Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, since 2001 when stem cell research first captured our Nation's attention, I have said many times the issue will have to be reviewed on an ongoing basis--and not just because the science holds tremendous promise, or because it is developing with breathtaking speed. Indeed, stem cell research presents the first major moral and ethical challenge to biomedical research in the 21st century. In this age of unprecedented discovery, challenges that arise from the nexus of advancing science and ethical considerations will come with increasing frequency. How can they not? Every day we unlock more of the mysteries of human life and more ways to promote and enhance our health. This compels profound questions--moral questions that we understandably struggle with both as individuals and as a body politic. How we answer these questions today--and whether, in the end, we get them right--impacts the promise not only of current research, but of future research, as well. It will define us as a civilized and ethical society forever in the eyes of history. We are, after all, laying the foundation of an age in human history that will touch our individual lives far more intimately than the Information Age and even the Industrial Age before it. Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For example, to realize the promise of my own field of heart transplantation and at the same time address moral concerns introduced by new science, we had to ask the question: How do we define ``death?'' With time, careful thought, and a lot of courage from people who believed in the promise of transplant medicine, but also understood the absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that question, allowed the science to advance, and have since saved tens of thousands of lives. So when I remove the human heart from someone who is brain dead, and I place it in the chest of someone whose heart is failing to give them new life, I do so within an ethical construct that honors dignity of life and respect for the individual. Like transplantation, if we can answer the moral and ethical questions about stem cell research, I believe we will have the opportunity to save many lives and make countless other lives more fulfilling. That is why we must get our stem cell policy right-- scientifically and ethically. And that is why I stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. Four years ago, I came to this floor and laid out a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within a thorough framework of ethics. I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles. They dealt with all types of stem cell research, including adult and embryonic stem cells. As we know, adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical grounds--while embryonic stem cell research is. Right now, to derive embryonic stem cells, an embryo--which many, including myself, consider nascent human life--must be destroyed. But I also strongly believe--as do countless other scientists, clinicians, and doctors--that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide. I will come back to that later. Right now, though, let me say this: I believe today--as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the establishment of current policy--that the Federal Government should fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said 4 years ago, we should Federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed. Let me read to you my fifth principle as I presented it on this floor 4 years ago: No. 5. Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7847). I made it clear at the time, and do so again today, that such funding should only be provided within a system of comprehensive ethical oversight. Federally funded embryonic research should be allowed only with transparent and fully informed consent of the parents. And that consent should be granted under a careful and thorough Federal regulatory system, which considers both science and ethics. Such a comprehensive ethical system, I believe, is absolutely essential. Only with strict safeguards, public accountability, and complete transparency will we ensure that this new, evolving research unfolds within accepted ethical bounds. My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined in 2001 (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851) are as follows: (1) ban embryo creation for research; (2) continue funding ban on derivation; (3) ban human cloning; (4) increase adult stem cell research funding; (5) providing funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded; (6) require a rigorous informed consent process; (7) limit number of stem cell lines; (8) establish a strong public research oversight system; (9) require ongoing, independent scientific and ethical review; (10) strengthen and harmonize fetal tissue research restrictions. That is what I said 4 years ago, and that is what I believe today. After all, principles are meant to stand the test of time--even when applied to a field changing as rapidly as stem cell research. I am a physician. My profession is healing. I have devoted my life to attending to the needs of the sick and suffering and to promoting health and well being. For the past several years I have temporarily set aside the profession of medicine to participate in public policy with a continued commitment to heal. In all forms of stem cell research, I see today, just as I saw in 2001, great promise to heal. Whether it is diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer. Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely powerful and deserving of special attention in the realm of medical science. These special properties explain why scientists and physicians feel so strongly about support of embryonic as well as adult stem cell research. Unlike other stem cells, embryonic stem cells are ``pluripotent.'' That means they have the capacity to become any type of tissue in the human body. Moreover, they are capable of renewing themselves and replicating themselves over and over again--indefinitely. Adult stem cells meet certain medical needs. But embryonic stem cells--because of these unique characteristics--meet other medical needs that simply cannot be met today by adult stem cells. They especially offer hope for treating a range of diseases that require tissue to regenerate or restore function. On August 9, 2001, shortly after I outlined my principles (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851), President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. His policy was fully consistent with my ten principles, so I strongly supported it. It federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an ethical framework. And it showed respect for human life. But this policy restricted embryonic stem cell funding only to those cell lines that had been derived from embryos before the date of his announcement. In my policy I, too, proposed restricting number of cell lines, but I did not propose a specific cutoff date. Over time, with a limited number of cell lines, would we be able to realize the full promise of embryonic stem cell research? When the President announced his policy, it was widely believed that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for Federal funding. That has proven not to be the case. Today only 22 lines are eligible. Moreover, those lines unexpectedly after several generations are starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially thought; they are acquiring and losing chromosomes, losing the normal karyotype, and potentially losing growth control. They also were grown on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since, will likely limit their future potential for clinical therapy in humans (e.g., potential of viral contamination). While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. Therefore, I believe the President's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding--and thus NIH oversight--and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds. During the past several weeks, I have made considerable effort to bring the debate on stem cell research to the Senate floor, in a way that provided colleagues with an opportunity to express their views on this issue and vote on proposals that reflected those views. While we have not yet reached consensus on how to proceed, the Senate will likely consider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed the House in May by a vote of 238 to 194, at some point this Congress. This bill would allow Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for cells derived from human embryos that: (1) are created for the purpose of fertility treatments; (2) are no longer needed by those who received the treatments; (3) would otherwise be discarded and destroyed; (4) are donated for research with the written, informed consent of those who received the fertility treatments, but do not receive financial or other incentives for their donations. The bill, as written, has significant shortcomings, which I believe must be addressed. First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism. One example we should look to is the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee--RAC--that oversees DNA research. The RAC was established 25 years ago in response to public concerns about the safety of manipulation of genetic material through recombinant DNA techniques. Compliance with the guidelines--developed and reviewed by this oversight board of scientists, ethicists, and public representatives-- is mandatory for investigators receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA. Because most embryonic stem cell research today is being performed by the private sector--without NIH Federal funding--there is today a lack of ethical and scientific oversight that routinely accompanies NIH- Federal funded research. Second, the bill doesn't prohibit financial or other incentives between scientists and fertility clinics. Could such incentives, in the end, influence the decisions of parents seeking fertility treatments? This bill could seriously undermine the sanctity of the informed consent process. Third, the bill doesn't specify whether the patients or clinic staff or anyone else has the final say about whether an embryo will be implanted or will be discarded. Obviously, any decision about the destiny of an embryo must clearly and ultimately rest with the parents. These shortcomings merit a thoughtful and thorough rewrite of the bill. But as insufficient as the bill is, it is fundamentally consistent with the principles I laid out more than four years ago. Thus, with appropriate reservations, I will support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that th organism is complete--yes, immature--but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It is genetically distinct. And it is biologically human. it is living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It is a fact of science. Our development is a continuous process--gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect--the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health. Congress must have the ability to fully exercise its oversight authority on an ongoing basis. And policymakers, I believe, have a responsibility to re-examine stem cell research policy in the future and, if necessary, make adjustments. This is essential, in no small part, because of promising research not even imagined four years ago. Exciting techniques are now emerging that may make it unnecessary to destroy embryos--even those that will be discarded anyway--to obtain cells with the same unique ``pluripotential'' properties as embryonic stem cells. For example, an adult stem cell could be ``reprogrammed'' back to an earlier embryonic stage. This, in particular, may prove to be the best way, both scientifically and ethically, to overcome rejection and other barriers to effective stem cell therapies. To me--and I would hope to every member of this body--that's research worth supporting. Shouldn't we want to discover therapies and cures--given a choice--through the most ethical and moral means? So let me make it crystal clear: I strongly support newer, alternative means of deriving, creating, and isolating pluripotent stem cells--whether they are true embryonic stem cells or stem cells that have all of the unique properties of embryonic stem cells. With more Federal support and emphasis, these newer methods, though still preliminary today, may offer huge scientific and clinical pay- offs. And just as important, they may bridge moral and ethical differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research because they totally avoid destruction of any human embryos. These alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent cells include: (1) extraction from embryos that are no longer living; (2) non-lethal and nonharmful extraction from embryos; (3) extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryo-like; (4) reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines. Now, to date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. For example, the multi-organ and multi-tissue transplant center that I founded and directed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center performed scores of life-saving bone marrow transplants every year to treat fatal cancers with adult stem cells. And stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in treating leukemia, myeloproliferative disorders and congenital immune system disorders. Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to become neural cells, which could lead to treatments for Parkinson's disease and heart disease. Thus, we should also strongly support increased funding for adult stem cell research. I am a cosponsor of a bill that will make it much easier for patients to receive cord blood cell treatments. Adult stem cells are powerful. They have effectively treated many diseases and are theoretically promising for others. But embryonic stem cells--because they can become almost any human tissue (``pluripotent'') and renew and replicate themselves infInitely--are uniquely necessary for potentially treating other diseases. No doubt, the ethical questions over embryonic stem cell research are profound.They are challenging. They merit serious debate. And not just on the Senate floor, but across America--at our dining room tables, in our community centers, on our town squares. We simply cannot flinch from the need to talk with each other, again and again, as biomedical progress unfolds and breakthroughs are made in the coming years and generations. The promise of the Biomedical Age is too profound for us to fail. That is why I believe it is only fair, on an issue of such magnitude, that senators be given the respect and courtesy of having their ideas in this arena considered separately and cleanly, instead of in a whirl of amendments and complicateliamentary maneuvers. I have been working to bring this about for the last few months. I will continue to do so. And when we are able to bring this to the floor, we will certainly have a serious and thoughtful debate in the Senate. There are many conflicting points of view. And I recognize these differing views more than ever in my service as majority leader: I have had so many individual and private conversations with my colleagues that reflect the diversity and complexity of thought on this issue. So how do we reconcile these differing views? As individuals, each of us holds views shaped by factors of intellect, of emotion, of spirit. If your daughter has diabetes, if your father has Parkinson's, if your sister has a spinal cord injury, your views will be swayed more powerfully than you can imagine by the hope that cure will be found in those magnificent cells, recently discovered, that today originate only in an embryo. As a physician, one should give hope--but never false hope. Policymakers, similarly, should not overpromise and give false hope to those suffering from disease. And we must be careful to always stay within clear and comprehensive ethical and moral guidelines--the soul of our civilization and the conscience of our nation demand it. Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream. But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It is time for a modified policy--the right policy for this moment in time.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and the distinguished Senator from Kansas, really all of my colleagues who have spoken. This is a very important issue that we will come back and address, and I appreciate their comments.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are about to vote on final passage of the most comprehensive energy bill in decades. After years of careful and patient negotiation, we have before us an energy plan that promises to make America safer and more secure, and our energy supply cleaner and more reliable. It is a forward-looking plan. And it is a plan that will increase both our economic and national security. Anyone who has been to the gas pump, or turned on their AC for some relief from the current heat wave, knows that energy prices are skyrocketing. Suddenly, instead of the lowest energy prices in the industrialized world, we have the highest. Because of high natural gas prices, manufacturing and chemical jobs are moving overseas. Farmers are taking a pay cut. Consumers are paying too much to be comfortable in their own homes. Small businesses are struggling to pay their bills. Communities across the country are suffering. And as many as 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. All the while, we have grown dangerously reliant on foreign sources of energy. And some of those foreign sources do not have our best interests at heart. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. produced almost as much oil as we consumed. Imports were relatively small. But since then, U.S. oil production has been on the decline, while consumption has steadily increased. As a result, we have become more and more dependent on imported oil. Twenty years ago, 75 percent of crude oil used in American refineries came from American sources. Only 25 percent came from abroad. Today, that equation is nearly reversed. We have become dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. As a result, America is more vulnerable than ever to the use of energy as a political weapon. Many nondemocratic and corrupt governments maintain their hold on power by spending the oil profits they earn from selling to us. We see this happening in Venezuela, We currently import over 1 million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela. Meanwhile, its dictatorial President, Hugo Chavez, actively opposes the Umted States, supports rogue states such as Cuba, and is destabilizing Latin America. Many of these same dynamics are also at work in the Middle East. Nondemocratic regimes in the Middle East are using their oil revenues to tighten their grip on the reins of power. As a result, the conditions that breed hatred, violence, and terror have been allowed to fester and spread terror all over the world. London, Madrid, Russia, Bali, Iraq, and, of course, the United States have all suffered terribly at the hands of the terrorists. Passing the energy bill today will be a major step forward in addressing these serious national security challenges by putting us on a path to energy independence. It will also be a major step forward for our economic productivity and prosperity. The energy bill promises to deliver exciting new technologies to increase our efficiency and lessen our dependence, Hydrogen fuel cells are one example. If just 20 percent of cars used fuel cell technology, we could cut oil imports by 1.5 million barrels every day. The energy bill authorizes $3.7 billion to support hydrogen and fuel cell research and the infrastructure we need to move toward this goal. Last month, Senator Hatch and I had the opportunity to attend a hydrogen car demonstration here at the Capitol. The cars were stylish. They drove well. The technology was very promising. Hybrid cars are already gaining in popularity. Nissan recently announced that its first hybrvehicle will be built at their plant in Smyrna, TN. This is one example of how technology can simultaneously promote conservation and efficiency, and boost the manufacturing sector. In addition, the energy bill's conservation and energy efficiency provisions far exceed those of other energy bills considered by the Congress in recent years. According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Energy bill will save $1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by 2020, equivalent to the current annual consumption of the whole State of New York. It will reduce peak electric demand by 50,000 megawatts by 2020, the equivalent of 170 new power plants. This bill encourages the use of home-grown renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, as well as wind and solar and geothermal energy. The ethanol mandate will require fuel manufacturers to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline by 2012. This provision alone will reduce oil consumption by 80,000 barrels of oil a day by 2012; create over a quarter of a million new jobs; increase U.S. household income by $43 billion; all adding $200 billion to the GDP between 2005 and 2012. It provides incentives to facilitate the development of cutting-edge technologies like coal gasification and advanced nuclear plants, which will produce clean, low-carbon energy to help address the issue of global climate change. And it will modernize and expand our Nation's electricity grid to enhance reliability and help prevent future blackouts. This change in particular is long overdue. We are once again seeing the strain on our aging electrical grid as people turn up the AC to deal with the current heat wave. In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority reported that yesterday's demand for electricity reached an all-time record level of almost 32,000 megawatts, breaking a record that had been set just the day before. The Energy bill will help us both conserve more energy, and produce more energy. It will also help produce more jobs. It is estimated that the Energy bill will save over 2 million jobs and create hundreds of thousands more. As I mentioned, the ethanol provision is expected to generate over 230,000 new jobs. Incentives for wind-generated energy are expected to create another 100,000 jobs. The investment in clean coal technology will create 62,000 jobs. And 40,000 new jobs in the solar industry will come on line These are good jobs, well paying, and right here at home. The Energy bill is good for America. It will move our country toward a more reliable supply of clean, affordable energy. I thank my colleagues for the hard work and leadership. Special recognition goes to the Energy Committee chairman, Senator Domenici, and his ranking member, Senator Bingaman. Senator Domenici's expertise on energy issues is unparalleled in the U.S. Senate, as he has demonstrated for a number of years on both the Energy Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. His determination to produce a comprehensive national energy policy, and his hard work with Senator Bingaman, as well as members of the Energy Committee, is the reason why we stand here, today, on the cusp of final passage of a balanced, bipartisan Energy bill. And finally, special recognition goes to President Bush for his unwavering commitment to delivering an energy plan for the 21st century. He came into office determined to deliver an energy plan that makes America safer and more secure. And soon he will have a bill to sign into law that does just that. Every day we are working hard to deliver meaningful solutions to the American people. The Energy bill promises to keep America moving forward.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next three rollcall votes be 10-minute votes.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. The next vote is on the highway conference reported bill, the last of the evening, the 11th rollcall of the day and the last vote before the August break. I thank all of our colleagues for their patience and efforts. We have been very busy, very productive the last several weeks. We can all, in a bipartisan way, be proud of what we have accomplished. We will return for business on Tuesday, September 6th, with a vote that day sometime around 5:30. That is Tuesday, September 6th. I wish everyone a safe break.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have a bit of business to do before we close down tonight. What we heard from our colleagues reflects the cooperative spirit that is very important as we fulfill our constitutional responsibility in terms of this very important nomination. As our colleagues can tell, there have been a lot of discussions with the chairman and ranking member and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. What we witnessed is the decision to begin hearings after Labor Day, that the hearings and the subsequent action, including the workup to the floor, which according to the schedule that has been laid out, implies to me we would be able to be on the floor by September 26, and with that would be able to have the nomination finished by the end of that week, confirmed, and the Justice would be sitting on that first Monday in October. I do wish to thank all of the people who have been mentioned for bringing us to this point and expect that over August, with civility, we will be able to continue our study of records and background that are provided. We will have a very busy early September as those hearings begin. In terms of timing, it looks as if we will be able to achieve the objectives from both sides of the aisle. We very much appreciate that leadership in a bipartisan way in the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, diplomacy and foreign policy are essential pillars of our national security. They reflect the values, principles, views and interests of the American people. They are central to advancing the United States role and stature in the world. This year, for the first time ever, we are earmarking specific funds in the Foreign Operations bill to advance a specific cause. This year, we are legislating a direct appropriation of $200 million to advance the cause of clean water and sanitation--$50 million specifically targeted toward Africa. In America, we take clean water for granted. Water to drink. Water to bathe in. But in other parts of the world, clean water is a scarcity and the results are devastating. Every 15 seconds a child dies because of a disease contracted from unclean water. Ninety percent of infant deaths are caused by unclean water. Water-related disease kills 14,000 people a day, most of them children. Millions more are debilitated and prevented from leading healthy lives. Cholera, typhoid, dysentery, dengue fever, trachoma, intestinal helminth infection, and schistosomiasis can all be prevented simply by providing safe water and sanitation. Unfortunately, reliable projections suggest that the problem is only growing worse. Water stress and water scarcity, leading to impure and disease borne water, is expected to increase. By 2025, upwards of two- thirds of the world's population may be subject to water stress. Imagine living in a rural village in Sub Saharan Africa or East Asia where the village members share their water source with livestock. Imagine being a grandmother like Mihiret G-Maryam from a small village in Ethiopia. She watched five of her grandchildren between the ages of three and eight die from water-related diseases. Before the UK-based WaterAid organization intervened in her community, constant stomach pain and diarrhea were a fact of life. The foul smelling, contaminated water exposed Mihiret and her neighbors to parasitic diseases. With no latrines, human waste was everywhere. As Mihiret testifies, ``it was horrid to see, as well as being unhealthy.'' Now, because of the education and investment of WaterAid, together with the local church, her village is clean and the people no longer suffer chronic stomach aches. Clean water has literally saved lives. And proper management and intervention can be a currency for peace and international cooperation. I have been on numerous medical missions around the world and seen the truth of this. In January, I traveled with my colleague Senator Landrieu to East Asia to survey the aftermath of the December 26 tsunami. We helicoptered over the Sri Lankan coast and through the windows witnessed a scene of unending devastation. Over 155,000 people died. At least 1 million lost their homes. Whole villages were literally washed out to sea. Through all of this, the lack of clean water emerged as the most pressing public health concern. In many areas, the tsunami had poisoned wells with salt water, and swept away water treatment plants. Shortages of potable water threatened to trigger outbreaks of diseases like cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. The large pools of stagnant water I saw along the coast were potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes carrying malaria and dengue fever. In confronting these challenges, America showed tremendous generosity and compassion. And part of our efforts included innovative new technologies to provide clean, safe water. And those efforts continue. This March, World Water Day launched the International Decade for Action. The United States and countries around the world are working together to reduce by one-half the number of people who lack access to safe drinking water. I applaud the President his leadership. In August 2002, the administration launched the ``Water for the Poor Initiative'' to improve management of fresh water resources in over 70 developing countries. An estimated $750 million was invested in 2004 alone. While no single piece of legislation can eliminate water-related diseases in the world, continued leadership is essential. In March, the minority leader and I introduced the Safe Water: Currency of Peace Act to make safe water and sanitation a major priority of our foreign relief efforts. The $200 million earmarked in the Foreign Operations bill is an extension of these efforts. I commend the assistant majority leader, Senator McConnell, the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, for his leadership. And I thank my colleagues for their continued commitment to this pressing issue. It is hard to imagine that something so basic, so necessary, is lacking in so many places. Providing clean water will save millions of lives. It is as simple as a glass of H2O.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Tomorrow, America celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Medicare law. Forty years ago, standing in the Harry S. Truman library in Independence, Missouri, President Johnson told a grateful nation that ``Through this new law, every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of old age.'' Passage of the Medicare law ensured that never again would health care for the elderly be a matter of charity, but one of national conscience. Medicare has served millions of seniors, improving their health and lengthening their lives. Today, 41 million elderly and disabled Americans have Medicare coverage. That number is expected to hit 77 million in 2031 when the baby boom generation is fully enrolled. I am proud to have worked to pass the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003. This legislation guarantees seniors for the first time have access to affordable prescription drugs. It also expands health care choices, improves preventive care, and begins to take a number of additional steps to improve quality and affordability of care in the Medicare program. In just a few short months, in January 2006, every senior will have access to prescription drug coverage under Medicare. This represents the most significant improvement to the Medicare program since its inception 40 years ago. And 41 million American seniors and individuals with disabilities finally have the prescription drug coverage they need and the Medicare choices they deserve. As a physician, I have written thousands of prescriptions that I knew would go unfilled because patients could not afford them. Under the Medicare Modernization Act that will soon change. As a senator, I watched a decades-old Medicare program operate without flexibility, without comprehensive and coordinated care, without preventive care or disease management, and with no catastrophic protection against high out-of-pocket medical costs. I watched as science raced ahead, and Medicare stood still. Now, under the Medicare Modernization Act that, too, is beginning to change. By expanding opportunities for private sector innovation, Medicare now combines the best of the public and private sectors. It provides better and more comprehensive coverage for today's seniors, and helps to lay the foundation for a stronger and more modern program for tomorrow's seniors. The Medicare Modernization Act also offered some benefits for younger Americans. Most significantly, it is making health insurance more affordable through portable and tax-free health savings accounts. Health savings accounts are already giving younger Americans more control over their health care choices and hard-earned dollars. The Medicare Modernization Act was a historic step forward for a program that has served millions of America's seniors. And it continues to draw on technological advances, like health information technologies and e-prescribing, to deliver more effective and more affordable care. Medicare is a compact between generations. It is one of the most valued and compassionate legislative achievements of the 20th century. More changes will be needed in the future. But we have already begun to lay the groundwork. Medicare is providing a platform for making health care more affordable, more available, and more dependable for all Americans.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the DeWine amendment be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I do have a longer statement I will make here shortly, but I think while the Democratic leader is here, what we have seen over the course of the last day, in the last week, in the last several weeks, does represent the very best of what this body is all about. The American people, as the Democratic leader suggested, expect us to govern in a way working together with civility, and I think we have demonstrated that on some very tough and contentious issues. I look forward, as we enter into the post-recess session, to continuing that bipartisan civil spirit as we address, again, some very challenging issues.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in the last few minutes here, I do want to look back very briefly and look ahead and foreshadow some of the issues we will be looking at. Before we leave for this August recess, I would like to look at and review very quickly some of the big, important issues we will be tackling this fall. First and foremost, we will focus on one of the most significant and historic constitutional responsibilities, and that is, as we all know, to provide advice and consent on the President's Supreme Court nomination. Our goal, as spelled out a little bit earlier is to have a fair debate and a dignified debate on Judge Roberts, and to confirm him before the Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3. We can do that. We will do that. I have worked very closely with the Democratic leader and with the President and with Senators Specter and Leahy to lay out a hearing and floor schedule to move the process forward in September. To summarize, because we were on the floor a couple of hours ago talking about that in a colloquy, Judge Roberts' hearing will begin in the Judiciary Committee on September 6 and Chairman Specter intends to hold a committee vote on Judge Roberts Thursday, September 15. We will begin the Senate floor debate no later than the week of Monday, September 26. I look forward to an up-or-down confirmation vote no later than Thursday, September 29. As we approach this process, let me say a couple of words about Judge Roberts. He is the best of the best legal minds in America. Everybody who has met him has reflected that. His credentials, so impressive, have reflected that. He is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, a lawyer who has served two Presidents and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. He is a Federal judge who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve on the DC Circuit Court. He has earned bipartisan respect as one of the finest appellate advocates in the Nation. I have had the opportunity to get to know Judge Roberts personally over the last several weeks and I, like everyone else, have been so impressed with his intellect and his modest demeanor and his willingness to communicate freely and openly. He will be the kind of Justice who will make America proud, embodying the very best of the American spirit, embodying the best of the qualities America expects in a Justice on its highest court: Someone who is smart, fair, impartial, and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law. As we move this process forward to confirm Judge Roberts, I hope and I do believe that the Senate has and will put aside any sort of partisan delay or obstruction or personal attacks of judicial nominees. I am concerned with two tactics that have emerged that should concern us all--tactics that at first may appear perfectly reasonable but are really designed to thwart the confirmation process. One tactic is asking Judge Roberts to prejudge cases and predetermine outcomes that threaten his judicial independence. Some have asked the question: ``whose side is Judge Roberts on?'' in a particular case. And there is only one appropriate answer to that question: Judge Roberts is on the side of the Constitution. When he puts on the judicial robe and takes a seat on the bench with his fellow Justices, he will not be serving as an advocate for a client or a particular point of view. He will serve as a fair and impartial judge who is sworn to uphold the Constitution. The other tactic that concerns me is the fishing expedition for confidential, privileged documents. The Judiciary Committee and the Senate will have an extensive and comprehensive record of Judge Roberts to review. Already, the White House has released 15,000 pages of documents from Judge Roberts's service in the Federal Government and is expediting the release of tens of thousands more. The committee also can review the more than 300 cases decided by Judge Roberts, the legal briefs and oral argument transcripts from his 39 cases before the Supreme Court, and the 14 hours of hearing transcripts from his previous nomination before the Senate. There will be ample evidence for Senators to consider when they vote yes or no on Judge Roberts, without requiring review of confidential, privileged documents he wrote as a lawyer for his clients. As we move forward, I urge my colleagues to reject these tactics and to work together in a bipartisan way. We must ensure that Judge Roberts receives a fair hearing, and a fair up or down confirmation vote before the Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3. In addition to fulfilling this grave responsibility, we also will be carrying out our duty to protect America's national and economic security. The London bombings remind us that the terrorists continue to plot and plan their evil acts. We must stay vigilant and tireless in our pursuit--breaking up their cells, chasing down the money trail, and bringing each and every collaborator to justice. Defending the homeland also requires defending our borders. The Homeland Security bill we passed 2 weeks ago adds 2,000 more border patrol agents, investigators and detention officers--don't think we have ``deportation officers, per se--to our border team. It expands much needed detention space so that we can be sure that people caught entering the country illegally are not released before their cases are processed. The Homeland Security bill also provides $340 million for U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology--US VISIT. This new technology will enhance our ability to verify the identity of visitors with visas. We are working hard to secure our borders. Part of that effort also involves reforming our immigration system. America is a natIon of immigrants. It is what has made us strong, vibrant and a beacon of hope to the world. People come to America looking for a better life. And we live better lives because of them. But we must ensure that immigrants who come to America come here legally. Over 7,000 miles of land stretch across our borders. Our ports handle 16 million cargo containers. And 330 million non-citizens--students, visitors and workers--cross our borders every year. Among these visitors is an unprecedented flow of illegal immigrants. And many of them die in the trying. Last year alone, several hundred people died in the deserts and mountains that separate the United States from Mexico. Most died of exposure to the elements. Some died in accidents. An alarming number were murdered. Along Arizona's southern border--the only area for which we have good data--over 20 people died as a result of hanging, blunt-force trauma, gun shot wounds and other apparently deliberate acts during 2004. More corpses may be buried in shallow, unmarked graves. We don't keep records. We simply don't know. That is why I am asking the Government Accountability Office to produce a report on the deaths along our border to guide our future action. These tragedies challenge our standards of compassion. But the sheer vastness of the illegal flow also compromises our security. Among those seeking a better life are those seeking to harm our country. Some bring drugs. Some traffic in human beings. A few may even have links to terrorist groups. The safety and security of every citizen and every visitor who wishes to share in the American dream requires that we reform our laws to strengthen and improve our immigration system. We also will turn to finishing our work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Our troops in the field are depending on it. The security of our country depends on it. I thank our distinguished chairman, Chairman John Warner, who has been a tremendous leader on this bill and continues to represent the very best, I believe, in what a Senator should be as he takes that Department of Defense authorization bill through the activities that we must on the floor of the Senate. This fall, as we work hard to address the national security concerns, we also will focus on another type of security--economic security, starting with the deficit. For the first time in a decade, we have the opportunity to seriously address the national deficit. President Bush has proposed a plan to cut that deficit in half in 5 years. By working together and rolling up our sleeves, we can hammer out a strategy to get this done. We have to start that, I believe, by reducing the rate of Government growth, and the spending reconciliation bill will deliver real savings and strengthen our fiscal position. It has been about 9 years since we have had a spending aspect of that reconciliation bill. A second way we can improve our economic security for working families is by permanently repealing the death tax. We all know the death tax is disruptive. It is unfair. It hurts small businesses. It destroys small businesses and hurts families and the hard-working people they hire. A typical family spends between $30,000 and $150,000 just trying to avoid this unfair tax. That alone is enough to start a small business or create dozens of jobs. Instead, it is simply wasted in trying to avoid a tax that is unfair. Last week I, with another Senator, met a small group of business owners. The death tax was their very top concern. They talked about how their small family businesses were hurt--family farms and newspapers, shops and factories. So the death tax needs to go. It needs to be put to rest permanently. We will be addressing that soon after we return. Another issue of fairness that demands our attention is asbestos litigation. We have been grappling with this issue for years. Now it is apparent to everyone that asbestos litigation is out of control. More than 700,000 individuals have filed claims; over 8,400 defendant companies have been named in lawsuits; 300,000 claims are pending right now. More than $70 billion has been spent trying to resolve the claims, driving 77 companies bankrupt. This pace of bankruptcies is accelerating. About a third have taken place in the past 4 years. These are big companies such as Johns Manville, Owens Corning, U.S. Gypsum, and W.R. Grace. Over 90 percent of the industries in America are affected. Even with the billions spent, and the companies bankrupted, very few victims have received adequate compensation. If the victims receive anything at all, it is only after suffering long delays while waiting for unpredictable and inequitable awards. The current system has only one real winner--the trial lawyers. Plaintiff trial lawyers get more than half of every settlement dollar. And they are on the hunt for new companies to sue, even companies with little or no connection to the asbestos problem. Last month, the asbestos fairness bill passed out of committee on a bipartisan vote. It is my intention to bring that bill to the floor and pass it this fall and deliver a system based on fairness and compassion. These are just a few of the issues we will be tackling when we return after the Labor Day recess. We will also work to get our own house in order and finish the spending bills. And we will vote on the issue of Native Hawaiians, as well. We have had an enormously productive 7 months. And I am proud of the progress we have made on behalf of our fellow citizens. When we began the 109th Congress, America faced a number of structural problems threatening our safety, prosperity and freedom. We needed to take bold action, so we laid out an ambitious plan. We began by passing the fifth fastest budget in Senate history. From there, we pulled together to pass a comprehensive class action reform bill with nearly three quarters of the Senate voting in favor. With this success at our backs, we turned to bankruptcy abuse. And we succeeded in passing the most sweeping overhaul of bankruptcy law in 25 years. Like class action, the bankruptcy bill passed with broad, bipartisan support. And like class action, we voted to restore fairness, integrity and personal responsibility to the legal system. We then moved to the highway bill. For years, America's roads, ports and infrastructure have been falling into disrepair. Our highways and city streets have become choked with 24-hour traffic. For millions of workers, commuting has become a daily nightmare. Finally, after 3 years of hard work and negotiation, over a dozen hearings, and countless hours of testimony, we passed the highway bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Communities will finally receive the funding they need to improve their roads and ports. And America's drivers will face less time sitting in traffic, wasting time and burning up gas. Which brings me to energy. Yesterday, in an historic vote, the Senate passed America's most comprehensive energy plan in 40 years. After years of careful and patient negotiation, we finally delivered an energy plan that promises to make America safer and more secure, and our energy supply cleaner and more reliable. In seven short months, we tackled big issues and got big results. Together we moved America forward. We broke the impasse that was crippling the judicial nomination process. We passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement which promises to strengthen our own security and prosperity in the Western hemisphere. CAFTA will create our second largest export market in Latin America, behind only Mexico. From Washington State apples to Florida oranges, America's producers will thrive. And Central America's democracies will benefit. We renewed our commitment to our troops and the war on terror. And tonight, by unanimous consent, we passed the Patriot Act and will send it to conference with the House. The Patriot Act is an essential tool in this new war on terror. It allows us to track and stop terrorists before they are able to kill innocent people. Through it, our law enforcement and intelligence communities are working more closely together toward the common goal of keeping America safe. We face a different kind of enemy--one that hides in far away lands, and among us right here at home. The Patriot Act will help defeat terrorist cells operating right here in America. We are working hard to defeat terrorism on all fronts. On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In our own backyard. And at its the roots: the evil and murderous ideology that seeks the destruction of our way of life. And we are winning. Our steady commitment to the spread of democracy is beginning to bear fruit. Elections are taking hold in the Middle East--in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. A new Pew Research poll shows that growing confidence in the Muslim world that America truly supports democracy for their people. And even more encouraging, a growing number believe that democracy can work. America's policies both here at home and abroad are making America stronger and more secure. With continued hard work and determination, we can keep the ball moving forward. We have a lot to do when we get back. I am confident that with the President and the House as partners, we will continue to deliver meaningful solutions to the American people. I am confident that we will continue to secure a freer, safer and healthier future for generations of Americans to come. I wish my colleagues a happy, restful and productive August recess.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. We will return for business on Tuesday, September 6. We will be voting at 5:30. There could be two votes that evening on the previously filed cloture motion.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 222 which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 223, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will be closing tomorrow afternoon, hopefully not too late in the afternoon. This has been a very productive several months. If you look back and reflect upon the issues that have been discussed and the bills that have been passed, there have been many. We are governing in a way that meets the expectations of the American people, governing with meaningful solutions to their everyday problems. We passed a budget which was the fifth fastest in history. We passed a bankruptcy bill, a class action reform bill to rid frivilous lawsuits. We had six circuit court nominations, judges that had been either filibustered or threatened to be filibustered in the past. Now we will continue all of that work tomorrow with an Energy bill, a highway bill, a gun liability bill, a legislative conference report, and the Interior conference report. So it has been a very productive Congress and one that we will continue to work very aggressively on as we come back after the recess.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 39 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 225, the adjournment resolution; provided that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2361, the Interior appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there then be 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the majority and the minority, followed by a vote adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Friday, July 29; I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2361, the Interior appropriations bill, as under the previous order. I further ask that following the use or yielding back of the time on the Interior conference report, it be temporarily set aside and the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2985, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then resume consideration of the Energy conference report and there be 30 minutes equally divided for closing remarks between the chairman and ranking member or their designees with all of the provisions of the previous consent remaining.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will complete consideration of the conference reports to accompany the Interior appropriations bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, the Energy bill, and the highway bill. The Senate will also complete action on the gun liability bill with an agreement that was reached this evening. As my colleagues can see, we will have a very busy day tomorrow with rollcall votes throughout. We should be able to complete our business tomorrow. I expect that we will. Again, it will be a very busy day. Senators should remain close to the Chamber throughout the day so that we can proceed in an orderly way for what could be up to 13 votes during tomorrow's session.

Mr. FRIST

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