Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will be voting on the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement This agreement is a model for free trade in the Persian Gulf region and will become America's fourth agreement with an Arab country. We struck similar deals with Jordan in 2000, Morocco in 2004, and Bahrain in 2005. Like these earlier deals, the Oman agreement will open and expand opportunities for exports of many American products to the benefit of America's workers, manufacturers, consumers, farmers, ranchers, and service providers. As soon as the agreement takes effect, Oman and the United States will provide each other immediate duty-free access on virtually all products in their tariff schedules, including all consumer and industrial products, and will phase out tariffs on the remaining products within 10 years. Former Trade Representative Rob Portman calls it ``a high quality, comprehensive free trade agreement that will contribute to economic growth and trade.'' America's relationship with Oman dates back to the early years of our Republic, when a treaty of friendship and navigation was signed with Muscat in 1833. Since then, relations between our two countries have continually expanded. Today we enjoy a close and cooperative partnership. Although not a formal member of the coalition, Oman has been a committed, dependable ally in the global war on terror. Oman has been a solid partner on terrorist finance issues and has reached out to work with partner nations in the region on trans-border terror threats. Oman cooperates closely with us and other allies on counterterrorism and has publicly supported the democratic transition in Iraq. It has also supported stabilization operations, and the democratic and economic transition in Afghanistan. And its government and religious leaders consistently and courageously denounce acts of terror and religious intolerance. Unfortunately, some have sought to undermine the agreement with myths that do not stand up to the scrutiny of the facts. For example, despite claims to the contrary, Oman does not implement any aspect of the boycott of Israel, a position they publicly reaffirmed in a letter from its commerce minister in September of 2005. Moreover, Oman does not tolerate or allow the use of slave labor. To the contrary, Oman has also substantial commitments to the United States on labor reform and has promised to enact additional reforms by October 31, 2006. The agreement before us builds on the progress already made and strengthens our relationship with a key friend and ally in the region. Indeed, rejection of the trade agreement would send a strong negative signal to our friends in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure. As the 9/11 Commission advised, expanding trade with the Middle East will ``encourage development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families.'' Passing the free trade agreement will promote economic reform and development in the gulf and advance President Bush's broader goal of freer and more open Middle East. It will help both our allies and America move forward. I yield back all time for both sides.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, we have set aside 2 hours of morning business in 30-minute increments. At the conclusion of morning business, we will begin the U.S.-Oman free trade agreement, which has a 20-hour debate limitation. However, we are expecting to yield back much of that time. Senators can expect a vote on final passage of that bill when we finish all debate on the measure. We also will be trying to clear some nominations this afternoon as we finish our work before the Fourth of July recess.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will take a few moments to address legislation to create a national sex offender registry and to protect our children from sexual predators. On May 4, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1086, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill, which was introduced by our colleague, Senator Hatch, would create a national sex offender registry and would do what you would suspect, and that is protect our kids from these child predators. A similar bill has also passed the House of Representatives. Over the last several weeks, the House and Senate have been working diligently to bridge the differences between those two bills. I am pleased with the progress that has been made so far, but I am concerned that the time is running short in the legislative session. Because time is of the essence, I sent a letter to Chairman Specter and Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House asking them to have such legislation ready for signature by the President no later than July 27, 2006. That is about a month from now. That particular date is in honor of the 25th anniversary of the tragic abduction and murder of Adam Walsh, the 6-year-old son of John and Reve Walsh, who are the founders of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Reid, who is endorsing this July 27 date as a goal as well. The reason why it is important for us to speak to this now is that there are a number of issues out there that are unrelated to the sex offender registry bill, which are important issues in and of themselves, but in some ways they impede or lessen the likelihood that we are going to get this particular bill through. The registry is important. By creating a national registry, we are going to make it easier for law enforcement to act if they get a tip and to be able to identify and stop these offenders before they can commit repeat crimes and victimize more children. Many States, including my State of Tennessee, have registries, but that information is not shared with other States. Therefore, you have these sex offenders simply going from State to State. If a sex offender is registered in Florida and then moves to Tennessee, there is no way to track him today. Under the new law, Florida would have to notify Tennessee law enforcement that the sex offender is moving. It is a big problem. There are currently 550,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. and at least 100,000 of them are missing from the system. Every day that we don't have this national sex offender registry, these missing sex predators are out there somewhere. We don't know where they are or whether or who they are victimizing. So there is a lot we can do. Now is the time for to us do it. The national sex offender registry will save the lives of thousands of children. By passing this legislation, we can take another major step forward to making the country safer. I thank Senator Hatch, and especially Senator Reid, for their leadership. I urge our colleagues in the Senate and in the House to act quickly and get this bill done by July 27. It is for law enforcement officers, it is for parents, and it is especially for our Nation's children.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know the Democratic leader has other statements to make. I think the signal that we are both sending is that this is significant legislation. It will directly impact families all over the United States of America. It is an obvious need. We have made huge progress and, as the Democratic leader said, much of that is to be attributed to John Walsh, his family, because of the tragedy they suffered with the loss of their child. Again, the Democratic leader and I are joined at the hip pushing this through in the Senate. We, working together, agreed to have a focused bill, a targeted bill, that would accomplish the specific objectives here. And our appeal today is that the House do likewise so we can pass this by July 27.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed en bloc to the following bills under the following agreement: H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, discharged from the HELP Committee; S. 2754, Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, discharged from the HELP Committee; S. 3504, Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006. I further ask consent there be a total of 12 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further that no amendments be in order to any of the measures; further, that following the use or yielding back of time the bills be read a third time and the Senate proceed to three consecutive votes in the following order with no intervening action or debate: S. 3504, S. 2754, H.R. 810. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any bill that does not receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on passage be vitiated and the bill be returned to its previous status on the calendar or in the HELP Committee; and further, other than as provided in this agreement, it not be in order for the Senate to consider any bill or amendment relating to stem cell research during the remainder of the 109th Congress.

Mr. FRIST. That is correct. Each of these bills will have a 60-vote threshold.

Mr. FRIST. In all likelihood, but at some mutually agreeable time.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. As he knows, we have been working a long time to bring, in an appropriate fashion, these bills to the floor. The unanimous consent agreement that we just obtained says that we will address three bills--I will have more to say about those shortly--over the course of the 12-hour period and then have the 60-vote threshold on each of those. It was several weeks ago that I reiterated my commitment to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring the debate about Federal funding for stem cell research to the Senate floor. We have been working very hard in meeting after meeting to do just that. I just propounded a unanimous consent request which was agreed to that had three pieces of legislation--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which is H.R. 810, and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006. I will have a little bit more to say about each of these.

Mr. FRIST. It is my intention, as it is worded in here, that the two of us will agree upon a time. It is my intention after getting over this first hurdle to do this in the not too distant future before we leave.

Mr. FRIST. We will. Mr. President, I would like to comment a little bit on the approach and the rationale behind these bills which have been a long time in coming. This is a very similar to the approach that we tried about a year ago, but because of timing and a whole host of reasons we couldn't get a unanimous consent agreement. So I am pleased that we are there. I am pro-life. I personally believe that human life begins at conception in large part because it is the moment that the organism is complete--immature, yes, but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It is genetically distinct as that individual; 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 matter of science. Our development is this continuous process; it is gradual; it is chronological; and at one point in time all of us in this room were embryos. That embryo is human life at that very earliest stage of development, which is continuous, which again is chronological over time. And accordingly, that embryo has more significance, it has more moral value, and thus it deserves our utmost respect and dignity. I also believe, as do other scientists--I would say countless other scientists, clinicians, and doctors--that all stem cells, but specifically embryonic stem cells, hold a very specific, unique promise for some therapies and potential cures: diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries. Stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research simply haven't offered. Embryonic stem cells are what we call ``pluripotent,'' adult stem cells. You have embryonic stem cells, and these embryonic stem cells are ``pluripotential.'' What that means is that they have two remarkable qualities that really no other cell in the human body has. That is why they are so unique. The embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any other type of tissue that is unique to them. Second, they have this remarkable capacity of being able to renew themselves--copy themselves again and again and again and again indefinitely. It is those two properties, the ability to copy itself over time and to become any sort of tissue, which makes it specifically unique and so remarkable. That is why we have so much potential hope for cure and for therapy. Right now, there is the challenge; there is the ethical challenge. This is why it is so hard for us and for people all across this country as they listen to the debate; that is, to derive these embryonic stem cells using the technology that we know today. The embryo itself has to be altered in some way or destroyed. That is the heart of the ethical concern. That is why I have made it clear that while I strongly support Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, that Federal funding should only be provided within a system, a comprehensive system of ethical oversight, strict safeguards in this ethical system that are overseeing this financial investment. That comprehensive oversight has to have strict safeguards and public accountability. It has to have complete transparency so we ensure that this new research, this evolving research unfolds over time within accepted ethical bounds. It is interesting. I came to this floor about 5 years ago. It was 5 years ago sometime around either June or July. At that time, I laid out a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within this ethical framework. That is interesting because I talked about adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. At that point in time, embryonic stem cells were only 3 years old in terms of discovery. They had been around a long time, but we only discovered them really in about 1998. At that point in time, I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles. At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record those principles.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I also said at the time that policymakers and the public must often reassess the research, this new research, this evolving research and the circumstances under which it is conducted. As I said then--and I believe now--we must do all we can to pursue promising alternative strategies that hold the same potential, the potential for developing the pluripotent stem cell lines without damaging the embryo, without altering the embryo, without destroying the embryo or nascent human life. Shortly after that time--that was 5 years ago--the President announced his policy for embryonic stem cell research. That was remarkable at the time. I think it was August 11. It was Federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time ever. It did so within that ethical framework. It showed respect for human life. That is why I believe it is important for us to have this debate on the floor of the Senate. The policy also restricted the embryonic stem cell funding only to those stem cell lines that had been derived prior to his announcement. That was the cutoff line. At that time it was widely believed that there were 78 such embryonic stem cell lines that would be available for Federal funding; 78 we thought at the time when President put forth his proposal. Unfortunately, over time we have learned that had not been the case. What we thought would have been 78 lines today we realize only became 22 cell lines--22 lines--that are eligible. Moreover, those lines unexpectedly--we didn't know it at the time. That is why it is so important to constantly come back and modify, if necessary, but reevaluate policies. Those lines unexpectedly after several generations are starting to became less stable and less replicative than we had initially anticipated. Science is fascinating. Just as an aside, they seem to be acquiring and losing chromosomes. They are losing what we call the normal carrier type. They are potentially losing growth control, all of which means these cell lines out there are less useful in terms of research, in terms of opening up that potential, those possibilities, that hope for cures. Also, another complication which we didn't realize at the time--some scientists did but we didn't know what the impact would be--all of these cell lines were grown on mouse-feeder cells, which we have learned since will limit their future potential for using those clinically or in clinical therapy in humans. There are concerns, for example, about viral contamination. These are limitations we didn't realize at the time but we do know today, 5 years later. While embryonic stem cell research is still in the very early stage, we have to be careful not to over-promise. And when people look at these bills coming through, although we want to open up that possibility for hope, we cannot over-promise. The limitations we put in place in 2001 will over time show our ability to investigate new treatments for certain diseases--the mouse- feeder cells, the changes that we are seeing in the initial cell lines, the fact that there are fewer cells lines. Therefore, I think it is the responsible thing for us to do, to come to the floor and consider modifying that policy, updating that policy based on what we have learned, which is why, with reservation, I support the House-passed embryonic stem cell research bill, H.R. 810. Let me be clear on this particular bill. Because again and again people come forward saying there are so many deficiencies in the bill. And I see deficiencies in the bill. If circumstances were different, I would seek to ensure that a much stronger ethical and scientific oversight mechanism be in place, which is not part of that particular bill. Things like a clear prohibition on financial or other incentives between science and fertility clinics, more explicit requirements around informed consent, all of which is not in that particular bill. But I have said that we should debate and vote on that House-passed bill. I, thus, have asked that it be included in the package of bills that we put forward for consideration on which we just got by unanimous consent agreement to debate and vote. Moreover, as we consider embryonic stem cell research, we shouldn't diminish in any way the promise or slow the progress of research on adult stem cells or cells that have pluripotential capability but aren't strictly embryonic stem cells. To date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that is actively used in humans for treatment, for therapy, to cure diseases. As a transplant surgeon--I transplant hearts and lungs--today we can transplant these adult stem cells. It is life-saving. It has saved the lives of thousands and thousands of people. Part of that is that we have much longer experience with adult stem cells. We have probably three decades of experience with the adult stem cells. We only have about 8 years of experience with the embryonic stem cells. With more Federal support and emphasis, newer methods of deriving the pluripotential cells are being developed and have proven themselves in animal models--not yet in humans--fully developed, and we need to continue to support that research. It will have huge scientific and clinical payoffs. Just as important, they may bridge the moral and ethical differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research because these newer alternative methods avoid the destruction of any human embryos. It is these forms of research which may offer not only a way forward to these new treatments and these new cures but also a way out of these ethical dilemmas posed by other forms of research. That is why in this package I asked the Senate to also continue legislation to enhance this support for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. I am very pleased that Senators Santorum and Specter have joined together and crafted the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, which is similar to legislation I worked on with a number of our colleagues--most specifically Senator Isakson from Georgia--last year. I do encourage every Senator to support these new alternative ways of reaching pluripotency in cells. It is very exciting research. There is no reason this legislation should not truly unite us as a body and be something everyone can support. The third bill that has been included in this unanimous consent request is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, S. 3504. One may ask, what is fetus farming? It is the implantation and gestation of an embryo in a human or animal for the purpose of aborting for research. As far as I am aware, fetus farming is not a method that is currently employed but a method that has been proposed. It is not out of the realm of possibility. Therefore, Senators Brownback and Santorum have proposed legislation which would draw a clear line which should not be crossed. Those are the three bills which we will be debating. Several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the Senate over the last several weeks and months to suggest we take up H.R. 810 or that we immediately take it up. However, I am absolutely convinced that all three bills I have mentioned address the profound ethical questions surrounding the promise of stem cells, the hope that these stem cells will lead to cure and therapy. That is why I believe it is only fair on an issue of this magnitude that Senators be given the courtesy and respect of addressing all three of these very different ideas, these areas which are surrounded in some ethical concern but also are important to medicine, science, and health. The other proposals for handling this include taking a bill out and seeing what happens. Because these bills are so complex and Members have so many potential amendments, we have taken this course of having 3 bills with the 60-vote thresholds. I thank my colleagues. We covered the spectrum. It has actually taken several months to pull together this unanimous consent request and agreement. I am very pleased we now have a process in place, the timing of which we can determine or I will determine in consultation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle

Mr. FRIST

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

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, we have set aside the first 2 hours of the session for a period of morning business. The first hour is under the control of the minority, and the second hour is under the control of the majority. At the conclusion of morning business or shortly thereafter, we hope to turn to the Oman free-trade agreement. The Finance Committee is meeting this morning and expects to report out that measure. It is privileged and will be considered under the 20-hour statutory time limit. I don't expect that we will need all of the time, but some debate will be required. Senators can, therefore, expect a vote later today once we reach an understanding as to the time required on that bill. This week, we will also consider the Paulson nomination to be Secretary of the Treasury, and we may also clear an appropriations bill for action. Having said that, we will alert all Members as to the timing of the votes as we reach agreements on any of the legislative and executive items I just mentioned.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to come to the Chamber to express my strong support for the nomination of my good friend, Hank Paulson, someone I admire tremendously, to lead the Department of Treasury. He is an outstanding choice to be the Nation's top economic policy official. With 32 years of experience in finance, the last 8 of which he has served as president and CEO of Goldman Sachs, which, as we all know, is one of the Nation's largest financial institutions in the world, Hank Paulson is eminently qualified to craft and carry out the President's economic policies. Former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who was also Hank's boss at Goldman Sachs, agrees that he is ``smart, he's bright, he's thoughtful, and he's intense. He's a very good choice.'' Hank will lead with drive, with passion, and a deep understanding of how Government policies affect the capital markets throughout the world as well as America's economic growth. With his detailed and intimate knowledge of global finance and his ability to thrive under pressure, America's economic leadership will be in very capable hands. Hank Paulson is extraordinarily talented, smart, and hard working. He also happens to be a man of sterling character. Known for his candor and his down-to-earth demeanor, Senator Schumer calls Hank a ``straight shooter.'' He has led a life of impeccable integrity. He grew up on a farm in Illinois. His high marks led him to Dartmouth, where he became a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a football star. He was named All Ivy, All East, and earned an honorable-mention All American. After earning an MBA from Harvard Business School, Hank went into public service as a staff assistant to the Secretary of Defense. In 1974, he joined the Chicago office of Goldman Sachs, where over the next three decades he rose to president and CEO. Hank understands the macropicture, the global picture, as well as the micropicture, the more intimate, more defined microlevel. He understands the concerns of America's hard-working families and how big decisions here in Washington affect individual lives in a very personal way and in intimate ways and affect those individual opportunities. He inherits a thriving economy--as cited again and again, a 5.3- percent gross domestic product growth in the first quarter, unemployment at historic lows, 5.3 million new jobs after 33 consecutive months of job gains, and home ownership at historic highs. He understands that Americans are feeling those challenges in their everyday lives, those challenges of high gas prices, of escalating costs that seem to be skyrocketing out of the average person's reach. He shares the Republican Party's conviction that we need to continue those progrowth, low-tax policies in order to continue to create jobs and to foster more innovation. I am confident that under his leadership, America will continue to grow, to thrive, and expand. I look forward to voting to confirm Hank Paulson in a few moments as Secretary of the Treasury and to working with him to keep America moving forward. At this time, I know of no others who desire to speak on the Paulson nomination, and I urge the Senate to vote.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as our colleagues know, there will be no further votes today and no rollcall votes today. We will be in session a bit longer as we finish the business over the course of the next little bit. When I close, I will have more to say about the schedule for tomorrow and Friday as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. FRIST

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