Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as U.S. Senators, we are well aware of the difficulty in making tough decisions. But, a tough decision for 13- year-old foster care child shouldn't be choosing between being adopted and having a permanent loving, stable, and secure family, or attending college for a promising future. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, in introducing the Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act because we believe all youth deserve both a loving family and a future of hope. Our legislation promotes older adoptions of foster care youth by not later penalizing the adopting family when their student applies for student Federal financial aid. We have heard from former foster teens across our Nation who have stated that they were better off ``aging'' out of the foster care system than being adopted by a family because of a fear of losing student Federal financial aid because as a foster student they don't have to report any parental income on their student financial aid application. Our legislation provides a solution by amending the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who were adopted after the age of 13 in the Higher Education Act of 1965. Thus, the family and student would not be penalized on their Federal financial aid as their classification would be determined by only the student's ability to pay. Most prospective adopting parents would not have financially planned for an older teen becoming part of their family. Our legislation offers an incentive to promote older adoptions rather than having the teen stay in foster families until they ``age out.'' The numbers are startling and its time we act. Currently, 20,000 youth ``age'' out of the foster care system each year with 30 percent of these youth incarcerated within 12 months of doing so. There are 513,000 children in foster care with nearly half the kids over the age of 10. Children in foster care are twice as likely as the rest of the population to drop out before finishing high school. Several foster care alumni studies indicate that within three years after leaving foster care: only 54 percent had earned their high school diploma, only 2 percent had graduated from a four-year college, and 25 to 44 percent had experienced homelessness. Statistics show youth that are adopted out of the foster care system attend college, have stable lives, have a permanent family, and have a future of hope. One to two years of community college coursework significantly increases the likelihood of economic self-sufficiency. A college degree is the single greatest factor in determining access to better job opportunities and higher earnings. The Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act ensures that children don't have to make a tough decision between choosing to have a family or an education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as U.S. Senators, we are well aware of the difficulty in making tough decisions. But, a tough decision for 13- year-old foster care child shouldn't be choosing between being adopted and having a permanent loving, stable, and secure family, or attending college for a promising future. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, in introducing the Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act because we believe all youth deserve both a loving family and a future of hope. Our legislation promotes older adoptions of foster care youth by not later penalizing the adopting family when their student applies for student Federal financial aid. We have heard from former foster teens across our Nation who have stated that they were better off ``aging'' out of the foster care system than being adopted by a family because of a fear of losing student Federal financial aid because as a foster student they don't have to report any parental income on their student financial aid application. Our legislation provides a solution by amending the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who were adopted after the age of 13 in the Higher Education Act of 1965. Thus, the family and student would not be penalized on their Federal financial aid as their classification would be determined by only the student's ability to pay. Most prospective adopting parents would not have financially planned for an older teen becoming part of their family. Our legislation offers an incentive to promote older adoptions rather than having the teen stay in foster families until they ``age out.'' The numbers are startling and its time we act. Currently, 20,000 youth ``age'' out of the foster care system each year with 30 percent of these youth incarcerated within 12 months of doing so. There are 513,000 children in foster care with nearly half the kids over the age of 10. Children in foster care are twice as likely as the rest of the population to drop out before finishing high school. Several foster care alumni studies indicate that within three years after leaving foster care: only 54 percent had earned their high school diploma, only 2 percent had graduated from a four-year college, and 25 to 44 percent had experienced homelessness. Statistics show youth that are adopted out of the foster care system attend college, have stable lives, have a permanent family, and have a future of hope. One to two years of community college coursework significantly increases the likelihood of economic self-sufficiency. A college degree is the single greatest factor in determining access to better job opportunities and higher earnings. The Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act ensures that children don't have to make a tough decision between choosing to have a family or an education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1158.

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, following the attacks of 9/11, we made a promise to the American people to make this country safer. We identified on all levels cracks in our system. Most alarming, we found that intelligence agencies were not talking to one another. We found that when the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing, the consequences can be disastrous. The gathering of intelligence is not an abstract concept that only happens on the streets of Afghanistan or Iraq. It happens every day on the streets of Duluth or St. Paul, MN. Our local law enforcement agencies are on the front lines of our communities and often know exactly what is happening on our streets. Sadly, in what is reminiscent of pre-9/11 days, municipalities have identified a loophole in the law--or in many ways I don't even call it a loophole, they have simply circumvented Federal law and have banned the practice of officers inquiring about a suspect's immigration status, allowing cities throughout the country to become what are called sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. My amendment seeks to end the practice of sanctuary cities. These are cities that seek to evade their obligations under section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That law expressly prohibits any Federal, State, or local government entity from preventing a law enforcement officer from sharing information with the Federal Government regarding the immigration status of a person with whom they come in contact. The law is very clear. Section 642, subsection (b) states: no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict-- In any way restrict-- a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: It goes on to say, you cannot restrict ``sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.'' You cannot restrict, in any way, ``maintaining such information.'' You cannot, in any way, restrict ``exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.'' So that is what the law states. Several cities have passed ordinances or issued executive orders forbidding local law enforcement from even asking the question as to whether a person is in the United States lawfully, and thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the Federal Government. In other cases, police department policies forbid or severely restrict their officers from asking a person about immigration status. Essentially, the philosophy is ``don't ask, don't tell''--don't ask suspects about their immigration status, so then you don't have to follow the dictates of the Federal law. These cities have decided the rule of law does not apply to them. Scores of law enforcement officers have chafed at the gag order. I had a meeting last week with law enforcement officers from Minnesota in my office, and they mentioned this. They mentioned the frustration they have with what they think is their responsibility to report if they think somebody is not here legally, that--who knows?--this person could be somebody who had been deported before, and that is a felony. They are absolutely prohibited from even asking the question or having the conversation. Many say they routinely come in contact with dangerous persons they know have been deported already--they know it--yet their local sanctuary policy is to prevent them from being able to do anything about it. Supporters say sanctuary policies are intended to be humanitarian because they allow illegal immigrants to cooperate with the police without fear of deportation. But the consequences of these policies are anything but for the law-abiding members of these communities: in some cases, dangerous criminal aliens remaining on the streets, muzzled law enforcement officers, and scarce local resources being wasted on noncitizens who should be turned over to the Federal authorities. Opening the channels of communication between local and Federal law enforcement will help prevent crimes against other members of the communities. Consider some recent examples. Two young women who were killed in an accident near Virginia Beach earlier this year were struck by a drunk driver who had three previous alcohol-related convictions and an identity theft conviction, but because he had never been sent to prison, there had never been an examination of his immigration status. Reportedly, many area police officers knew the individual was in the United States illegally. Yet they never reported it to Federal immigration authorities. In April 2005, a Denver police officer was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had been stopped three times for traffic violations and even appeared in court just 3 weeks before committing the murder. Strict rules in the police manual deterred officers from inquiring about his immigration status, so Federal immigration authorities were never notified. In June 2003, a 9-year-old girl was kidnapped in San Jose, CA, by an illegal immigrant who had been arrested previously for auto theft. Because the San Jose Police Department's policy manual forbids officers from initiating police action intended to determine a person's immigration status, Federal authorities were never contacted. In December 2002, a 42-year-old mother of two was raped in Queens by a group of men. Four of them were illegal immigrants, and three had previously been arrested for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery in the second degree, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses, but were later released. In May 2002, three women in Houston, TX, were raped and murdered by Walter Alexander Sorto, an illegal immigrant who had been ticketed several times for traffic violations. This is not to suggest all aliens are violent criminals or that all violent criminals are illegal aliens. We caught Al Capone on tax evasion. We can protect our communities by allowing police officers to find out whether a person has broken our immigration laws. Sanctuary city policies do not just leave their own citizens at risk. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9-11 hijackers, was stopped and ticketed for driving without a license in Broward County, FL, in early 2001. His visa was expired. Under these policies, no one would ever know that. Just this month, we saw a terror plot unfold in Fort Dix that might have been prevented sooner had the local officials, who pulled the suspects over on numerous traffic violations, inquired about their immigration status. Make no mistake, this is a national security issue. To address this problem, I am offering a simple amendment to make it clear a police officer has the right to ask immigration-related questions of a suspect, and to report his or her suspicions to Federal authorities. My amendment restores the original intent of the 1996 law, which I read before, by stating that Federal, State, and local governments may not prohibit law enforcement from acquiring information about immigration status where there is probable cause. That is what the 1996 law says, and yet cities have been able to circumvent this. Let us, then, go back to the original intent of that law. My amendment does not require local law enforcement to use their scarce resources enforcing immigration laws. It does not enable local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as Federal agents, or even determine a person's immigration status. Instead, my amendment simply gives law enforcement officers the ability to pursue a person's immigration status as part of their routine work, and thus to report any suspicions to the appropriate Federal authorities through already established channels, such as through the Law Enforcement Support Center at ICE, or ICE's Criminal Alien Program. In essence, sanctuary cities are thumbing their noses at Federal law. The Justice Department has concluded that States have the inherent sovereign right to make arrests for both criminal and civil immigration violations. Section 642 of the 1996 immigration reform bill expressly states local law enforcement officers must communicate with Federal authorities. Yet their leadership or their local government or their city council is actually preventing them from doing so. In this day and age, we cannot allow for such law enforcement-free zones. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill before us today takes away the strongest argument that sanctuary city supporters have; namely, that illegal immigrants will be so frightened about being deported that they will never go to the police. As currently written, this bill will give a legal status to these aliens. Any alien participating in the program should not fear an encounter with a police officer. The only aliens who would fear contact with the police are those who have committed some crime. Sanctuary cities take away the ability of a police officer to use his or her own judgment in the course of their routine police work to inquire about a person's immigration status and share their concerns with the Federal Government for followup action. The reality is law enforcement officers ask a wide range of questions of suspects every day that touch upon many aspects of the person's behavior. But in sanctuary cities, they cannot ask about immigration. The artificial wall relative to immigration status is illogical--and I would suggest perhaps even unconstitutional--and in this day and age harmful to our national security. We ought to give this tool back to our local law enforcement. Finally, one other point. One of the challenges we have with the bill before us--by the way, a bill where I would like to see us deal with the immigration issue. The system is broken. It needs to be changed. Clearly, we know that. We all know that. We have had a group of Senators on both sides of the aisle, from a broad political spectrum, come together to try to find some common ground, to try to deal with the issue of strengthened border security, which we must deal with--to do those things--to ensure greater employer responsibility, and then to figure out some way to deal with the 11 million who are here, to know who they are, have them learning English, have them pay taxes, and not to provide amnesty but to provide fines and a series of sanctions and a path before one can even consider proceeding to something like citizenship. But one of the problems we are having--I am having it now. I have gotten thousands of calls on this issue, most against this bill, even though people have not even read the bill yet. I think it is, in part, because folks do not trust us, do not trust the Federal Government to do what we say we are going to do. They do not trust us to absolutely uphold the rule of law. They do not believe when we say we are going to secure our borders that we are actually going to do it. In many ways, this issue I raise today is a rule of law issue. If we tell people across America that in sanctuary cities the rule of law does not apply when it comes to immigration, how are we going to get the American public to believe we are serious about border security-- when we then try to figure out a way to do a guest worker program, to deal with the 11 million who should come out of the shadows into the sunlight? I suggest by supporting this amendment what you are doing is supporting respect for the rule of law. We need to do more of that to gain the trust and the confidence of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I object on behalf of another Senator, another Republican.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I do not know if there is a greater champion in this body on the rule of law on border security. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for being the master at the art of figuring out how to get it done. As a former mayor, I have great appreciation for that. When I was mayor, if it snowed, and the snow wasn't plowed, the next day I heard about it. I think we are here to fix problems. The system we have today is broken and needs to be fixed. I thank both my colleagues for their work on this issue. There will be a lot of conversations as time goes on, a lot of debates, but in the end the status quo is not acceptable and we have to fix it.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to switch subjects. I see my colleague from Connecticut in the Chamber. I rise to engage in a colloquy with truly my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, about an issue facing every American and every citizen of this world--an issue on which he is a true leader in the Senate, and for which he has had great vision, great perseverance, and for which I applaud him. That is the issue of climate change. There is now a preponderance of evidence from the scientific community that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have increased the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by 36 percent from preindustrial levels, leading to a dangerous increase in global average temperatures. The temperatures speak for themselves. According to NASA, 2005 was the warmest year globally on record since readings began in 1880, with 1998 a close second. And 8 of the last 10 years are amongst the warmest years on record. The effects are increasingly tangible. Since 1979, more than 20 percent of the polar ice cap has melted. So often in this Chamber we talk about the future. We talk about doing things for our kids. Well, if we care about our kids, and we care about our future, we better care about what will happen if we do not take action soon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent the temperature increases forecasted for this century. Thankfully, we are a nation of innovators, of entrepreneurs, of individuals with bold initiative. The technologies necessary to stabilize our atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases in time to prevent a dangerous increase in temperature are right at our fingertips--from biofuels and plug-in hybrid vehicles to nuclear energy and carbon sequestration for coal plants, and many more. It is time for Congress to provide the strong market signals necessary to press these technologies forward, which is why I believe Congress should work for an economywide response to climate change with an idea I have championed: provide utilities incentives to increase the percentage of their electricity sales they generate using clean energy sources such as renewables, nuclear, and clean coal with carbon capture technology. Yet it is not enough for the United States to act alone. China is projected to be the largest greenhouse gas emitter by the end of this year. Climate change legislation must not put America's workers at a competitive disadvantage with the Chinese, and it must not send manufacturing jobs overseas. A greenhouse gas reduction program must not put Americans out of work or drive more hard-working families into poverty. When I drive on the streets, such as Grand Avenue in St. Paul, and it is minus 10 degrees, minus 15 degrees, and I see that mom sitting at a bus stop waiting to catch a bus, or see that senior, I care about the costs they have to pay for energy. So those are things we have to think about. I refuse to look at this, or any other issue, without considering the effect it will have on those who are trying to support their family or, as I said before, the effect it will have on the elderly, struggling to survive on a fixed income. Accordingly, I have been working with Senator Lieberman over the last several months on an agreement that allows us to work together on his Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act in a way that meets my concerns about what mandatory greenhouse gas reduction legislation should look like. Today, we have arrived at that agreement, and I believe together we can work in a bipartisan way to address this very serious issue. I earlier introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that any comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program enacted by Congress should include provisions requiring a process of review of the program if it is found that other countries are not taking comparable action and if the unemployment or the poverty rates are found to be increasing as a result of the program. This sense of the Senate also states such a program should include incentives for utilities that increase their portfolio of clean energy. I say to Senator Lieberman, I wish to ask to be added as a cosponsor to your Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act and thank you for your cosponsorship of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and finally your commitment to work on EPW to examine my clean energy portfolio proposal in a committee hearing, and to fight during EPW markup of climate change legislation for inclusion of: No. 1, congressional review of greenhouse gas caps, if other countries are not taking comparable climate change action; No. 2, congressional review of greenhouse gas caps, if the unemployment and poverty rates are increasing due to a U.S. greenhouse gas reduction program; and, No. 3, provisions to reward electric utilities that increase the percentage of their electricity sales generated with ``clean energy'' or energy for noncarbon-emitting sources such as nuclear and clean coal.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Connecticut for his remarks, his commitments. Let me say, first, I am proud to be working with him as cosponsor of S. 280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The Senator from Connecticut approaches this issue, which is an important issue--it is a real issue; we have to deal with it--in a way which he is known for in this Senate, which is in a thoughtful, constructive way, a way which takes into account the concerns and the impact upon employees, upon consumers, and, perhaps most importantly, upon our kids and grandkids in the next generation. For that I thank him and say it is a privilege to work with him--a man of great character and great dedication. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1134 Withdrawn

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Provider Accountability Act on behalf of myself, and my colleagues Senator Levin and Senator McCaskill. This bill is a direct result of the recent bipartisan investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations exposing Medicare physicians and related providers who cheat on their taxes. At our March 20 hearing, entitled ``Medicare Doctors Who Cheat On Their Taxes,'' the Subcommittee presented evidence that more than 21,000 physicians and other providers received millions of dollars through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, under Medicare Part B, even though they collectively owe more than $1.3 billion in undisputed Federal taxes as of September 30, 2006. I think it is important to note that the vast majority of physicians are working hard to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, I know that many doctors struggle with on-going reductions in payments under the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate. The focus of PSI's ongoing investigations has been tax fraud and government contractors. CMS is the only Federal agency of considerable size that has resisted participating in the Federal Payment Levy Program that I will describe later. As we looked into CMS, we found that there were physicians receiving payments from the government while they simultaneously withheld money from the government by cheating on taxes, and failing to pay child support or student loan debts. Through their actions, these ``bad apples'' are hurting efforts to promote the longterm sustainability of the Medicare Program. What is disturbing is that the delinquent doctors identified by our investigation were not hardship cases but rather folks living the ``good life.'' This minority of physicians live in multi-million-dollar homes, own luxury vehicles and pleasure boats, and gamble with millions of dollars, yet still cheat the government. Some of the most egregious examples that GAO discovered include the following: An ambulance company received more than $1 million from Medicare in just the first 9 months of 2005, although it owed more than $11 million in back taxes. One doctor has refused to pay Federal income taxes since the 1970s and now owes more than $3 million in unpaid Federal taxes, and more than $1 million to another Federal agency. He was paid approximately $100,000 by Medicare in the first 9 months of 2005. He tried to hide his assets by attempting to transfer property to his children. Another physician who owes more than $1 million, primarily as payroll taxes withheld from his employees, received more than $1 million from Medicare between January and September 2005. He was flaunting his illegally gained windfall with a million-dollar home, 58-foot yacht, and ownership of several night clubs. His recently reported income is half a million dollars, but the compromise offer he made to the IRS only covers the penalty for nonpayment and not the overdue taxes themselves. Another physician whose medical license is on probation owes more than $400,000 in unpaid Federal taxes. Despite this debt, he purchased a luxury vehicle predominantly with cash, deposited tens of thousands of dollars in cash in such a way as to avoid mandatory reporting to the IRS, and gambled away millions of dollars. Although he did report more than $600,000 in net profits for 2 recent years, he still managed to fall behind in his child support payments by tens of thousands of dollars and to default on his installment agreement with the IRS. Unfortunately, the list goes on and on. Worse, as if failing to pay their taxes was not a sufficient insult to American taxpayers, Medicare providers also owed $33 million in child support, $27 million in unpaid student loans, $114 million owed to other Federal agencies, and $22 million in unpaid state income taxes. While these figures and case studies are obviously disturbing, the good news is that the Federal Government has two marvelous programs for recovering Federal debt from Federal payments, the Federal Payment Levy Program, FPLP, for tax debt, and the Treasury Offset Program, TOP, for non-tax debt, such as delinquent student loans, child support, and money owed Federal agencies. The Financial Management Service, FMS, handles both of these programs and matches pending payments from the Federal Government against outstanding Federal tax debt in the case of FPLP, and against other outstanding federal debt in TOP. If such debt exists, a levy of 15 percent or more is imposed upon each payment made to the delinquent taxpayer until that debt is recovered. FMS currently screens most Federal payments for unpaid taxes, including salaries and payments to contractors and vendors. The Government Accountability Office specifically recommended that CMS confer with the IRS and FMS to figure out how to get Medicare payments into the levy program. That recommendation came in six years ago, in 2001, so it is clear that CMS and the other agencies have been ``on notice'' about this very issue for years. In fact, although CMS has been sending information on payments to Medicare Part C and D providers to FMS for matching in FPLP, it has failed to include the more than $300 billion in payments to Part A and B providers. As a result, the Federal Government has lost countless opportunities to levy Medicare payments made to tax-delinquent doctors and other suppliers. The GAO estimated that, if CMS had participated in the levy program, the government could have recouped anywhere between $50 million and $140 million of unpaid Federal taxes from these Medicare tax-cheats in just the first nine months of 2005 alone. That does not include potential millions recouped for delinquent student loans, unpaid child support, and back-taxes owed to States. But we are not in the blame business, we are in the problem-solving business. So, the paramount question is how to fix this mess. Make no mistake: these are complex problems, but I am confident that we can fix them. This legislation is a good start. The bill, entitled the Medicare Provider Accountability Act, has three prongs to assist the Federal government with the collection of these outstanding debts. It establishes a timetable for CMS to join the Federal Payment Levy Program for all payments to Medicare providers, and expressly authorizes CMS to participate in the Treasury Offset Program to collect nontax debt. Finally, it enables the IRS to begin levying payments earlier in the notice process. First, this bill sets a deadline by which CMS must fully participate in the FPLP. Fifty percent of the payments to Part A and B providers must be sent to FMS for matching tax debt under FPLP within 1 year of enactment. Within 2 years of enactment, every Medicare provider payment, regardless of Part, will be checked by FMS under FPLP for outstanding Federal tax debt. Second, this bill gives CMS the authority to submit payments to its providers to TOP, which it had previously been unable to do. CMS and FMS testified at the hearing that CMS cannot legally participate in TOP as a Federal disbursing authority, and that to do so will require a Legislative fix. This bill explicitly includes payments to Medicare providers as disbursements that can be offset, allowing for the recovery of delinquent student loans, overdue child support, debts owed to other federal agencies and state taxes. In addition, this legislation enables IRS to levy Federal payments to recover delinquent tax debt earlier in the process. Currently, only about half of the $140 billion in tax debt eligible for matching is ``turned on'' to allow FMS to begin levying payments through FPLP. This is a result of IRS's current procedure, sending four computer-generated notices followed by a Collection Due Process, CDP, notice. Although the delinquent taxpayer can enter a payment plan or challenge the amount throughout the process, the formal appeals process begins only after all of those notices are issued. This protracted process allows a delinquent taxpayer to drag out the process and prevent automatic levies anywhere from months to years. An additional problem beyond the delay is that by the time the appeals process concludes, the contractor may no longer be receiving Federal payments. This provision of the bill accelerates the collection process, enabling a postlevy appeals process, whereby the IRS can begin to levy Federal payments prior to the CDP notice. To be clear, this would permit the Government to begin levying payments earlier, while still preserving the taxpayer's right to appeal. This will not affect levies on third parties. Congress has spent much of this session focusing on health care. We all know that we have a crisis looming with Medicare. In order to ensure the long term sustainability of the program, we need to be sure that the money that is going out through this program is being spent efficiently and effectively. We also need to be sure that the money that is coming into this program through our taxes is being collected efficiently and effectively. They are part and parcel of the same problem. As we look for money to spend on programs to benefit our most vulnerable, this legislation can go a long way to identifying possible sources. I would especially like to thank Chairman Levin for his ongoing support of our efforts to address those who receive Federal payments without paying their taxes. This is truly a bipartisan effort and a bipartisan bill in its writing and its sponsorship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Provider Accountability Act on behalf of myself, and my colleagues Senator Levin and Senator McCaskill. This bill is a direct result of the recent bipartisan investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations exposing Medicare physicians and related providers who cheat on their taxes. At our March 20 hearing, entitled ``Medicare Doctors Who Cheat On Their Taxes,'' the Subcommittee presented evidence that more than 21,000 physicians and other providers received millions of dollars through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, under Medicare Part B, even though they collectively owe more than $1.3 billion in undisputed Federal taxes as of September 30, 2006. I think it is important to note that the vast majority of physicians are working hard to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, I know that many doctors struggle with on-going reductions in payments under the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate. The focus of PSI's ongoing investigations has been tax fraud and government contractors. CMS is the only Federal agency of considerable size that has resisted participating in the Federal Payment Levy Program that I will describe later. As we looked into CMS, we found that there were physicians receiving payments from the government while they simultaneously withheld money from the government by cheating on taxes, and failing to pay child support or student loan debts. Through their actions, these ``bad apples'' are hurting efforts to promote the longterm sustainability of the Medicare Program. What is disturbing is that the delinquent doctors identified by our investigation were not hardship cases but rather folks living the ``good life.'' This minority of physicians live in multi-million-dollar homes, own luxury vehicles and pleasure boats, and gamble with millions of dollars, yet still cheat the government. Some of the most egregious examples that GAO discovered include the following: An ambulance company received more than $1 million from Medicare in just the first 9 months of 2005, although it owed more than $11 million in back taxes. One doctor has refused to pay Federal income taxes since the 1970s and now owes more than $3 million in unpaid Federal taxes, and more than $1 million to another Federal agency. He was paid approximately $100,000 by Medicare in the first 9 months of 2005. He tried to hide his assets by attempting to transfer property to his children. Another physician who owes more than $1 million, primarily as payroll taxes withheld from his employees, received more than $1 million from Medicare between January and September 2005. He was flaunting his illegally gained windfall with a million-dollar home, 58-foot yacht, and ownership of several night clubs. His recently reported income is half a million dollars, but the compromise offer he made to the IRS only covers the penalty for nonpayment and not the overdue taxes themselves. Another physician whose medical license is on probation owes more than $400,000 in unpaid Federal taxes. Despite this debt, he purchased a luxury vehicle predominantly with cash, deposited tens of thousands of dollars in cash in such a way as to avoid mandatory reporting to the IRS, and gambled away millions of dollars. Although he did report more than $600,000 in net profits for 2 recent years, he still managed to fall behind in his child support payments by tens of thousands of dollars and to default on his installment agreement with the IRS. Unfortunately, the list goes on and on. Worse, as if failing to pay their taxes was not a sufficient insult to American taxpayers, Medicare providers also owed $33 million in child support, $27 million in unpaid student loans, $114 million owed to other Federal agencies, and $22 million in unpaid state income taxes. While these figures and case studies are obviously disturbing, the good news is that the Federal Government has two marvelous programs for recovering Federal debt from Federal payments, the Federal Payment Levy Program, FPLP, for tax debt, and the Treasury Offset Program, TOP, for non-tax debt, such as delinquent student loans, child support, and money owed Federal agencies. The Financial Management Service, FMS, handles both of these programs and matches pending payments from the Federal Government against outstanding Federal tax debt in the case of FPLP, and against other outstanding federal debt in TOP. If such debt exists, a levy of 15 percent or more is imposed upon each payment made to the delinquent taxpayer until that debt is recovered. FMS currently screens most Federal payments for unpaid taxes, including salaries and payments to contractors and vendors. The Government Accountability Office specifically recommended that CMS confer with the IRS and FMS to figure out how to get Medicare payments into the levy program. That recommendation came in six years ago, in 2001, so it is clear that CMS and the other agencies have been ``on notice'' about this very issue for years. In fact, although CMS has been sending information on payments to Medicare Part C and D providers to FMS for matching in FPLP, it has failed to include the more than $300 billion in payments to Part A and B providers. As a result, the Federal Government has lost countless opportunities to levy Medicare payments made to tax-delinquent doctors and other suppliers. The GAO estimated that, if CMS had participated in the levy program, the government could have recouped anywhere between $50 million and $140 million of unpaid Federal taxes from these Medicare tax-cheats in just the first nine months of 2005 alone. That does not include potential millions recouped for delinquent student loans, unpaid child support, and back-taxes owed to States. But we are not in the blame business, we are in the problem-solving business. So, the paramount question is how to fix this mess. Make no mistake: these are complex problems, but I am confident that we can fix them. This legislation is a good start. The bill, entitled the Medicare Provider Accountability Act, has three prongs to assist the Federal government with the collection of these outstanding debts. It establishes a timetable for CMS to join the Federal Payment Levy Program for all payments to Medicare providers, and expressly authorizes CMS to participate in the Treasury Offset Program to collect nontax debt. Finally, it enables the IRS to begin levying payments earlier in the notice process. First, this bill sets a deadline by which CMS must fully participate in the FPLP. Fifty percent of the payments to Part A and B providers must be sent to FMS for matching tax debt under FPLP within 1 year of enactment. Within 2 years of enactment, every Medicare provider payment, regardless of Part, will be checked by FMS under FPLP for outstanding Federal tax debt. Second, this bill gives CMS the authority to submit payments to its providers to TOP, which it had previously been unable to do. CMS and FMS testified at the hearing that CMS cannot legally participate in TOP as a Federal disbursing authority, and that to do so will require a Legislative fix. This bill explicitly includes payments to Medicare providers as disbursements that can be offset, allowing for the recovery of delinquent student loans, overdue child support, debts owed to other federal agencies and state taxes. In addition, this legislation enables IRS to levy Federal payments to recover delinquent tax debt earlier in the process. Currently, only about half of the $140 billion in tax debt eligible for matching is ``turned on'' to allow FMS to begin levying payments through FPLP. This is a result of IRS's current procedure, sending four computer-generated notices followed by a Collection Due Process, CDP, notice. Although the delinquent taxpayer can enter a payment plan or challenge the amount throughout the process, the formal appeals process begins only after all of those notices are issued. This protracted process allows a delinquent taxpayer to drag out the process and prevent automatic levies anywhere from months to years. An additional problem beyond the delay is that by the time the appeals process concludes, the contractor may no longer be receiving Federal payments. This provision of the bill accelerates the collection process, enabling a postlevy appeals process, whereby the IRS can begin to levy Federal payments prior to the CDP notice. To be clear, this would permit the Government to begin levying payments earlier, while still preserving the taxpayer's right to appeal. This will not affect levies on third parties. Congress has spent much of this session focusing on health care. We all know that we have a crisis looming with Medicare. In order to ensure the long term sustainability of the program, we need to be sure that the money that is going out through this program is being spent efficiently and effectively. We also need to be sure that the money that is coming into this program through our taxes is being collected efficiently and effectively. They are part and parcel of the same problem. As we look for money to spend on programs to benefit our most vulnerable, this legislation can go a long way to identifying possible sources. I would especially like to thank Chairman Levin for his ongoing support of our efforts to address those who receive Federal payments without paying their taxes. This is truly a bipartisan effort and a bipartisan bill in its writing and its sponsorship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I was in Iraq this weekend, and I was there in December, right before Christmas, with my friend, Senator Nelson of Florida. Our meetings at that time took place in the shadows of the 2006 Congressional elections and in the wake of the much anticipated Iraq Study Group report. During each of our visits at that time, the atmosphere exuded a feeling of transition, a desire to get out of the constant struggle of lateral movement to a feeling of longing for a new strategy, long overdue in Iraq. On January 10, we learned the details of that new strategy. It wasn't exactly what many of us expected and it raised some particular concerns for me. Two weeks earlier when I was in Iraq, I met with the National Security Adviser for the Prime Minister of Iraq, Dr. al-Rubaie, and he told Senator Nelson and me he didn't think sectarian violence was the biggest problem in Iraq. To express that kind of denial was incredulous. Senator Nelson and I kind of looked at each other. His comments reflected to me at that time that I didn't think the Iraqi Government had the commitment to reconciliation needed to warrant an increase in U.S. forces in Baghdad and in an area wracked by sectarian civil war. So at the time I stated the idea of sending an additional force of 20,000 troops into Baghdad, into the lion's den of sectarian violence without any additional commitment from the Iraqi Government was something I did not feel I could support. Because of the duty we share as Members of this deliberative body, I put myself on record expressing my views. I wasn't popular with a lot of my constituents. I joined the senior Senator from Virginia, a colleague whom I respect so deeply on military matters, the former chairman of the Armed Services committee, and I cosponsored his resolution expressing the concern over the proposed surge in Baghdad. A slightly modified version of his resolution came before the full Senate on February 5, a little over 2 months ago. Although my colleagues in the majority at that time sought to limit our opportunity to amend this legislation through procedural maneuvering, I believed I had a duty to follow my conscience and I supported the procedural motion to move forward on that resolution. I joined many of my colleagues, mostly on the other side of the aisle, in voting for cloture on this resolution on February 5. Here we are, 2 short months later, and how the debate has changed. I will talk a little bit about what I have seen in Iraq but how the debate has changed. I thought I would take a brief moment to remind some of my colleagues across the aisle what they went on record as supporting on February 5. On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: We respect what S. 470 said, we respect the constitutional authorities given to the President, that the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. Here we are 2 months later making an attempt to limit his constitutional authority to exercise his fundamental constitutional duties. On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the resolution they supported should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces. Here we are, 2 short months later, picking an arbitrary withdrawal date without the consent of our commanders on the ground and advocating a pullout. On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated their belief that ``the U.S. should continue vigorous operations in Anbar province.'' And here we are 2 short months later and we are trying to pull our forces out and leave the Sunnis in Anbar alone to deal with the terror of al-Qaida. On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated their belief that ``a failed state in Iraq would present a threat to regional and world peace.'' I don't know that many who have studied this issue would disagree with that notion. And here we are 2 short months later essentially working to ensure that this frightening prospect materializes. On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle commended our troops in the field, agreeing that they have served our country ``with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the U.S. Armed Forces.'' But here we are today, reflecting on comments that they have ``lost'' the war in Iraq. Most importantly, on February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated their belief that the U.S. ``should not take any action that will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.'' Here we are 2 months later, conditioning that funding on withdrawal timelines to handcuff our military leaders, delaying the delivery of resources our forces need. One of the things I heard in Anbar Province from a Marine general was that they needed these V-shaped humvee vehicles to protect against IEDs. Regular humvees are flat and they take the full force of a blast. With the use of these V-shaped humvee bottoms, we have not had many casualties. This bill the President will veto has about 8,000 of those V-shaped vehicles that we need. I supported that resolution in February, but I did not support the bill before us today. It is unfortunate that the majority in this body has decided to utilize this important piece of legislation to attempt to set us on a course for failure in Iraq. When I say that, it is true this bill contains a lot of important things for our military, our veterans. But it is unconscionable that our veterans would be used as pawns in a political game, where the majority seeks to ensure failure in Iraq at all costs. That is what happens when you say it is lost, when you tell the enemy this is when we are withdrawing. I think our soldiers and our families deserve better. My recent trip to Iraq underscored the fact that while we face formidable challenges, there are also glimmers of hope. General Petraeus said that to me in Baghdad on Saturday. He showed me the charts of the declines in the death squads and sectarian violence in Baghdad. He talks about the sheiks in Anbar Province coming over and fighting shoulder to shoulder with us against al-Qaida in Iraq. When I visited Iraq this weekend, I traveled to Taqaddum in Anbar Province, between Fallujah and Ramadi, and Talil, in south central Iraq. I also spent time in Baghdad. We have some Minnesota National Guard in Talil and Taqaddum. We have a long way to go. It is certainly too early to tell whether our new strategy, including the surge in troops, is succeeding at the level set out by the President. Even General Petraeus has said that. Certainly our headlines here at home still echo the horrific suicide bombs and insurgent attacks we have sadly grown to expect when we read the morning paper. This is an enemy with resolve. It understands the impact of those actions on the American people. General Petraeus told me and others in this body that he will come back to us in September--his troops are not all deployed at this point in time--and he can show the progress and the decline in the killings and sectarian violence. He talked about the elimination of some of the killing cells and some of their leadership. He will come back in September with the Ambassador, whom I also had dinner with that night, to discuss the situation. They will tell us whether they have succeeded in providing the stability in Baghdad that will allow the process of reconciliation to move forward more aggressively. He used the phrase many times that ``the clock in Washington ticks much faster than in Iraq.'' We know that. He did say military action cannot win this war. But my colleagues on the other side, when they quote that, don't quote the other half of the sentence. He said it is 20 percent military action, but you cannot do the other 80 percent unless you are successful in the military action. He is clear about that. I believe General Petraeus and the troops he commands deserve to be given the time they need before we arbitrarily decide the war is lost. I continue to have my doubts about the Iraqi leadership. I met with the Prime Minister of Iraq, and he told me he was annoyed by a statement by the Secretary of Defense regarding the need to bring Sunnis more into their Government. His comment was that the Shia is a majority and it would undermine the democracy, tell the majority what they have to do. I said: Respectfully, I serve in the Senate. In the Senate, we protect in this country against one of the enemies of democracy, which is the tyranny of the majority. That is what has to go into the reconciliation in Iraq. I don't believe, as I listened to him, that he has the kind of commitment yet we need to make reconciliation successful. So that is of concern. For us in this body, it is hard to think that giving a voice to the minority would constitute undermining democracy. We know the perils of a tyranny of the majority, which Alexis de Tocqueville defined in 1835, and that Madison and Hamilton alluded to in the Federalist Papers. The fact we are still trying to persuade the Prime Minister that he has to do a better job of reaching out to his own countrymen makes it hard for me to be optimistic. Despite these challenges, the atmosphere in my meetings last weekend was so different than what I saw in December. The brave American civilians who are executing the diplomatic components of our strategy have a new sense of mission. I met with State Department folks--two of them--at breakfast Saturday morning. They are part of the new PRT. They are about to go Anbar Province, and they are reading in the paper that the war is ``lost'' and they are going out into Anbar Province to work on the reconstruction of Anbar and Fallujah. They are just about to begin their mission with a sense of hope, and shame on us if we dash it here. Some of the Iraqi leaders I was with reacted strongly in an opposite direction from the Prime Minister and clearly understood our commitment is not open-ended. Certainly, the courageous men and women in the field told me to relay to my colleagues this war is not lost. Let me be very clear. I sat in meetings with members of the Minnesota National Guard-- by the way, I am unhappy about their tours of duty being extended. They and their families heard in the press that they were being extended. I complained about that to the Army and received an apology. In spite of that, they stood up and said to me: Use our names. Tell the Senate the war is not lost. MAJ Brian Melton, from Moorhead, MN, said: Tell the Senate the war is not lost. Lieutenant Martin of the 1/34th Support Battalion in Talil, Iraq, wants the Senate to know the war is not lost. These soldiers talked about at one point it being kind of the Wild West in Anbar Province and it is being transformed. I wish my colleagues would have heard the story from LTC Gregg Parks of Walker, MN. He told me about a suicide bomber who came into a town called Habbaniyah, and he veered into a crowd coming out of a mosque, blew himself up, and wounded or killed many Iraqis. Not a single American shed blood in that attack; yet our soldiers lined up to give blood. The next day, the mayor and local sheiks came in and gave the names of al-Qaida operatives and pledged to work side by side with our troops to drive al-Qaida out of Iraq. I wish my colleagues could have heard COL David Elicerio, commander of the 1/34 Brigade Combat Team of the Minnesota National Guard. He told me about the ``adopt a highway'' program his men and women have implemented with the local Iraqis. He said the local sheiks came in and identified where there were two IEDs. There are many challenges that lie ahead, probably too many to name here. I don't see the situation in Iraq through rose-colored glasses and I am not trying to paint an unrealistic picture. The violence we have see over the past weeks in places like Baqubah reminds us all too well of the struggles we face. I know the American public has run out of patience on this war. I don't know what the next round of letters to the editor will look like, or the attack ads on moveon.org for the vote I cast; but I am committed to stemming the flow of terrorism, not handing al-Qaida a victory they will be able to use to strengthen their forces and hurt and kill more Americans. This bill we passed, with the timeline for surrender, doesn't make America safer. I am not for an open-ended commitment or a blank check, but as General Petraeus has said, you have to have a plan B. If the Iraqis don't do what they need to do for reconciliation, we are going to figure out a way to get Americans out of the crosshairs of that civil war. Some say we will be in Kuwait or some other area. General Petraeus told me he has to refuel his helicopters three times to get back into Baghdad, and if there is a ``Rwanda'' in Baghdad, we are not going to be able to do anything about it. We will redeploy our troops if this surge doesn't work, put them outside the center area. In the end, they may have to look at a plan B. But that decision will come soon. General Petraeus said: Let me come back in September. Perhaps that is not soon enough for the American public, but the decision we made today, the statement that the war is ``lost,'' the decision to set into place a timetable for surrender, doesn't help us provide an opportunity for reconciliation to occur in Iraq, or for there to be greater stability in the region, and it will let al-Qaida have a victory. A timetable for surrender hurts our warriors on the front line. It is a path I could not follow, one America shall not follow. Let us come back with a different supplemental and let us give our warriors the money they need to fight the war that has to be fought. Let us do that quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the American COMPETES Act, legislation that will help to ensure that our Nation remains competitive in today's increasingly global economy. The basis of this bipartisan legislation was a report by Norm Augustine called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' and a report by the Council of Competitiveness titled ``Innovate America.'' I remember being at a dinner last year not too far from these Chambers, and well over 30 Senators were there. It wasn't a fundraiser, we were there to hear Norm Augustine--bipartisan, leadership, new Members. I think it speaks to the importance of this issue. Both of these reports assess the current situation. What they do is set out specific plans to get us where we need to be. The reports have served to put us on notice that we cannot take our competitive leadership for granted in a world that, as Tom Friedman has put so well, is increasingly flat. For the American people following our deliberations on this legislation, I hope you will take notice that this is one of those issues that rises above party politics, rises above partisan politics, legislation that is about Republicans and Democrats coming together to address fundamental challenges to our Nation's competitiveness. I am proud to join in that effort. Keeping our country competitive is ultimately about jobs. It is about ensuring that our future workforce can compete in a global economy and that our current workforce remains competitive. I was chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee the last 4 years. I remember being at a conference in Mexico, with some Mexican academics complaining about the impact of low-wage jobs in China on the Mexican manufacturing economy. When I was in China last year talking with some Chinese academics and economists, they complained about the impact of low-wage jobs in Vietnam on the Chinese manufacturing economy. If we begin to lose ground, we are not going to win the race to low- wage jobs. Our ability to be the world's greatest economic power is going to depend on our creativity, our productivity, and our innovation. If we begin to lose ground in the critical areas of math and science, we will also lose ground in the race for high-wage jobs, and that is the race we should be winning better trained workers, greater opportunity. Last month, Microsoft's Bill Gates came before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to talk about keeping our country competitive. One of his statements particularly stood out to me. He said: The U.S. cannot maintain its economic leadership unless our workforce consists of people who have the knowledge and skills needed to drive innovation. He further said: We simply cannot sustain an economy based on innovation unless our citizens are educated in math, science and engineering. I could not agree more. The challenges we face are significant when it comes to the future competitiveness of our workforce. Today, China graduates at least four times as many engineers as the United States. In fact, I was told at one point the figure was 600,000 engineers in China, 350,000 in India, and 70,000 in America. The small nation of South Korea graduates just as many as we do. In 3 short years, Asia will be home to more than 90 percent of the world's scientists and engineers. According to a recent poll, 84 percent of middle school students preferred to clean their rooms, take out the garbage, go to their dentist, or eat their vegetables than to do homework, something we have to change. As Tom Friedman wrote in his book ``The World is Flat,'' when he was growing up, his mother used to tell him to eat all his vegetables because kids in China were starving. Today, his mother would say: Do your homework because the kids in China are starving to take your job. Several reports have indicated that U.S. students do not perform at the level of their international counterparts in math and science. American high school students currently rank 24th out of 29 among developed nations in math literacy and problem solving. As if this were not worrisome enough, we also need to concern ourselves with the coming retirement wave of high-skilled workers in the fields of engineering, science and technology, and math. According to the National Science Foundation, about one-third of American scientists and engineers are over 50 years old. Tiger Woods said before a recent major tournament: I can't win the Masters on Thursday, but I can lose it. We can't win the global economic battle today, but we can lose it in our elementary school classrooms. Mr. President, the legislation before us will help go a long way toward preparing our future workers by improving K-12 education. For instance, the bill increases the offering of advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs and expands math and science specialty schools. While we are beginning to take action in Washington, I proudly note that my State of Minnesota has been very active in ensuring the State's future workforce can compete with the best of them from around the world. Our Governor is a leader in the development of the National Governors Association Innovation America initiative. In Woodbury, a math and science academy is developing a curriculum to meet the needs of the 21st century workplace. In Brainerd, the chamber of commerce is developing an innovative program to transform education through five rural school districts by creating career pathways focusing on regional high-demand, high-pay occupations called Bridges Career Academies. Minnesota is doing its part. While the challenges to our leadership in the global economy are indeed significant, I am confident that through a bipartisan and public-private partnership approach, we will meet those challenges. I have a series of amendments that I anticipate and hope the body will act upon before we conclude deliberation on this bill. One of them is a bonus grants program. Both of these I coauthored with Senator Pryor. On the other one, he is the principal author. The bonus grants provide math and science partnership grants to three elementary and three secondary high schools in each State which make the largest year- to-year improvement in their efforts to score highly on the State's math and science assessment test. This is about putting our money where our mouths are. This is about providing reward and incentive for schools to do better in these critical areas of math and science. The other amendment, which is a Pryor-Coleman amendment, No. 966, establishes a small business innovation, research, science, technology, engineering, and math workforce development grant program. This is a way to get leading small businesses to provide short-term workforce training opportunities for colleges in the field of science, technology, engineering, and math. The one amendment I will not offer but I do want to bring to the attention of the Senate has to do with expediting the FBI background check on doctors and scientists. We have the world-renown Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, the greatest medical facility in the world. Some of the doctors have been waiting years to get background checks cleared. We are in danger of losing them. We need to move quickly. I know the sense is that immigration issues will be dealt with at a later time. We need to deal with the immigration issue. We need to deal with it in the sense of stronger borders, guest worker programs, and we also need to look at some of these smaller pieces that are important-- expediting the ability to get background checks so we keep the best and brightest in this country. That debate will be for another day. Today, the debate is to ensure that America can compete in a global economy. This bill offers that opportunity. It is bipartisan. I am glad to be part of that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as I listened to my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, there is so much we agree on. What we agree on is we want to move science forward. We want to provide hope to those who are suffering from diseases and conditions with the possibility of stem cell research. The issue is a matter of Federal funding. What do we put Federal dollars into? Should there be any moral questions that are raised before we make that decision to put Federal dollars into something? That is a legitimate issue to discuss in the Senate. It is a reflection of the reality that in this country there is substantial disagreement about what is appropriate use of Federal dollars. This is not about shutting off research. It is not about stopping research. It is not about a lack of research going on. We still lead the world in embryonic stem cell research. With forty percent of all the publications that are offered in this country, 85 percent of the dollars from what we have provided, both embryonic and adult stem cell research, we are leading the world. That includes both Federal dollars and substantial private dollars. When this issue arose early on, President Clinton had his own bioethics commission. They concluded the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research. The reality is, we have reached a point where there are available alternatives, and we have an opportunity to pursue them. There is a political reality as well; that is, that S. 5 will pass. The President has said he is going to veto it because of his concern on Federal funding for the destruction of human embryos. As a result, from January 1 of this year, there is going to be no more research going into embryonic stem cell research tomorrow than there is today, unless we pass S. 30. S. 5 is going to be vetoed. If you care about making more than a political statement but actually talking to the parents of kids with juvenile diabetes or adults with Parkinson's, whatever, the reality is, if you care about more than $132 million going into human embryonic stem cell research, you have to support S. 30. That is the political reality. What S. 30 offers, in addition, is the opportunity to have a greater sense of national unity on this issue, to get beyond the culture wars, to get beyond the political division. That is what the research should be about. Senator Isakson has talked about dead embryo research. I hope the description was clear enough. There was some confusion from some of my colleagues on the other side of this issue. Let me explain a little biology 101. The issue here is, can we produce pluripotent cells-- embryonic cells are pluripotent--the capacity for the cell to give rise to many other different types of cells. There are adult stem cells out of bone marrow, out of blood type. Now we are looking at placental and embryonic. But there appears to be, and science will tell you, the ability of embryonic pluripotent cells. The difference here is between pluripotent and totipotent, the ability to form an embryo, the beginning of life. Senator Isakson has talked about dead embryo research where the embryos have the ability to form pluripotent cells, those cells that have the capacity to differentiate into other types of cells. That is an opportunity without crossing a moral line. All of America can come together and say: This is a good thing, putting money into stem cell research and not dividing the Nation. There is the process called alternate nuclear transfer. This is a process that if you look at natural fertilization, you get the sperm and the fertilized egg. You get an embryo. Under SCNT--that is the way Dolly the sheep was produced, a type of cloning--you get the egg cell. You take some adult genetic material with all the DNA, and you put that in an enucleated egg where the center is cut out. You get that fertilized egg and, boom, you get an embryo. Science is telling us today that you can, with all the natural nuclear transfer, with a range of things, what you can do is, you can take that egg, you can enucleate it, cut out the center, put in adult material. But before you transfer it, you turn off a little code. In the end, you don't get an embryo but you get this intercell mass then that has the capacity of pluripotency, not an embryo but the ability to differentiate cell types and all of the elasticity and the hope and possibility you get from embryonic stem cell research without crossing a moral line. Is that what we should be doing? This is not shutting off science. Some have said this is a diversion. Certainly it is not a diversion in the practical sense, because right now there will be, if S. 5 passes, no additional funding for embryonic stem cell research. But if S. 30 passes, we can open the world to these possibilities and additional Federal dollars. The reality is, with S. 5 there are questions that are unanswered. I was just talking about those lines that are in vitro fertilization that some say could be thrown away. What is to stop people from simply producing more, knowing the research money is going to be there? The reality is, those cells that are in those IVF clinics have limited genetic lines. If you are of a certain minority or other groups, you are not as represented in those as you are in the population. But if we look at things such as alternate nuclear transfer, you can have an unending supply of genetic material so you can deal with specific gene types and deal with specific illnesses. S. 30 also includes a provision to set up a stem cell bank for amniotic and placental stem cells, the idea that we could have 100,000 tissue samples and, by virtue of that, cover all the genetic types there are, which you do not get with what we have now under S. 5. The bottom line in all of this is, there is a debate in this country, but it is not over moving the science forward. The debate is not over whether there should be hope. There is hope. It is important to understand some of the realities, the reality of what we are talking about today. Yesterday one of my colleagues, the Senator from Iowa, was talking about some of the work being done with dead embryos, perhaps some of the work being done with alternate nuclear transfer, and saying this could take a decade. The reality is the work being done today in embryonic stem cell research at best may take decades. So the question then ultimately is, can we as a nation decide on a process that does respect a moral line, that does say: We are not going to provide Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo, but because we have the possibility, we should explore the possibility of doing research that provides for pluripotency without totipotency, without the creation of an embryo. We are going to have more difficult questions as we move forward. As we look at the issue of stem cell research, one of the realities we are looking at is, if they haven't developed enough, what about the idea of developing limbs and other things. Should we let the embryo grow longer? Where do you draw that line? There is a whole range of other issues we are going to have to be debating as we kind of move along this process with the great advances of scientists. For those of us who support S. 30, what we are saying is we have a path, we have an opportunity to do it with a sense of unity, with a sense of where we provide a moral line, a line, by the way, that has been part of our statutes for a long time. We don't provide Federal funding for the destruction of human embryos. That is what this is about. It is not about size. The reality about size is that you could fit some of these on the head of a pin. But it is about that basic moral line which has been part of our law for a long time. So this approach we have in S. 5 is an approach that is pro-science and pro-research and pro-hope. It is the only practical one that in the end, if it passes, will result in more funding for embryonic stem cell research tomorrow than we have today. My fear is what happened last year will happen this year. This body passed both a version of S. 5 as well as a version that provided for some alternatives. It was the Specter-Santorum bill. S. 30 provides for more than that bill. It will provide for, in fact, new dollars going to research that isn't funded today. What the House chose to say is it is all or nothing. If you don't pass the S. 5 version, the Castle bill, then we are not going to even put in any funding. We are not going to do anything. We are not going to allow any alternatives to be pursued. That would be a shame. As I used to tell our kids, it is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. That would be a shame. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--wherever they stand on this issue they can be comfortable supporting S. 30; they can be comfortable supporting a bill that provides for the moral line but at the same time opens up the opportunity for additional research. I urge its support. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma, who brings a physician's perspective. We hear so often on the floor of the Senate that we need to look in the eyes of young kids with juvenile diabetes and say: Are we doing all we can do? My colleague from Oklahoma has dealt with that on a regular basis. He stands with me, and I thank him for his support. In the end, there is a practical conclusion, as he demonstrated with the glasses of water. If you want an answer, if you want to look those kids in the eyes, talk to the families of folks with ALS or heart disease, if you support S. 30, you can look them in the eye and say: Today I have done what I can do to move the science forward, to have additional Federal support for embryonic stem cell research but research which, in the end, is unifying research. Dr. William Hurlbut, who is one of the authors of a technique known as altered nuclear transfer, used a phrase that I borrowed. It is an island of unity and a sea of controversy. That is what S. 30 offers, an island of unity and a sea of controversy. There is disagreement in this country about the use of Federal dollars for the destruction of a human embryo. That is a reality. In the end, scientific advancement should be something that is unifying. It shouldn't be tearing this country apart. You shouldn't worry, if you are going into a hospital for some kind of treatment, whether there is some moral line that has been crossed for you as an individual. You shouldn't have to do that. We shouldn't put people in that position. The good news is we don't have to. It is fascinating. I think the science has gotten ahead of the politics. I have no doubt, as I listened to this debate, these are people of good will on both sides of this debate, supporting both proposals, but I believe the same ultimate kind of vision to improve quality of life, to enhance scientific research, to put an end to debilitating and threatening disease and illness, is the kind of common bond we have, people of good will. I suppose a number of years ago, individuals of good will, good moral background, religious background, may have come to a conclusion that they would support the destruction of a human embryo for the opportunity to do good today for someone who is here. It is a line some of us can't cross. We bring deeply held moral perspectives to this issue. I understand others of good faith and strong character, solid religious background and belief, say this is the line, this is the right thing to do. I heard my colleagues on the other side quote scriptures and pastors and others--my friends, of good will, and good heart. In the past, that may have been the only path to where we wanted to go. The Clinton administration looked at this. In fact, this is the language they used. In 1999, President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission issued a report entitled ``Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research'' acknowledging that a week-old human embryo is a form of human life that deserves respect. The Commission stated: In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments-- These are the embryos we are talking about here, IVF-- is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research. Science has moved ahead of where we were in 1999. I was on the phone a little while ago with a Dr. Landry from, I believe, Columbia University. Dr. Landry talked about a stem cell line coming from dead embryos that has all the capacity, pluripotency of the stem cell lines from fertility clinics. So a ``less morally problematic alternative'' is available. My friend and colleague from Georgia, the coauthor of this legislation, knows from Georgia experience that scientists worked on dead embryos. I thought about it, and I believe it is part of the 21 lines the President authorized for embryo research. The work is being done. The reality is there are cell lines available today that are not eligible for Federal funding. That is because we have a policy that says no Federal funding for embryo stem cell research. But if we pass S. 30, and S. 30 gets signed into law, then we have available Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that would not be available today. That is then ``morally less problematic'' because it does not involve the destruction of a human embryo. When we talk about a dead embryo, my colleague from Georgia has done a very good job. My colleagues may have said: It is a dead embryo. What can you get out of a dead embryo? Let me explain two concepts. They are at the heart of this debate. I am not a scientist, but I have learned a lot about pluripotency, the capacity of a cell to give rise to many different cell types. Embryonic stem cells, those that have come from in vitro fertilization clinics, they have pluripotency. They have this elastic capacity to recreate any kind of cell. So maybe sometime in the future you can create stronger heart muscles. Today, in fact, with some types of stem cell research, that is being done. Maybe you can grow limbs. Maybe you can cure ALS. There is an incredible capacity, pluripotency. There is also this concept of totipotency. Totipotency is the capability of a zygote or other cell to develop into a complete, integrated human being. The line we are talking about today between S. 5 and S. 30 is the line between pluripotency and totipotency. We all support research that will provide for pluripotent stem cells, pluripotent cells that have the capacity to be almost anything. The dividing line, though, is whether you have totipotency, so with a human embryo, cells that are involved in a fertility clinic--I am going to switch charts and talk about a couple of other techniques that involve pluripotency but not totipotency. What we look at with dead embryos are cells that are pluripotent. I don't know if it is a great analogy, but even after death we can harvest organs that have the ability to serve the function you want them to serve. So dead embryos are embryos that have no totipotency but have pluripotency. You get pluripotent cells. The other approach is an approach known as altered nuclear transfer. That, by the way--I say ``the approach.'' There are a number of other approaches out there. My colleague from Oklahoma talked about that. I think he talked about dedifferentiation, talked about germs--there are a number of different procedures and techniques that have strong scientific support that allow us to produce pluripotent cells without totipotency. They allow us to produce embryonic stem cells that have all the capacity for research that gives the hope we are talking about without creating a human embryo that does not involve, then, the taking of human life; that does not involve the moral line that many Americans feel is there. Not all. There is a difference in this. That is why I am saying, what S. 30 does is it gives us this island of unity in the sea of controversy. What it does is allow all of us--and I do hope all my colleagues, wherever you are on this issue--support for S. 30. Why would you be opposed to Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that advances us? My colleague from Oklahoma used the two glasses of water. If you support S. 5, all you are going to get tomorrow--in January 2008, S. 5 passes. It passes in the Senate, passes in the House, it is vetoed. We have this much right now--I believe it is about $130 million. That is what this glass represents in research, embryonic stem cell research. Those are the 20-something lines left the President authorized. In January of 2008 you are going to get $132 million of federally funded stem cell research. But if we pass S. 30, what we have then is the opportunity for research in a range of other areas, perhaps doubling and maybe more--I would hope much more--of stem cell research, or pluripotent stem cells, to get the capacity to do all the treatments and provide the hope. We are, by the way, a long way away in reality from human treatments, but it is hope. That is what this bill is, this is the HOPE bill. One of the other mechanisms we talked about is altered nuclear transfer. Just to explain, in the natural fertilization process, biology 101, you have the sperm, you have the egg, you get the fertilized egg, and you get the embryo. In the clone what you have is the egg cell, you enucleate it--you take out the center. This may come from a fingernail or skin, whatever, a cell with all the DNA, and you insert it into this enucleated egg. You activate it and then you get an embryo. I think that is the way Dolly the sheep came about. By the way, my colleague from Oklahoma talked about this. If we are going to do stem cell research from here, and we are going to take this embryo and we are going to create stem cells and we put that into you or me, you are going to have an immune reaction, and your whole life-- if you put this in you, you are, for your whole life, going to have to deal with immune reaction suppression and the drugs. The only way around that is the Dolly approach. If you create stem cells from your own cells there is no immune reaction. We are not talking about that, although there are those of us who raise the concern: How do you get ultimately where you want to go without that possibility? Another way is the altered nuclear transfer. You take the genetic material, the somatic cell, fingernail or something, and what you do before you insert it into this enucleated egg is touch off a trigger mechanism that shuts off the ability to create the embryo, but it still creates an inner cell mass with pluripotent cells--the capacity of a cell to give rise to many different types of cells. Do all the research you want. So S. 5 provides funding for new stem cell research. It provides the opportunity to do all that one wants to do without crossing the moral line. Why wouldn't we get there? My great fear is that what will happen this year is what happened last year. In the Senate there was a bill, the Specter-Santorum bill, which, by the way, did not provide for all that we have in S. 30. It did not provide for the dead embryo research. I think it may have provided for some sort of ANT. The good news is that is included in S. 5, but S. 5 is going to be vetoed so that doesn't go anywhere. Last year that passed, 100 to 0, a bill with some alternative measures. But, again, we have gone way beyond last year, this year, in terms of the science. The House refused to hear it. They took an all-or-nothing approach: If you don't support the destruction of a human embryo to do stem cell research we are not passing anything. Where is the hope in that? As you look at this I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to tell their colleagues in the House: Give hope, the hope we have talked about on this floor, the hope we all agree on, the hope that there is just consensus on that we want to move the research forward. Do not let some kind of politics that I cannot understand stop us from moving forward with the opportunity to move research that can produce hope. There are many scientists who have kind of said: Yes, we looked at ANT and we know it can work and we need to put our efforts into that. I will read a couple of quotes: Research results suggest that altered nuclear transfer may be able to produce human pluripotent stem cells--in a manner that is simpler and more efficient than current methods. That is by Hans Scholer, chair of the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Recently, multiple labs in the United States and from around the world have published or reported experiments in which adult cells were converted not to embryos but directly to pluripotent embryonic-like cells. The resulting cells were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells derived from embryos. The techniques used included altered nuclear transfer, cell fusion and chemical reprogramming. The results were obtained from top scientists in the field and published in the best journals. That was by Markus Grompe, M.D., Oregon Stem Cell Center. It is fascinating, those scientists that support just embryonic stem cell research without anything, they will tell you nothing else works; this is the whole ball of wax; my way or the highway. Then you have scientists who support these alternatives who say: Yes, this is the best way to go. Maybe it is about Federal funding. Maybe if you don't believe your way is the only way you are not going to get Federal dollars. We have to get past the politics. We have to get past the petty scientific divisions and simply look at what we have out there and embrace and seize the opportunity to move forward in a way that is cohesive, that gets this Nation outside of the culture wars, outside of the battles over Federal funding for the destruction of human life. Put it aside. We don't have to go there today. Science is offering us a better path.

Mr. COLEMAN. I urge my colleagues to take a look at S. 30, regardless of where you are on S. 5. This is a bill that deserves unanimous support. In the end, let's work on our friends and colleagues in the House to pass the law so that we have, in the end, one the President will sign, one which offers and delivers true hope. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, for his leadership on this issue, his passion, his knowledge. He is not a biologist, but I have learned more about God and principle and stem cell lines from that former real estate guy than the many doctors I have talked to. I also thank my colleague from Iowa. I went to law school at the University of Iowa. I think I have some Iowa roots. The Senator from Iowa has been a champion of those with disabilities, of disability rights, a champion of hope for a long time. In this debate there is so much we agree on. Where we disagree, though, is that S. 30 is not about a few small lines. S. 30 is about opening up embryonic stem cell research, research on pluripotent embryonic stem cells, in part, one technique being dead embryos; another technique being alternate nuclear transfer, all of which have numerous scientists who say there is hope for moving the science forward, and we could do it in a way that doesn't involve the destruction of the human embryo so we don't cross a moral line but we have all the research we want. You may ask: How can something so small be so important? To my right is a chart showing a pinhead. These are the embryonic stem cells right there. They are the size of a pinhead. That is how big they are. How could something so small be so important? Size is not the measure of moral meaning. If you look at it, this point of view from outer space, and look at the people, that is small, but that crowd has meaning. If you look at it from a universe perspective to the Earth, boy, that is really small. You can't even see it. It is not even the size of a pinhead. Or our galaxy, if I had a picture of the universe, our galaxy would be the size of a pinhead. What we are talking about today has meaning. We have an opportunity in this country to come together and put the politics aside, the ideological divisions aside. The debate over Federal funding, which has been longstanding Federal policy, we do not provide Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo, and we don't have to. We come together with the same intention. We come together with the same perspective, with the same hope. There are two paths to follow. One is S. 5, which will be vetoed and, in the end, what we will have tomorrow in terms of research is what we have today, well intentioned, but again, unfortunately, because the moral line is crossed and the division that will create, it will be vetoed. There will be no movement forward. But if we pass S. 30, we have the opportunity to move the science forward, to create a full range of pluripotent embryonic stem cells. By the way, if you are just using IVF stem cells, it is a narrow universe. But with the dead embryo and the altered nuclear transfer, you can cover every race and ethnic group in America. The science has gotten way ahead of the politics. We can put ideology aside. We can put political division aside. We can offer real hope and real advancement without crossing a moral line. Why wouldn't we do that? I hope my colleagues see the wisdom in offering hope, in moving the science forward, and not falling victim to a Presidential veto, but that, in the end, by next year saying we have more Federal dollars going into embryonic stem cell research, research on pluripotent stem cells, stem cells that have the capacity to be perhaps anything. We don't know, but there is still hope. There is a lot of research that has to go into it, but we can open the doors with the passage of S. 30. I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 30. With that, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I recognize and celebrate students who work while attending college as part of the University of Minnesota Duluth's, UMD, National Student Employment Week. During the week of April 9-13, 2007, UMD will honor the approximately 1,500 student employees during their National Student Employment Week. I applaud these students for going above and beyond their studies to give back to UMD, and I encourage employers to thank them for their contributions. I would like to give special congratulations to UMD's 2007 National Student Employment Week Awardees: Derric Johnson, Student Employee of the Year; Carly Moritz, First Runner Up; and Meghan Keil and Phong Yang, Second Runners Up. I also commend the work of Marinda Batzlaff, Josh Baumann, Ann Beacom, Samuel Bradley, Ruta Embaye, Courtney Grandahl, Kelly Gunelson, Christine Hirsch, Brittany Jurek, Krista Kniffin, Bryan LaCore, Cal Larson, Christina Lashyro, Abigail Linder, Emily Lubbert, Jessica Lutgen, Aaron Miller, Calley O'Neil, Ashton Portner, Hilary Ramsey, Thomas Rieck, Jessica Robey, Bud Rodecker, Anthony Rostvold, Taryn Runck, Michael Schumacher, Clay Sharkey, and Sheena Stueber. Again, I thank all of these students for their hard work and wish them the best of luck at UMD and in their future careers.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise in favor of S. 30. Last year the Senate passed a similar measure, Specter-Santorum, 100 to nothing. The reality is that S. 30 goes beyond what Specter-Santorum did. When the dust settles and S. 5 is vetoed, the only real opportunity to expand pluripotent embryonic stem cell research is through S. 30. I ask my colleagues to please put politics aside and to do the right thing. I plead with my colleagues, on behalf of all of those who have looked to us and asked for hope to move the science of stem cell research forward in a way that does not divide but unifies, do what we did last year, 100 to nothing, keep hope alive, vote in favor of S. 30.

Mr. COLEMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank my colleague from Georgia, who shares the passion of the Senator from Iowa, shares the passion of the Senator from Pennsylvania. We want to see scientific breakthroughs. We want to see cures for those kids who suffer from juvenile diabetes and friends who have ALS. I have a brother-in-law who suffers from Parkinson's. How do we get there? Senator Specter noted that, as he filled an hourglass and said: The clock is ticking--and it is. The question becomes how do we move forward, not just in the debate but action. I am a former mayor. If it snowed in St. Paul and the streets weren't plowed, I heard about it. That is what you do--take action. If we look at the amount of research going on in stem cell research, human embryonic stem cell research--they are pluripotent. What we are talking about is an ability of stem cells to--they have apparently an incredible elastic ability to be perhaps transformed to a heart or a liver, an incredible capacity--in theory. But clearly, scientists, I think uniformly, believe there is great hope and great opportunity there. The reality today is that there is a certain amount of Federal dollars. What we are talking about is Federal dollars. We are not talking about the sum of all research but simply, What does the Federal Government do? What do we do with taxpayer dollars? Where do we put them? In terms of human embryonic, pluripotent, the President said--I think it was in 2001--he talked about a series of lines that would be available, just that. He was drawing the line there in terms of embryonic stem cells. Of those lines, originally there were 60 or 70, and there are now about 20 lines. There is about $132 million being spent in Federal money in human embryonic stem cell research and over $1 billion in human nonembryonic cord blood stem cell, bone marrow, other kinds of research--all of which is promising. In some areas, there are actually therapies going on. It is fascinating. Scientists are also very passionate. I am not a scientist, but I have been listening to them. There are those scientists who are advocates of embryonic stem cell, and they are passionate that this is the way. Clearly, in theory, in terms of pluripotency, embryonic stem cells have more pluripotency than adult stem cells, but the critics say you have the process of embryonic stem cells, that they have the rejection because when you have organ transplants, you put another genetic material into somebody, and there are problems of rejection. You have the problem of tumors growing from them. They say we have to support adult stem cell because that is where the work is being done, that is where the breakthroughs are happening. Of course, other scientists come back and say, rightfully so, that adult stem cells do not have the elasticity, the pluripotency of embryonic, and so that is not the way. The question is, Is there a third way? Is there a way to get past the culture wars, to get past the great divide we have? There are many in this country who believe passionately that Federal dollars should not be used for research which involves the destruction of a human embryo, who believe very passionately about that. There are others who say the cause of science is so great, the size of this embryo is so small, the hope we have to offer is so great, we need to move forward. There is a divide. The reality today is, with policy as it is, if the Harkin-Specter bill passes--which I presume it will, probably overwhelmingly it will pass--and a similar bill is passed in the House and ultimately we work out the language and the President then vetoes it and, as my colleague from Pennsylvania recognizes, there are not enough votes to override the veto, at the end of the day of January 1, 2008, there will still not be more than $132 million spent on human embryonic pluripotency research. The question is, Is there another way? Senator Isakson has talked about another way. He talked about dead embryos. My colleague from Iowa dismissed it: Dead embryos, what does that mean? My colleague explained it well, that embryonic stem cells produced by that method have the same pluripotency, the same capacity as other embryonic stem cells, but they do not cross the moral line. Within S. 30, there is the point of doing other kinds of research that does not cross the moral line. One is called altered nuclear transfer. Later I will, perhaps, put up some charts to show how it works, but very simply, if you think about it, science 101, take an egg and sperm, they come together, create an embryo, become a person--one of the pages here or a Senator or mom and dad sitting somewhere. Then what we do with altered nuclear transfer--actually, by the way, if you relate it to cloning, it is not cloning, but if you think of the concept of cloning, you take an egg, put some genetic material from an adult in there, and it becomes a person. Practically, we had Dolly the sheep, so we know that works. Altered nuclear transfer basically says take that egg, take some genetic material, and before you put it in there, you program the egg so it doesn't create an embryo but creates a tissue mass which has the same pluripotency, the ability to do all the other things any other embryonic stem cell would do. I have a series of letters from scientists who say this should work. I will quote: Research results suggest that Altered Nuclear Transfer may be able to produce human pluripotent stem cells--the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells--in a manner that is simpler and more efficient than current methods. That is by Hans Schoeler, chairman of the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Recently, multiple labs in the United States and around the world have published or reported experiments in which adult cells were converted, not to embryos, but directly to pluripotent ``embryonic-like'' cells. The resulting cells were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells derived from embryos. The techniques used have included altered nuclear transfer, cell fusion and chemical reprogramming. The results were obtained from the top scientists in the field and published in the best journals. That is by Markus Grompe, M.D., Oregon Stem Cell Center. One last quote: I think that current scientific evidence and reasonable expectations make it likely that altering a donor nucleus to preclude normal organization of any subsequent blastocyst is technically feasible and consistent with the scientific and medical goals of embryonic stem cell research. That is by Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, Ph.D., Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Much of the work is from a doctor, Dr. William B. Hurlbut, over at Stanford, the Neuroscience Institute at Stanford. I worked with him. He has published a lot on this issue. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a presentation by Dr. Hurlbut entitled ``Stem Cells, Embryos and Ethics: Is There a Way Forward?''

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to briefly touch on one other aspect of the bill we have not talked about. I do want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for articulating what is the basic issue: if we can move science forward without crossing a moral line, if we can avoid the great division in America. Scientific research should be something that as a society we embrace. S. 30 gives us the opportunity to do that. I hope my colleagues from all perspectives on this issue decide they will support S. 30. One other aspect of S. 30 that is important is there is a provision in the bill that calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to look into setting up a national amniotic and placental stem cell bank. There are three banks of stem cells in this country. I believe Wisconsin has the 21 embryonic stem cell lines of the 78 the President originally authorized. In Minnesota, there is a cord blood cell bank, and there is a bone marrow bank. What we hope to do, based on research that has recently come to light--Wake Forest has done some of it--is have the use of amniotic and placental stem cells. These are stem cells, by the way, that can be grown in large quantities. They do not produce tumors, which occur in other types of stem cells. The Wake Forest scientists have noted the specialized cells generated from amniotic cells really, in effect, may have--again, this is all potential--but there is the potential to have the kind of elasticity and pluripotency we see in embryonic stem cells--high-flexibility growth potential in many ways resembling human embryonic stem cells. The hope is to put together a tissue sampling of 100,000 tissues which would then give you the kind of ability to cut across a diversity we do not have today with the research that is going on. Again, if S. 5 is passed, it will be vetoed, and the science will not be moved forward. But if S. 30 is passed, with the provisions that provide for stem cell research, that will provide for pluripotent research, that will provide for dead embryo research, which would give you, again, the same kind of stem cells you get from any other kind of embryonic stem cells--these are some of the new techniques out there. In addition, S. 30 contains a provision for moving forward with a national amniotic and placental stem cell bank, which is another opportunity to move the research forward and to move from hope to reality, which is certainly the hope of the authors of this bill. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time.