'' GAO-06-529T--Corps of Engineers: Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program (March 15, 2006) In a report to Congress in 2003 regarding the Sacramento flood protection project, the GAO found that the Corps used ``an inappropriate methodology to calculate the value of protected properties'' and failed to properly report expected cost increases. Consider the projected costs for the three primary Sacramento projects: the Common Features Project increased from $57 million in 1996 to $370 million in 2002; the American Features project increased from $44 million in 1996 to $143 million in 2002; and the Natomis Basin component has ballooned from an early estimated cost of $13 million, to $212 million in 2002. GAO-04-30--Corps of Engineers: Improved Analysis of Costs & Benefits Needed for the Sacramento Flood Control Project. Thanks to a Corps whistleblower and a subsequent investigation by the Army inspector general, we know that the Corps: ``manipulated the economic analyses of the feasibility study being conducted on the Upper Mississippi lock expansion project in order to steer the study to a specific outcome.'' Furthermore, the investigation revealed that a Corps official knowingly directed that ``mathematically flawed'' data be used to justify the project. High-ranking Corps officials also were criticized for giving ``preferential treatment to the barge industry . . .'' by allowing industry representatives to become direct participants in the economic analysis.'' U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Statement of Elaine Kaplan. Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel (December 2000). I could add several more examples, including the many lessons we have learned in the wake of Katrina, but my point is clear: the processes used for project justification, for long-term planning, for cost containment, and for project accountability are fundamentally flawed and do not serve the best interests of American taxpayers. For too long, we have allowed project costs to soar, routinely accepted inaccurate studies to justify large projects, and rarely, if ever, asked the tough questions of Corps officials. Congress plays a central role in the oversight of all Federal agencies, and with respect to the Corps, we have failed taxpayers miserably. Why? Perhaps a better question would be to ask who benefits most from lax congressional oversight. I would argue that Members themselves are the real winners. We get the projects we want, regardless of the cost or the overall impact on critical national infrastructure, and the Corps is allowed to operate as it pleases. This environment--with every incentive for construction and little or no incentive for accountability--is a recipe for disasters of all sorts. The only way to fix this problem in the long term is to bring fiscal transparency and oversight to this process. First and foremost, we have to develop our ability to prioritize authorized Corps projects. The Corps currently faces a $58 billion dollar project backlog that will take many decades to resolve, and this bill will add over $10 billion more to that backlog. Many worthwhile projects, already debated and authorized by previous Congresses, languish in the annual competition for appropriations. Taking their place in line are politically popular projects that rarely address vital national infrastructure needs. Again, we are failing taxpayers. I am pleased to see the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Feingold and McCain, that will squarely address this lack of prioritization. The tools that will be provided by this amendment will strengthen the ability of Members of Congress to analyze the hundreds of authorized Corps projects and determine which are in the best interests of our Nation. Congress maintains its discretion to fund whichever projects it deems most appropriate, but we will do so with an abundance of new data that will highlight critical national infrastructural needs. Funds are increasingly limited, and we have a responsibility to prioritize projects based on their impact. Second, in our efforts to improve this important process, Congress must consider ways to bring greater oversight to the Corps. The many instances of wrongdoing in the Corps project justification process make clear that we must do better. With billions of dollars at stake and often thousands of lives hanging in the balance, we simply cannot allow for manipulation and undue influence in the justification study process. Again, I am pleased to see the efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold in addressing this void. The Corps has proven itself incapable of mending these problems on its own, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the project justification process. It is imperative that outside experts, with no stake in large-scale construction proposals, be allowed to review these types of Corps studies. While I may have designed the amendment in a slightly different manner, I look forward to supporting the McCain-Feingold approach that will allow for a truly independent and time-sensitive review by a panel of experts. At the end of the day, Congress still makes the final decision on which projects to fund, and in no way will this amendment impact our constitutional obligations or slow project construction. We can still fund wasteful and inefficient spending if we so desire. If we pass this amendment, at least we will ensure that the studies we cite are accurate. We owe that to the American public. I am grateful to my colleagues for the countless hours they have spent in putting this bill together. I know the road that led to this debate today was not an easy one, and it has been a long and difficult journey. As we embark on this debate and in our legitimate desire to pass this legislation, however, we must not overlook the critical need for Corps reform. The many lessons we have learned since WRDA 2000 are as numerous as they are pressing. The Corps of Engineers is staffed by many dedicated and hard-working Americans, many of whom are in my State. The agency itself, however, is ailing and demands our attention. If the Corps is to continue to meet the mandate it has been given and serve the needs of the American taxpayer, we must not move forward without the incorporation of new oversight and transparency. America's waterways and flood control projects have played an important role in protecting our communities and in spurring agricultural and industrial commerce. Unless we can reform the Corps, though, their impact will increasingly diminish. As it stands today, the Corps is not accountable to Congress, and ultimately, it is not accountable to the American taxpayer. We have a historic opportunity to change this environment, and we must seize it.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the 15th amendment of the United States Constitution provides ``[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' In 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress finally began to enforce the Nation's promise embodied in the 15th amendment. The Voting Rights Act was designed to ``foster our transformation to a society that is no longer fixated on race,'' to an ``all-inclusive community, where we would be able to forget about race and color and see people as people, as human beings, just as citizens.'' The mere mention of this act conjures up profound images of the civil rights movement, a fight by many courageous men and women for equality and justice. In 1965, Congress wisely decided to make the most significant sections of the bill permanent. The permanent provisions apply to all States equally. One section of the original act suspended all ``tests or devices'' that States used to disfranchise racial minorities. Section 2, which is also permanent, codifies the 15th amendment, confirming by statute that no political subdivision may deny or abridge voting rights on account of race or color and that all individuals have recourse to discriminatory election procedures in Federal court. That same Congress passed temporary remedial measures to address voting practices and districting in seven Southern States, where registration rates for Black voters averaged only 29.3 percent. Section 5 was crafted to remedy the low voter registration and turnout among the minority communities caused by discriminatory registration practices and intimidation at the polls. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act has succeeded tremendously. Statistician Keith Gaddie reported that the registration and turnout rate of Black citizens is higher in covered jurisdictions than throughout the rest of the Nation. He additionally revealed that registration of Black citizens in Alabama during the 2004 elections was 72.9 percent of the voting age population; in Georgia, 64.2 percent; in Louisiana, 71.1 percent; in Mississippi, 76.1 percent; in South Carolina, 71.1 percent; and in Virginia, 57.4 percent of the voting age population. Voter turnout rates were equally improved. For example in 2004 Alabama had a 63.9 percent turnout rate of registered Black voters, Georgia had a 54.4 percent turnout rate, Louisiana had a 62.1 percent turnout rate, Mississippi had a 66.8 percent turnout rate, South Carolina had a 59.5 percent turnout rate, and Virginia had a 49.6 percent turnout rate. If we applied registration and turnout data from our most recent Presidential elections to the trigger formula for coverage, many covered States would no longer require coverage. This is important because the Supreme Court requires that any laws that we write must be ``congruent and proportional'' to the problems we seek to remedy. While these provisions were necessary because State practices and the prejudices of individuals kept eligible citizens from being able to cast a ballot free from the threat of intimidation or harassment, it is important that we ensure that the correct jurisdictions are covered in order to preserve the constitutionality of the act. We held nine hearings, and many individuals from diverse backgrounds and different races have both praised and criticized the temporary provisions of the VRA set to expire 1 year from now. At each hearing, multiple witnesses suggested ways to amend and improve this Act. Yet I was the only Senator on the committee prepared to offer substantive amendments to improve the act so that it addresses the problems it seeks to remedy today. I was prepared to offer three amendments. The first would define the term ``limited English proficient,'' the second would reauthorize the amended provisions for 7 years instead of 25 years, and the third would require a photo identification in all Federal elections. Yet I only offered one amendment in committee yesterday because it was clearly communicated that we should pass the exact bill that the House passed regardless of the merits of certain amendments. In fact, even though the committee did pass a nonsubstantive amendment to amend the title of the bill, Senate leadership brought the House bill H.R. 9 to the floor without the title change accepted in committee. Political expediency clearly trumped the will of individual Senators. There are other amendments that should have received consideration. During hearings, some Senators discussed possible amendments that they appeared to support with witnesses. Yet I believe that political fear and perceived intimidation prevented them from offering any amendments. For example, there was discussion based on the testimony of numerous witnesses that someone should offer an amendment to create more reasonable bailout procedure. States and counties wishing to bail out are only permitted to make their case here in Washington rather than at a Federal court closer to their home. Another amendment that received some support among witnesses would have included more recent data to determine coverage of areas with a recent history of discrimination rather than relying on data only from the 1964, 1968, and 1972 elections. Even if no amendments offered were accepted, this bill is dramatically different from reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act as renewed in 1982. This bill rewrites the Voting Rights Act, section 5 to include in section (b) that ``[t]he purpose of [section 5] is to protect the ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.'' Such language has never before been inserted into section 5 preclearance requirements where there is no judicial review of determinations made by Department of Justice, DOJ employees. Additionally, section 5(c) of the bill rewrites the Voting Rights Act to require that DOJ refuse to preclear a plan that employs ``any discriminatory purpose.'' These are very serious changes that were never debated and that witnesses suggested we amend. Those suggestions were never even discussed or considered. I am at a loss as to why we are inserting new standards for 25 years without knowing the potential consequences and clarifying congressional intent in the language of the act. Some Senators have said that we have carefully considered this bill and the effects it will have on our Nation based on the number of hearings we had. Yet Member attendance at these hearings was incredibly low. At the first two hearings on section 5, only one Senator attended. At the third, five Senators attended. Five Senators did not attend any of the committee's hearings. Five Senators attended only portions of one hearing. This is not meant as criticism because I only attended part of two hearings. My point is that it is unfortunate that we insisted on doing this on an expedited basis when the act does not expire for a year. The committee conducted eight hearings in 9 workweeks--and during times when it was clear most Senators would be absent. We held four hearings during the immigration debate on the floor and held two hearings during rollcall votes on the floor. Because of the political nature of this bill and the fear of being improperly classified as ``racist,'' the bill was crafted and virtually passed before any Senator properly understood any of the major changes. For example, the bill that passed out of committee included a finding section before any hearings were held. No changes to those findings were made. Furthermore, it was nearly impossible to prepare for the hearings. Our rules require that witnesses submit their testimony 24 hours prior to the hearing so Senators can formulate thoughtful questions. Over half of the witnesses--21 out of 41--flouted the committee's rules by turning in their testimony less than 24 hours before the hearing. Indeed, one witness submitted his testimony at 12:03 a.m. the morning of a hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Another witness submitted her testimony at 10:21 p.m. the night before a 9:30 a.m. hearing. Other witnesses submitted their testimony literally hours before the hearing. Clearly, the only way Senators could ask thoughtful questions of these witnesses was through written questions. And many tried to do so. But that process has been unsuccessful. We voted the bill out of committee for discussion on the floor before 107 written questions to 10 witnesses were answered and returned. We did not even have the opportunity to submit questions to the witnesses on the panel of the final hearing. We had plenty of time to do this right--to fully consider the testimony and answers submitted by witnesses--and still vote to extend the temporary provisions before they expire in the summer of next year. We still have time to do this right. Congress has until the summer of 2007 to consider this bill, and yet we are moving ahead without receiving all answers to questions and fully considering the testimony of our witnesses. As a result, none of us can realistically say that we know the full implications of what we are voting on today. And the consequences of our rush, forced by politics, may have unintended consequences for our Nation. Nonetheless, I am voting for the Voting Rights Act because of its unparalleled success in the past at securing the opportunity to vote. I urge my colleagues not to forget that we all share the fundamental American belief that our society should be color-blind and that everyone should be treated equally. There should be no political advantage or disadvantage because of the color of a person's skin and we should be able to put aside politics to protect and openly discuss those values. Most Americans would like to move away from considering race when drawing congressional districts. In fact, a Washington Post/ Kaiser poll found that 70 percent of Blacks, 83 percent of Hispanics, and 90 percent of Whites said race should not figure into map-drawing. While America has a long history of negative race relations, we must strive for the dream taught by Martin Luther King--that one day society will judge people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. For this, as Justice O'Connor stated in 1993, is the goal toward which our Nation continues to aspire.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to a lot of debate today, and I have heard a lot of statements. Let me just go through a few. Cures are not around the corner; that is right. Embryonic stem cell groups are now starting to realize they have years upon years upon years to offer any hope of cure of any disease using embryonic stem cells. Yesterday in the debate, I challenged those on the other side of this issue to deny the fact that the only way we will ever have a treatment will be that you will have to clone yourself to be able to get a treatment. Nobody has refuted that, and the reason they can't refute that is because that is the only way embryonic stem cells will ever be successfully used to treat a human condition. You will have to clone yourself. That raises all sorts of other ethical conditions. The fact that cures are not around the corner with embryonic stem cells belies the fact that cures are here with adult stem cells, with cord blood stem cells, and it belies the fact that we are not recognizing the latest advance just available in the last 6 months, confirmed in Germany, of what is called germ cell pluripotent stem cells. They can make any type of cell, and it makes sense. What has been constant through the history of man that has survived? The ability to propagate and to repeat the species. And the unique thing about germ cell pluripotent stem cells is they come from both the testes and the ovaries of us, and we can capture from ourselves pluripotent stem cells that do all the things and have all the potential that an embryonic stem cell might have. The real question before us is, If there was a way for us to establish this research and avoid any ethical questions, wouldn't we all want to go there? And what I am putting forward today is that way is here today. That way is here. The scientific community, in terms of their money-raising and fundraising and grant-seeking, hasn't caught up with it. But mark my words: The real research in the pluripotent stem cells, those that can do anything and regenerate themselves and also have the advantage of not creating teratomas or tumors, are going to be the germ cell pluripotent stem cells. It is important for us to look at it. Another quote: It won't involve cloned embryos. The only way a stem cell therapy from an embryonic stem cell can work for you is in one of two ways: you either clone yourself, and you will still have some problems with rejection, or you will get from multiple, multiple lines a close match. I wanted to ask the leader yesterday--his biggest problem as a heart- lung transplant surgeon is the availability of organs, No. 1, and rejection, No. 2. The wonderful thing about adult stem cells is there is no rejection because you are giving yourself your own cells. The same thing will be true of germ cell pluripotent stem cells. There will be no rejection because you are giving identical DNA to yourself. All the other treatments with embryonic stem cells will have rejection as a component of their treatment. So is it a wonder that we want to research the miracles of life and look at this? No. It is great research that should be going forward. But it is not true that there is not embryonic stem cell research going on in this country outside of the Government and around the world. The question is, Are we going to use taxpayer money to do additional research? The other question that I raised is, Where is the money up to now going? The people who are investing outside of Government grants, where is the money going in terms of research? It is not going into embryonic stem cell research. It is going into every other type of research where they can actually see treatments. Senator Hatch talked about heart disease. We now know that if you have had an infarct and you get a bypass and you are injected with your own stem cells, a good portion of your scar goes away and the generation of new blood vessels around the heart is accelerated and accentuated to the degree of about 70 percent more than your body would naturally do, if you are injected with your own stem cells at the time you get your bypass. We are curing heart failure with adult stem cells today. We are curing new vessels in the heart. There is recent research in the last 6 months where we are treating lung disease--pulmonary fibrosis. Charlie Norwood, a Congressman from Georgia, has had pulmonary fibrosis and has had a lung transplant. In 5 years, somebody with pulmonary fibrosis will be cured with their own stem cells--not with embryonic stem cells, with their own stem cells-- and they won't have a problem with rejection. Yet Charlie has to take drugs to keep from rejecting the lung transplant that he has. Over time, we will recognize the value of what is really happening today in terms of treatments. We don't want the false promise. There is no question some great things will come out of embryonic stem cells. I don't deny that. But if we could do it a different way, if we could do it in a way where we didn't approach the ethical question, almost everybody would agree, let's do that. What I am saying is that is coming today. Other quotes: Researchers have been prohibited from doing research on embryos. That is not true. That is not true. There is research ongoing today, with $41 million of your money last year on embryos. We haven't prohibited the research. We have said it is going to be limited. This bill, H.R. 810, says: There is no limit. Whether you agree with it or not, your money is going to be used to go in this direction. I have not approached the ethical issues on pro-life--I am pro-life, but I am not claiming that as a defense on this issue. I am claiming that the smart science will avoid it and look at where the benefits are. There is no question. I wish to quote from Lord Winston, the most prominent fetal embryonic stem cell researcher in England: ``I view the current wave of optimism about embryonic stem cells with growing suspicion.'' He says we have overpromised. He is right. It is going to be decades before a response comes from embryonic stem cells. There is not one viable treatment with embryonic stem cells in an animal model today, let alone a human model. There are hundreds in animal models and there are 72 in humans. To me, this is an easy question which doesn't have anything to do with ethics. Put the money where the results are. The results are here. I will promise you, germ cell pluripotent stem cells will be the end-all for our ethical question. It is just a shame that the politics isn't up with the science. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to take 5 minutes of my allotted 15 minutes to answer some of the questions raised by Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. I think it is very important that the American public understands what this debate is. We have heard a lot of statements this morning that there are no cures other than fetal stem cell research, and that could not be further from the truth. I am a practicing physician. I deliver babies. I have read almost every article published in the last 12 months on stem cells, both embryonic and nonembryonic adult. The fact is there is not one cure in this country today from embryonic stem cells. We talked about 21 lines, but what they don't say is there is no limitation in this country at all on private research from any of the 400 lines Senator Harkin mentioned. There also is a statement by the caretaker and many scientists that the lines are not contaminated. As a matter of fact, they are not contaminated. The question is, do we want to do what is best to get us further down the road to treat people? I am a two-time cancer survivor; I had cancer of the colon and melanoma. With the treatments that are available--I desire the treatments that can come out of stem cell research, there is no question. But every disease Senator Harkin listed--every disease save ALS--has an adult stem cell or cord blood stem cell cure that has already been proven in humans, without using embryonic stem cells. What is the science behind it? What is the science that tells us we are going to have trouble with embryonic but not with the other? It is called the mitochondria. If you study physiology at all, what you know is every cytoplasm of every cell has mitochondria in it. The only way to use an embryonic stem cell line and to use it effectively without falling into the trap of contamination or cross- immunization--in other words, allergy to the treatment--is to somehow quiet mitochondria. They are the energy source for cells. They have DNA. So none of the problems that are seen with your own adult stem cells or cord blood from your own child will be existing in a treatment from your own stem cells. The reason we should spend more money on our own stem cell lines today is because there will not be complications from them as is noted in every study that has thus far been done on embryonic stem cells. The Senator mentioned the rats. The only study that shows neurologic improvement is when the rats were sacrificed at 8 weeks. Every other study, when they let the rats live to 12 weeks, show teratoma or tumor formation, which is the problem with embryonic stem cells. I hope the American people will listen. It is not about not getting where we want to go, but there is false hope, tremendous false hope in what we are about to do when, in fact, if we would redouble our efforts on the other areas of stem cells. One final point and then I will yield. There is a germ cell line, stem cell line, which goes against everything Senator Harkin says. It has been proven in this country; it has been proven in Germany. It comes from ovarian tissue and testicular tissue. It is, without a doubt, the greatest thing on the horizon for us because it has none of the problems associated--I am not talking the ethical problems, I am talking the scientific problems associated with embryonic stem cells. There are none of the problems with it. I have seen beating heart tissue from germ cell lines. It can create every area. There are three tissues, endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. That is the important reason why embryonic is thought to be so important. One final point on dedifferentiation, the ability to take a cell that is in your body today and make it go backward. That has been accomplished. We now see multiple lines of pluripotent cells from our own bodies. The choice is not destroy embryos, and if we don't, we will not get good research; the choice is go where the money is leading us, and the money is leading us into adult stem cells, germ cell lines, and other lines that have none of the problems of embryonic stem cells.

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

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the other thing I think we ought to make sure of--and I just want to go back. The Senator from California claims 72 percent of Americans favor stem cell research. That is true. That is true, if you ask it that way. But if you ask it: Should your tax dollars be used to destroy embryos to then create a research mechanism, it falls to 38 percent. So there is a difference between the ethical dilemma. I understand people can honorably disagree on the ethical dilemma, but we ought to be truthful about what the polling actually says. If you specifically say what we are doing, you get a much different answer. I want to talk for a minute about something the majority leader discussed. He is a transplant surgeon. There are two problems transplant surgeons face. One is enough organs, which is a difficult problem in our country today, but the second problem is rejection. Nobody is talking about the long-term consequences of where we go. Let's assume everything that everyone says about embryonic stem cell research is right. I am highly skeptical of that, but let's assume that it is. You still have this little problem called histocompatibility; in other words, rejection. Whatever you do with it, you are going to have a problem with rejection. And the thing that is so exciting about germ cell--and I want to explain that for a minute. Germ cells--pluripotent stem cells--just as powerful as embryonic, they can do everything that embryonic can. They don't have that problem. No. 1, they are pluripotent; No. 2, they continue to reproduce pluripotent cells just like embryonic. That is new research. That is 6 months old. It was discovered here first. It was duplicated in Germany last month. So that is a brand new study. The point is, you don't have rejection because you are taking your own cells to create a pluripotent cell, and that is the wonderful thing about adult stem cells, about cord blood stem cells, about germ cells, is that they create a pluripotent cell. There is no rejection. So when you hear all the talk about embryonic stem cell research, the thing to remember is when you get the treatment, you are going to have the side effects like everybody else who has the transplant--if it works--and that is immune-suppressive drugs. You are going to have to have them. The only way not to have that is to do fetal farming or human cloning, where you clone yourself and then take part of what you have cloned back, which we already know is illegal and is banned. So it is important for the debate to focus on that. Everybody in this country wants cures. Everybody wants to do the thing that will get us there the fastest with the least complications, and we want to invest our dollars in what will be most successful. One of the things my dad taught me is to look around the world, and if you want to see what is happening, follow the money. If you look around the world today, the world as a whole, and you look at where the money is being spent, it is not being spent on embryonic stem cells. It is being spent on stem cells from us, just like we had the debate a moment ago. We now know ductal cells from somebody's pancreas can create new insulin-producing cells. We know now the mucosa, the lining of your mouth, can create cells to make you a new cornea. You don't have to have a cornea transplant in the future because your own cells are going to be able to create a new cornea. We also know that we have stem cells in our body that can take away cystoid macular edema, this aging process where we as seniors start to lose our vision--the cloudiness--the macular area of the retina starts to fall away. All of these wonderful things that we are doing versus nothing that has been accomplished. I also would refer to the reference of the Senator from California to the renal success. It wasn't done with an embryonic stem cell, it was done with an adult stem cell. That research was all adult stem cells. So we end up tending to confuse what has really happened. The fact is, all the success in treatment, all the success in terms of who is willing to invest private capital, where they are putting it, they are not putting it in embryonic. There is a reason for it. It is because in the long term it won't be the best treatment. It is fun science. As a doctor, I will tell you there could be no more fun or rewarding or interesting science than embryonic stem cell because you can turn things on and turn things off. There is no question about it. But what we are finding out is you can actually do that with our own cells, our own stem cells. This idea of de-differentiation--and I want to explain that for a minute because we are going to hear a lot about it in the next 10 years--we take one of your stem cells, one of your multipotent--not totipotent, not pluri potent, but multi--and reverse its mechanism where we make it pluripotent. We are doing that in several stem cells now with an enzyme called reversa, where they are reversing the cell structure and making it revert back to what it was; in other words, grow in reverse to become pluripotent. So I hope everybody will remember, this isn't a choice about cures or no cures. We are getting cures like crazy right now with adult stem cells and cord blood. We are going to be doing tons more when this germ cell comes forward. There is no question the scientific community is extremely excited about germ cell pluripotent stem cells because it has all the potential that an embryonic stem cell has and none of the problems. With that, I yield back my remaining time, and I thank the Senator from Kansas. Exhibit 1 PEER-REVIEWED REFERENCES SHOWING APPLICATIONS OF ADULT STEM CELLS THAT PRODUCE THERAPEUTIC BENEFIT OR HUMAN PATIENTS (NOT A COMPLETE LISTING,

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

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

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

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

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