Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. In that letter, just to mention a couple of things, the Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Randall W. Lutter, Ph.D.--let me just mention a couple of sentences. He said: Nevertheless, the Agency continues to have concerns with enacting such a sweeping importation program and fears that intermediaries would likely swallow the bulk of cost-savings, preventing the American consumers from enjoying much, if any, practical benefit from such a program. On safety concerns, he said: We have safety concerns related to both the identification of unsafe or non-complaint drug products and about the substitutability for domestic products. On identifying unsafe/noncompliant drug products, he said: The section of the bill that would allow individuals to import a qualifying drug from a registered exporter would likely pose an overwhelming resource burden for the Agency and create significant safety concerns. Just reading at random: S.242 would establish a complicated system for the regulation of imported drugs. This complex system is so vast that it would be enormously resource-intensive, likely much greater than the proposed registration fees and inspection fees could support. On a lack of substitutability, he said: The proposed bill provides a mechanism for foreign imported products to be approved for distribution in the U.S. even though these products may not be bioequivalent to the FDA- approved product. This letter is a serious letter. I don't think we should ignore letters such as these in our zeal to resolve problems. I believe the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is very well intentioned. I have a tremendous regard for him and for his ability to explain things on the floor of the Senate. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts of the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 14, 2004, entitled ``Examining the Implications of Drug Importation,'' of Mr. William Hubbard, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning of the U.S. FDA.

Mr. HATCH. These are serious statements by serious people. I don't think we should ignore them. It is one thing to argue that you don't like the pharmaceutical companies, and many don't. It is another thing to argue that these drugs that are going to be imported or reimported are absolute identical copies of what they represent. I would pay attention to what these people are saying. I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the statement of a Customs officer who came and testified on the 14th.

Mr. HATCH. It was a startling statement. I know at least one Democratic Senator, who takes matters very seriously and who was for importation or reimportation of drugs, was shocked at some of the testimony because she did not believe things could be as bad as they represented and was kind of shocked that they made a pretty darn good case that these matters are much more serious than some are taking them. I don't have anything more to say at this time, but I hope we will think this through before we saddle the American people with something that can be disastrous in their lives. I am familiar with how some of these drugs that people think are good drugs that come into this country are adulterated. Some are made with contaminated water, do not have any efficacy in them at all. Yet they look identical to what our U.S. manufacturers are making or what other qualified manufacturers are doing. We can't ignore these things. I think even if we could give FDA all the money--and it would amount to trillions of dollars, certainly hundreds of billions of dollars but I think trillions of dollars--to handle this, there is still no way FDA can take care of all the problems that would come up. We have a pretty good system here. I have to admit, I wish we could get drug prices down. As the author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, we worked hard to get the generic business into action. At the time we did Hatch- Waxman, generics were no more than 17 or 18 percent of the total marketplace. Today they are over 50 percent. Hatch-Waxman is the reason they are there. In every case, every year we have saved at least $10 billion for the consumers. What many in this body seem to ignore is that it costs these innovator companies upwards of $1 billion to create one of these drugs. Most of them go through at least 6,000 failed experiments before they arrive at one of these drugs. We can't ignore that fact. The only way they can recoup that money is within the few years that are left of their patent life. This is the only industry I know of--there may be others, but I can't think of any--where if you create a widget, you have 20 years of patent life, market exclusivity. In this industry, a lot of that is eaten up by the FDA process. It means that the innovator companies have very few years in which to recoup that billion dollars, upwards of a billion dollars. A few years ago, it was $800 million, which was astounding to me. Now it is approaching a billion; in some cases, maybe even more. It is one thing to throttle the pharmaceutical companies in the interest of politics. It is another thing to ignore reality and ignore what happens here. One reason for Hatch-Waxman was because one side wanted all drug price competition. They wanted 100 percent generics if they could get them. The problem is, there would not be any generics if you don't have the innovator companies doing the innovative drugs.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. I have heard some who I believe are using it politically in the Congress. But I would never ascribe that type of attitude to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. I believe he is very sincere. I believe he is truly trying to represent the consumers in the best possible way. I just believe he is ignoring some of these comments and statements made under oath before committees of the Senate that fly in the face of what is being said here. I would like to see drug prices reduced. There is no question about it. I worked hard to get them reduced. That is what Hatch-Waxman is all about. But there are two sides to that. One was drug price competition, to make sure we could get drugs in generic form immediately, once they come off patent, which we did. The other, of course, is the patent term restoration so that we could give innovator companies some restoration of patent life or market exclusivity so they could recoup the moneys, the extraordinary costs that are involved. When I say I have heard some in the Congress who I think have exploited this for political purposes, I would never say that about my friend from North Dakota. I don't particularly want to disparage anybody else, but I can say this: There have been some who have used this issue politically, and there is no doubt about it. I believe the Senator from North Dakota is articulate and means what he says and is doing so for the right reasons. Having said that, I don't think we should ignore the testimony of these top people in the administration who say this could be a disaster for the American consuming public. I don't think you can ignore those comments. I am suggesting that I hope people will read these comments, and I will put more into the record before we are through with this debate. We are all interested in getting drug prices down. There is no question about it. I don't think there is anybody in this Congress who has done more to bring drug prices down than I have, through Hatch-Waxman and my friend Henry Waxman over in the House and others who supported that bill. There is no question about it. I am as interested as anybody in making sure the consumer public is not ripped off. On the other hand, these innovative drugs cost a lot of money to develop. When we get into follow-on biologics, it apparently costs even more for these large-molecule drugs that may not be readily duplicated. In fact, under current science, they are not readily duplicated. I am very concerned about this whole issue. I am very concerned about making sure that the record shows that we have brought out how serious this issue is and how serious the consequences are if people are wrong, if they happen to get this type of legislation through. Let me add one other thing. I would suggest to my friend from North Dakota that the President has already said that if this language is in this bill, he is going to veto it. I believe that veto would be sustained. I think it should be sustained. It is one thing to come out and argue for something such as this, but I would hope that he will withdraw his amendment because I would hate to see a bill as important to our country as this drug safety bill, a bill that has brought together Democrats and Republicans from the left to the right, a bill that would help to save as many lives as this bill will do, a bill that will help bring to the forefront the FDA in a way that it should be brought, a bill that has the MDUFA and PDUFA moneys in, a bill that has children's programs in, I would hate to see this bill vetoed, but I would not blame the President one bit if he vetoes it based upon the testimony of scientists who have testified before our committees. Frankly, I would think he would be right if he vetoed it. But be that as it may, I am only one Senator, and I think most people know I am very sincere in this area. I work very hard in these areas. I have a record of accomplishment in these areas. I just want to make sure that our consuming public has every protection they possibly can. Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money to give them that protection. I wish there was some way we could bring those prices down. Having said that, back in the early 1990s, I helped put through this body the FDA Revitalization Act. Among the purposes of that act was to create a unitary campus for FDA rather than have over 30 different locations in the greater metropolitan area around the District of Columbia, to have a central campus, state-of-the-art equipment, the highest technology we can, with an incentive to bring the very best scientific minds we can into FDA. We all know the White Oak complex is being built now. It didn't start until about 5 or 6 years ago. It is going to take another 10 years and probably cost a lot more than it would have had we done what that bill said we could do immediately. It was only an authorizing bill. The appropriators did not appropriate the funds to develop that campus. But we have to find a way of helping FDA. The sooner we get that campus and they have all of the integral online services and equipment and top-of-the-line approaches that they can bring to bear, we should be able to bring drug prices down through that. But we are a long way from the completion of White Oak, as we stand here today. Frankly, at least we are doing it. At least we are going somewhere. I wish to attribute some of that to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, and others in the House who have worked very hard to make sure that the FDA revitalization approach finally comes to fruition. One of the biggest problems we have in Government today is to get top scientists at FDA. We can't pay them commensurate with scientists at the major pharmaceuticals or even the major generic companies. In fact, they can start at three times or more what we pay at FDA. So we have a very difficult time continuously getting top scientists to come and work at FDA. That is a big problem. It is a blessing that we do have some of the best scientists in the world working there who are willing to sacrifice to do what they consider to be the important work of the Food and Drug Administration. This bill will help the Food and Drug Administration to do a better job, to go forward with more backing from the Congress and, in the end, benefit all of us who benefit so much from the work of the Food and Drug Administration. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Rockville, MD, April 10, 2007. Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Dorgan: Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the March 7, 2007, hearing entitled, ``Policy Implications of Pharmaceutical Importation for U.S. Consumers,'' before the Senate Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade, and Tourism. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is responding to address the March 9, 2007, correspondence you sent in follow-up to that hearing. Your correspondence included statements made by former FDA Commissioner, David Kessler, at an April 19, 2005, hearing entitled, ``Examining S. 334, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs,'' held by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Dr. Kessler's statements focused on the issues of safety, resources, supply chain security, and standards for approval of foreign versions of FDA-approved drugs. You asked that I explain my views on the ``Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act'' in the context of these issues. The bulk of this response details our views about these issues. I would like to start, however, by commending you for your efforts to address American consumers' concerns regarding access to affordable prescription medications. Nevertheless, the Agency continues to have concerns with enacting such a sweeping importation program and fears that intermediaries would likely swallow the bulk of cost-savings, preventing American consumers from enjoying much, if any, practical benefit from such a program. We expect such a result might lead consumers to continue to look for substantial savings on their prescription medications by seeking products outside the legalized importation system, just as some do now. We continue to observe that many consumers buy drugs from foreign Internet sources even though generic versions of those products are approved by FDA and such products are generally cheaper in the United States than abroad. We note that legalizing commercial importation may have unintended effects on protection of intellectual property and may reduce incentives for research and development, as noted in the 2004 report issued by the Health and Human Services' (HHS) Task Force Report on Drug Importation. safety concerns We have safety concerns related to both the identification of unsafe and or non-compliant drug products and about the substitutability of foreign products for domestic products. Identifying unsafe/non-compliant drug products The section of the bill that would allow individuals to import a qualifying drug from a registered exporter would likely pose an overwhelming resource burden for the Agency and create significant safety concerns. Under such a program, the anticipated high volume of products would make it extremely difficult for FDA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to examine adequately all of the personally imported drug products to ensure that they comply. In fact, the HHS Task Force estimated that it would have cost $3 billion annually to examine and process each of the 10 million packages that entered the U.S. in 2003. Even if a lower level of examination were considered adequate, the costs to FDA would still be very high. Despite its registration and inspection fee provisions, the bill likely provides inadequate resources to conduct such examination on a routine basis. Resources are limited to 2.5 percent of the total price of qualifying drugs imported by registered exporters, an amount likely to be a small fraction of the cost of inspecting packages at international mail facilities. This is a particular concern because, once personal importation is given the appearance of legality, consumers may be less vigilant in scrutinizing the drug shipments they receive from abroad. S. 242 would establish a complicated system for the regulation of imported drugs. This complex system is so vast that it would be enormously resource-intensive, likely much greater than the proposed registration fees and inspection fees could support. The bill and its associated fees also do not appear to account for the costs of the increased volume of packages likely to inundate the U.S., or address the accompanying and likely substantial enforcement work that will arise as a result of legalized importation as more unscrupulous vendors set up shop to circumvent the new U.S. system. Lack of substitutability The proposed bill provides a mechanism for foreign imported products to be approved for distribution in the U.S. even though these products may not be bioequivalent to the FDA- approved product. This mechanism seems to by-pass the existing drug approval process for drug products that are not bioequivalent to an FDA-approved product, which is through the submission of a new drug application (NDA) that is thoroughly reviewed for safety and efficacy. Ultimately, the bill appears to establish for imported drugs an alternative to FDA's existing generic drugs program. The bill would allow non-bioequivalent products to be sold in the U.S. as approved ``variations'' of the innovator product under the existing NDA, which would create confusion for doctors and pharmacists in prescribing or dispensing, respectively. Dr. Todd Cecil of the U.S. Pharmacopeia testified at the April 2005 Senate HELP hearing regarding pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence and his concerns with this bill. In addition, doctors cannot anticipate which version of a drug product their patients will receive, and pharmacists may not know which version of a drug the doctor intended to prescribe. The possibility of confusion is significant and poses a real public health concern as this increases the chance of error in prescribing and/or dispensing of medications. In addition, the domestic and foreign versions of prescription drugs may become commingled in the drug supply chain. It is unclear whether a patient will be able to specify if he wants the foreign version or the original FDA-approved version when he gets his prescription filled at the pharmacy or receives medication at a hospital or other medical treatment facility. Inadequate Resources It is uncertain whether the anticipated fee revenues will be realized because the market response to legalization of importation cannot be accurately predicted. This uncertainty could pose problems for FDA's program, because large costs of starting and developing a program to regulate imports will have to be incurred even if the volume of legalized imports is initially low. Although the bill does assume certain sales volumes in the first several years for purposes of collecting inspection fees, with only a few registered importers and exporters participating initially, the high pro rata share of fees may actually discourage participation and make it difficult for FDA to collect fees at the designated levels. Even once a program is developed, the bill is not likely to provide the necessary funds to continue an adequate regulatory program if inspection fees are low because imports do not reach the anticipated levels. Supply Chain Security We are proud of FDA's efforts with supply chain stakeholders and states to maintain a safe and secure drug supply in the U.S. that is premised on a closed, tightly regulated system. The type of drug importation program in the bill would increase the number of foreign entities FDA would have to monitor and regulate. It can be difficult for FDA enforcement to reach foreign entities violating our laws and regulations. This bill would open the door to more entities outside our domestic legal framework. We also have grave concerns for consumers who may be harmed from products from these foreign sources. The bill does not take into account protecting the rights of the consumer if they are injured after using one of these products. As we all agree, counterfeit drugs must be kept out of the U.S. drug supply chain. FDA is currently using its resources and authorities as efficiently as possible to secure the drug supply chain and protect American consumers from counterfeit and diverted drugs. Opening the U.S. drug distribution system to foreign markets would provide more opportunity for counterfeit drugs to enter our currently closed system and would significantly complicate FDA's efforts to investigate irregularities in the drug supply chain. Conducting foreign investigations and prosecutions is inherently costly and difficult and often is complicated by language barriers and issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction and extradition. We are concerned that the bill does not provide sufficient enforcement tools and penalties to deter foreign entities from introducing counterfeit or otherwise substandard drugs into the U.S. drug supply chain. Approval of Foreign Versions We believe the bill creates complicated application and inspection requirements for imported ``foreign'' versions of FDA-approved products. These requirements would be difficult to implement, as each foreign country has its own regulatory scheme and requirements for the information necessary to approve a drug product. FDA would essentially have to review foreign information in a foreign format, all in less time than is required for review of traditional NDAs. In addition, the bill would require imported ``foreign'' versions of a drug bear the labeling associated with the original FDA- approved product. This practice would essentially legalize the misbranding of these products, and raises concerns for FDA not only in the approval context but also in the counterfeits context. It is difficult enough for FDA and other federal enforcement agencies to detect counterfeit drug products and packaging; creating a mechanism that would allow persons to label foreign drugs with reproductions of FDA- approved labeling would make it even harder to distinguish between ``legal'' foreign products and counterfeits. U.S. consumers currently have a number of options available to them when looking for affordable medications within the closed U.S. drug distribution system. Many essential drugs have a generic alternative and some even have many generics, which are generally less expensive than the brand product. We continue to find that many consumers currently buying foreign products are actually trying to purchase, or are unknowingly receiving, a foreign product that often is more expensive than the U.S. product. In addition, the consumers are at risk when receiving foreign drug products, as there are documented cases where the wrong medication was received (the haloperidol case mentioned in my testimony). Many pharmaceutical companies and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America offer discounts and sometimes even free medications for consumers who cannot afford them. Medicare Part D has also helped some seniors cut their prescription costs. Consumers should not feel restricted to higher priced innovator (brand) products. Consumers must also understand that if a medication is costly, they should discuss other treatment options with their doctor and pharmacist, as most often there are lower- cost alternatives available. We will continue to strive to make more affordable medicines available to consumers, but we remain concerned about the implications of legalizing drug importation as one of those options. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate concerns about the economic implications of prescription drug importation, as stated in the 2004 HHS Task Force Report on Drug Importation. Even if all the safety concerns could be allayed, these concerns would remain: that savings to U.S. consumers would be small as a percent of total drug spending; that implementing such a program would incur significant costs; and that legalized importation would likely adversely affect the future development of new drugs for American consumers. In 2004, the HHS Task Force Report noted that generic drugs account for most prescription drugs used in the U.S. and that these are usually less expensive in the U.S. than abroad. We thus have a well-functioning system of intellectual property rights that balances the short-term interests of consumers with the long-term research incentives. Thank you for the opportunity to address some of our concerns with S. 242. Sincerely, Randall W. Lutter, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives recently passed similar legislation, H.R. 1905, that would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and the first voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and a unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth congressional seat. The Founding Fathers made clear in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the national government and granted Congress the power ``[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . .'' This clause became effective in 1790 when Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the Federal Government. Since then, District residents have not had the right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, article 1, section 2 and section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of States shall have voting representation in the House and Senate. During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military. Yet these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle that States, not territories, are afforded congressional representation. I understand the argument that congressional representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary power to govern the District's affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents. I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the District's undemocratic political status, but it gives my home State of Utah a long overdue fourth voting Member in the House of Representatives. During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military serving abroad as residents of their home State, but did not count an estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome of the 2000 Census. Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of Congress 5 years early. That is equivalent to two and a half terms for a Member of Congress and places the new Member well on his or her way in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah's citizens. I don't think this is an offer we should dismiss. I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905's attempt to impose an at-large seat upon my State of Utah. In States with more than one seat in the House, Members are expected to represent insular constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one State would be represented by two House Members while citizens in other States would have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, States are responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that Utah's legislators deserve the freedom to determine their representatives' districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of the Federal Government. Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate version requires that both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. Thereafter, both new Members would begin their service at the start of the 111th Congress in 2009. In conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the District of Columbia a seat without balancing a ``Democrat'' seat with a ``Republican'' seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two Senators for the District and would not support such a proposal. As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to ensure that my State is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the House's recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that Utah's fourth seat configuration is done right. I want my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly closing. In fact, I dare say there won't be another opportunity like this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives recently passed similar legislation, H.R. 1905, that would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and the first voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and a unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth congressional seat. The Founding Fathers made clear in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the national government and granted Congress the power ``[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . .'' This clause became effective in 1790 when Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the Federal Government. Since then, District residents have not had the right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, article 1, section 2 and section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of States shall have voting representation in the House and Senate. During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military. Yet these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle that States, not territories, are afforded congressional representation. I understand the argument that congressional representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary power to govern the District's affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents. I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the District's undemocratic political status, but it gives my home State of Utah a long overdue fourth voting Member in the House of Representatives. During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military serving abroad as residents of their home State, but did not count an estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome of the 2000 Census. Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of Congress 5 years early. That is equivalent to two and a half terms for a Member of Congress and places the new Member well on his or her way in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah's citizens. I don't think this is an offer we should dismiss. I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905's attempt to impose an at-large seat upon my State of Utah. In States with more than one seat in the House, Members are expected to represent insular constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one State would be represented by two House Members while citizens in other States would have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, States are responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that Utah's legislators deserve the freedom to determine their representatives' districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of the Federal Government. Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate version requires that both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. Thereafter, both new Members would begin their service at the start of the 111th Congress in 2009. In conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the District of Columbia a seat without balancing a ``Democrat'' seat with a ``Republican'' seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two Senators for the District and would not support such a proposal. As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to ensure that my State is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the House's recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that Utah's fourth seat configuration is done right. I want my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly closing. In fact, I dare say there won't be another opportunity like this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Remy Yucel, a fellow in my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of the consideration of S. 1082, including any conference report.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to honor my good friend Jack Valenti, who, passed away last week on April 26. Throughout his life, Jack Valenti wore several hats, including that of a soldier, a devoted public servant, and a pioneer in the film industry. Jack was born on September 5, 1921, in Houston, TX and was the grandson of Sicilian immigrants. At age 15, he became the youngest high school graduate in the history of the city of Houston and began a career as an office boy with Exxon Oil. Jack served honorably in the Army Air Corps during World War II, flying in 51 separate combat missions as pilot of the B-25 attack bomber with the 12th Air Force in Italy. He obtained the rank of lieutenant and received multiple decorations, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with four clusters, the Distinguished Unit Citation with one cluster, and the European Theater Ribbon with four battle stars. After serving in the war, Jack attended college at the University of Houston, doing all his undergraduate work at night as he worked during the day. He earned a bachelor of arts degree in 1946 and later became the University of Houston's first graduate ever to be admitted to Harvard Business School. He received an MBA from Harvard in 1948. In the intervening years, Jack held many positions in this town, but in 1966 Jack resigned from a top position in the White House to become only the third president of the Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA. He held this, his most famous position, for 38 years before retiring in 2004. As president of MPAA, Jack arbitrated one of the most famous developments the film industry has ever come out with--the voluntary rating system. The ratings ``G,'' ``PG,'' ``PG-13'' and ``R'' have become staples, not only in the movie-going practices of every American but also in our Nation's cultural consciousness. However, more important than the societal notions and the cliched images associated with these ratings is the real assistance that this system has provided to parents and families in evaluating the appropriateness of various movies. Indeed, the MPAA rating system pioneered by Jack Valenti has become a prime example of the effectiveness of industry self-regulation without government intervention, and I am very grateful for Jack's work in this area even when many in his industry fought him along the way. In addition to pioneering the rating system, Jack Valenti also worked to advance the film industry into the 21st century. Indeed, during his tenure at the MPAA, he presided over unprecedented changes in the worldwide film industry, including the advancement of the digital era. I remember having several conversations with Jack as the film industry struggled to deal with the new challenges presented by digital distribution of their content. Together, Jack and I worked tirelessly to balance the competing demands of consumer's rights and the protection of one of America's largest exports--entertainment. With Jack's help, we were able to refocus the Federal Government's resources to more effectively protect the creative genius of a great American industry--the film industry. We all know how blatantly some bad actors around the world pirate America's movies and rob the United States of jobs. Thanks to Jack's efforts, we have made great strides in this area and laid the groundwork to allow us to stamp out this criminal activity in the years ahead. Combating the theft and piracy of intellectual property was a real passion for Jack, and I was privileged to work with him in this endeavor. Mr. President, those of us who knew Jack Valenti personally will always remember him as a charitable man who was devoted to his family. While his influence on the film industry has been famous and unmistakable, many of us will remember him more for the personal friendship we shared with him. I will miss him greatly.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important resolution designating the 30th day of April 2007 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos on the 30th of April, in recognition and celebration of their countries' future--their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes. The designation of a day to honor the children of the Nation will help us affirm the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide us with an opportunity to reflect on their futures, articulate their dreams and aspirations, and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and states across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. In the past years in my state of Utah, there have been a number of events and special programs for Dia de los Ninos in schools, libraries, cultural centers, and even hospitals. Joining me as original cosponsors to this Resolution are Mel Martinez, Jeff Bingaman, Ken Salazar, Robert Menendez, and Barbara Boxer. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this resolution.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on a question that continues to weigh rather heavily on my heart. I am reluctant to ask it since such a question would never have been asked, or even contemplated, by previous generations of Americans. But it is a question that now must be asked since it is central to our future: Do we, as Americans, have the resolve to see our commitments through? It is a question we must confront in a number of policy arenas that will directly affect the way we, our children, and our grandchildren will live in this new century. Do we have the resolve and the courage to meet our commitments and confront the looming crisis of Social Security? Do we have the resolve to balance our Nation's budget? Do we have the resolve to endow our children with a proper education so they can master and push the limits of science, thereby providing our Nation the means to compete in an increasingly competitive world economy? However, at this point in our Nation's history, the crucial question concerning our resolve as a nation does not relate to matters of domestic policy. It relates to our commitments beyond our borders. It is the central and critical component in determining who will prevail in the global war on terrorism. Will we, our coalition allies, the people of Iraq and their elected Government, emerge victorious? Or will we renounce and abdicate our commitments and responsibilities to the Iraqi people--leaving them to a fate controlled by terrorists and leaving our future security as a nation in peril? Generations ago that, unto itself, would be a stain on the honor of this country; but these are different times. Turning our back now will only provide our enemies with a new base of operations, and unlike Afghanistan, this base contains vast oil wealth. Imagine al-Qaida with billions of dollars to do with as Osama bin Laden wishes. I wonder what they will buy with all that money. Remember, shortly after the liberation of Kabul, there were numerous media reports that al-Qaida was working on chemical weapons. So, with that in mind, I again ask: Do we have the resolve to see our commitments through? As we seek to answer this question, I am reminded of events that occurred during the summer of 1940. The Nazi armies, seemingly invincible, had conquered Western Europe. France, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium had all fallen. The British Army, after its rescue from Dunkirk, no longer possessed sufficient numbers of artillery and tanks to defend against the blitzkrieg. All that stood between Hitler and complete victory was the English Channel and 650 fighters of the Royal Air Force. Then Hitler offered a deal. In exchange for a ``free hand in Europe,'' the Nazis would provide ``guarantees'' that they would not invade Great Britain. Despite the fact that the British Army lacked sufficient equipment to effectively repulse an invasion, Prime Minister Churchill resolved to keep his nation's commitment to the people of Europe. He would not abandon them. His words, which I will paraphrase, still echo today: The Battle of France is over . . . the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of . . . Western civilization. . . .The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us . . . or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free. . . . But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States . . . and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us, therefore, brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that . . . men will say--This Was Their Finest Hour. This is the lesson that history teaches us: that resolution to see your commitments through is what great statesmen and nations are made of--that peace and justice can only be restored through bold action. So what do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offer, knowing full well this lesson of history? In a word: defeat. In his own words, the Democratic leader said on the floor of the Senate, on April 19, the ``war is lost.'' To be fair, the leader did attempt to temper his words by saying: As long as we follow the President's path, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. So what plan, or new course, does the Democratic leader or other Democrats offer? How can we, in his words, ``succeed in the Middle East''? His answer can be found in the conference report to this bill. But I warn anyone who attempts to read this legislation, first you must wade through billions in spending allocated to projects and programs that have nothing to do with the war before you learn how our Democratic colleagues plan to ``succeed in the Middle East.'' What is their plan for victory? Well, their legislation states that no matter what happens, the bulk of our forces will begin to withdraw after July 1, or if the President makes certain certifications, after October 1. So what is their strategy? I believe Winston Churchill would have characterized the Democratic strategy as: guaranteed defeat. Is this resolve? Is this determination to see our commitments through? No. This is the worst case of capitulation to appeasement since Neville Chamberlain spoke the words ``peace in our time.'' What is needed now is leadership. Now, at this critical moment in history, great nations need to follow Churchill's advice, yet the Democrats offer us only Chamberlain's. The Democratic leaders previously stated, in 2005: [A]s far as setting a timeline . . . that's not a wise decision because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do it. Wise and sound words. That was real leadership. Unfortunately, that was when the polls supported their position to stand firm. Now the Democratic leaders have reversed themselves because the polls have told them that is what they should do. Two days ago, during an interview on CNN, the Senator from Nevada was asked if he would believe the words of our new commander General Petraeus ``that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?'' What was his response? ``No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.'' Now, I find this to be an incredible remark. Less than 3 months ago, the majority leader had joined a unanimous Senate and voted in favor of General Petraeus. But this was more than just another confirmation vote. The major subject of his confirmation hearing and the subsequent debate on the Senate floor was the new strategy the general had outlined. So what is the new strategy? Simply put, General Petraeus is executing one of the tenets of a classic counterinsurgency strategy by providing and maintaining security to the local population and neighborhoods in Baghdad. Only when this is achieved will the Iraqi Government be able to continually offer basic services such as clean water and electricity, which are the backbone of any modern society. This, in turn, creates conditions where the Iraqi people can begin to develop a growing economy and where families feel safe to send their kids to school. As these goals are achieved, more and more of the population will desire even greater stability and will support and work toward creating Iraqi Government institutions and security services that maintain and enhance this new, secure environment. How is this different from the past? Previously, U.S. forces would clear an area of insurgents, but, unfortunately, soon thereafter, our forces would leave and the insurgents would return. Now, under General Petraeus's plan, American and Iraqi security forces will maintain security in the cleared neighborhoods of Baghdad. To date, over 50 security force units, based in what are called garrisons, can be found in the neighborhoods of the city, and even more are planned. That is why the additional forces that we are sending to Iraq are vital. It is not more for more's sake, but to maintain a secure environment for the Iraqi people and to help them stand up for themselves. Based upon the briefing that the Senate received yesterday from General Petraeus, and information I have examined as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can report that we are seeing signs of progress. Frankly, I believe the changes that have been made in the last 3 months are remarkable and need our full support, and it is readily apparent we do not yet have all the promised forces deployed and in Iraq. So let us return to the question that I asked when I began my remarks: Do we, as Americans, have the resolve to see our commitments through? Or will we falter? That is what the vote on this conference report will demonstrate. Will we stand with firm resolve behind our commitments and see our new strategy through? Or do we adopt a policy of appeasement and hope that al-Qaida, and those who wish us harm and seek to destroy the values that we hold so dear, do not follow us home to our country? What side of history do you wish to be on? Based on America's history and our resolve that has seen us through so many difficulties in the past, I believe the American people do not want retreat, they want success and security.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to SPC Eric R. Sieger of Layton, UT, who died of injuries suffered while conducting operations in Iraq. He was a remarkable young man who overcame much adversity in his life. On March 9 of this year, he would have turned 19 years old. Part of the 1st Cavalry Division, Specialist Sieger was also a member of a very special family. I understand that his parents, Wolfgang and Krista, have 15 children, 6 of whom were adopted, including the Specialist. Early life was not easy for the Specialist but that all changed when he was adopted at the age of 11 by the loving Sieger family. I have been informed that Specialist Sieger enjoyed running, being with his friends, building and fixing things. He had a girlfriend whom he met while stationed at Fort Hood, TX. Shortly before his passing, Specialist Sieger was able speak to his mother on the phone. His mother said, ``They spent most of the time laughing and joking with each other.'' Specialist Sieger's father said, ``He was dutiful in wanting to do what is right.'' Undoubtedly, this led him to become a member of the Civil Air Patrol as a teenager and enlist in the Army at 17. Military service is a calling for other members of the Sieger family, as well. Currently, one of his sisters is also deployed to Iraq, another sister is preparing to deploy, and a brother is a member of the Air National Guard. I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting the words of Specialist Sieger's mother and father. Krista Sieger stated, ``He felt since he was in the Army, since he took the oath, he has to do everything he was asked to do. And he did.'' Wolfgang Sieger said, ``I would call him a hero. He is definitely a hero in my sight. I honor him as a hero.'' I do not know of any higher praise that parents could give a son in military service. Specialist Sieger and his family will always be in my prayers. Sergeant First Class Douglas C. Stone Mr. President, I wish to honor one of Utah's fallen sons, SFC First Class Douglas C. Stone. SFC Stone had a lifelong connection to our Nation's military. His father served in the Air Force. Yet, SFC Douglas Stone joined the Army Reserve later in life. As his mother Dolores Feigley said about her son, ``I think he was the oldest at boot camp.'' However, his maturity was only to be an asset to his country, which was affirmed when he became a full-time reservist. Over the past 6 years, SFC Douglas Stone assisted in the preparation of reservists from the 96th Regional Readiness Command for deployments in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. As my good friend, MG Peter S. Cooke, the commanding officer of the 96th Regional Readiness Command said about SFC Stone ``There wasn't a unit or individual sent from our headquarters that SFC Stone did not personally assist in preparing for their mobilization or deployment.'' This was not the first time SFC Douglas Stone had gone in harm's way for his country. He also was a part of the fuel re-supply effort during the First Gulf War. However, his life's most important work undoubtedly was as a family man. Sergeant First Class Stone was husband to his wife, Mary, and father to two boys Nathan, 13, and Cameron, 10. SFC Douglas Stone was also a member of Fort Douglas's Honor Guard. I understand that Rick Edginton, one of his fellow Honor Guardsmen who participated at his friend's funeral said, ``for me, probably one of the toughest moments was when I was standing at the head of the casket and I looked over to the side and I saw a note from his sister on the flowers that were there. It said, ``To Doug, my brother, and my Hero.'''' No truer words have been written. SFC Douglas Stone was a hero. He served his country with pride and answered its call when it needed him most. All of Utah shall remember him and will be praying for this hero and his family. Sergeant Brandon A. Parr Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to SGT Brandon A. Parr. Sergeant Parr was a member of the 630th Military Police Company and gave his life with two other servicemembers when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. There are certain pictures that define a time and a moment in our Nation's history. Such examples can be found in the raising of Old Glory over Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima. I respectfully submit that a picture taken during Sergeant Parr's funeral should be added to that category. In that photo, Sergeant Parr's wife, Shannah, is seen holding the hand of their young son, Nicholas. Nicholas, standing on some steps, is wearing the camouflage uniform of an American soldier--a young son's tribute to his fallen father. This is an image that I will remember for all my days and a fitting tribute to a true hero. Sergeant Parr enlisted in the Army in 2003, and this was his second tour in Iraq. He was involved in one of the most critical tasks in this war: training Iraqi police and providing security to the Iraqi people. By all accounts, Sergeant Parr preformed these assignments at the highest standards of our Nation's military. Shannah Parr said of her husband, ``He was very laid back and very funny. He made everyone feel good.'' His mother, Teota Dangel said, ``I think he would have gone (to Iraq) even if he knew this was going to be the outcome.'' Words like this can only be spoken of a true hero and patriot. Sergeant Parr and his entire family will always be in my prayers. Corporal Stephen Kowalczyk Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to CPL Stephen Kowalczyk, a member of the 1st Calvary Division, who recently lost his life while on patrol in Iraq. Upon learning of about his life, I was struck by all the adventures that Corporal Kowalczyk had undertaken. He had been the captain of the swim team at Macalester College, traveled extensively throughout Europe, the Middle East, including working as a handyman in Jerusalem. I understand that he even leapt from an iceberg and swam in the frigid waters of the Arctic Ocean. Clearly, this was a young man that seized all that life had to offer. Three years ago, at the age of 29, he began a new adventure and joined the Army. According to his family he loved it. During a recent memorial service in Iraq, one of his comrades SSG Richard Coombes stated: ``He was a man who taught me that there was still beauty in our everyday life, even in Iraq. I looked at him and wondered if he had already figured life out. He was in such peace and harmony.'' CPT Kevin Bradley would often notice that Corporal Kowalczyk would look from the roof-tops at the area around him. When asked why, he reportedly would reply, ``You should see it up here. It's beautiful.'' Another friend remembered him as ``a gentle, kind soul, I cannot think of anybody who did not love this man.'' And yet he never forgot why he was deployed to Iraq--to help the Iraqi people. This commitment was reflected in the letters that he would write home asking for history books that he could give to Iraqis that he met, and pencils, notepads, and Hershey bars for Iraqi children. What a fine man. What an extraordinary life. I will always remember him and his family in my prayers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have an amendment to S. 761, the America COMPETES Act. My amendment would allow competency-based institutions of higher learning to access grant programs which will help them train math, science, and critical foreign language teachers. I applaud the goals of increasing the numbers of math, science, and critical foreign language teachers in our schools, including high-need schools. Our ability to compete as a nation is directly tied to our ability to educate our young people and retrain those who are in industries that are no longer viable. We now have the finest system of higher education in the world. There is no doubt that if we provide the proper incentives, many brilliant innovators and educators will take up the clarion call. I come before this body today to introduce my amendment because many of today's teachers are teaching an older generation of students. The U.S. economy is in a state of continual change, and with that change comes displacement of workers and a need to retrain and retool. These nontraditional students often receive their training from accredited schools who assess student development based on a student's ability to demonstrate competency in the material being taught. Under the bill as drafted, these competency-based universities would not be able to access the grant money for teacher development. My amendment would remove this bias and allow competency-based universities access to the teacher development grant money. This in turn will increase the teaching quality in math, science, and critical foreign language, thereby providing the students attending these universities with a better education. Current bill language would prevent participation by well-respected and widely recognized institutions, such as Western Governors University, WGU. WGU was set up by over 19 Governors to provide innovation in higher education and is now training over 1,000 math and science teachers, the majority of whom are women and minorities. WGU's innovative approach to teacher education has proven very successful. As we set about to ensure that our Nation has the needed highly qualified teachers in critical subject areas, we must make certain that these institutions are included in this legislation. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to three members of Hill Air Force Base's 75th Air Base Wing who, together, lost their lives in Iraq in performance of their duties. Tsgt Timothy Weiner of Tamarack, FL, SrA Daniel Miller of Galesburg, IL, and SrA Elizabeth Loncki of New Castle, DE, were killed while disarming an explosive device. One of the core values of the Air Force is ``Service Before Self.'' These airmen met this standard every day while disarming improvised explosive devices and destroying munitions to protect their fellow servicemen and the people of Iraq. All three knew the risks inherent in their assignment, but still chose to volunteer so that others may be safe. Technical Sergeant Weiner was the youngest of four sons of Ken Weiner, a Korean war veteran, and Marcia Fenster. It should be noted that all the sons of the Weiner family have worn the uniform of their Nation. Technical Sergeant Weiner's mother said, ``he was a unbelievable father and husband who could do a job that was rough and so demanding but was also a man who could show love and was not afraid to.'' This was Sergeant Weiner's second tour in Iraq. His professionalism is best exemplified by the fact that, in a previous assignment, he was part of explosive ordnance disposal team that provided protection for the President. He is survived by his wife Debbie and son Jonathan. The technical sergeant had planned to retire within a couple of years and work with computers. Now our prayers go with his wife and son. SrA Airman Daniel Miller was the oldest of six children of Daniel B. Miller and Robin Mahnesmith. He is remembered by his family and friends as a happy person, who loved football, enjoyed hunting and fishing and was a silent leader. His girlfriend Dana Sopher stated ``the love he had for his family was just amazing.'' Senior Airman Miller knew of the risk of his job but still believed that you ``just have to live life.'' Senior Airman Miller had hoped to work for a metropolitan bomb squad after he had completed his service with the Air Force. I know I join with all of my colleagues in praying for his family during these difficult times. SrA Elizabeth Loncki was also the oldest child of Stephen and stepmother Christine Loncki, who still plans on sending cookies and baked goods to troops in Iraq. After learning of her death, one of her training instructors contacted Senior Airman Lonki's family and recounted that Elizabeth had excelled at her explosive ordnance disposal training class and was a valuable member of any team. Senior Airman Loncki planned on getting married after she returned from Iraq; her future fiance was to visit her parents shortly and ask permission for the senior airman's hand in marriage. He has since accompanied her home to her family. Again our prayers go to her family. All three of these airmen were heroes in the truest sense of the word. They volunteered for one of the most dangerous jobs in our Nation's military and risked their lives every day. Their sacrifice was not in vain, their bravery in the face of danger is an example to us all. They met and exceeded the Air Force principle of ``Service Before Self.'' captain brian s. freeman Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the loss of CPT Brian S. Freeman whose mother, Kathleen Snyder, is a resident of Utah. Captain Freeman died while performing his duties in Karbala, Iraq, where he was assigned to the 412th Civil Affairs Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, based in Whitehall, OH. Captain Freeman resided in Temecula, CA, with his wife Charlotte, a 3-year-old son, Gunnar, and a 3-month-old daughter, Ingrid. The captain had just returned to Iraq after a 2-week Christmas leave. Charlotte Freeman commented about that time, ``We did all the family things packed into two weeks. It was wonderful. We had a picture perfect family and the two weeks were perfect.'' The captain was a 1999 West Point graduate who, after returning home, planned to attend graduate school. He had already received an important letter of recommendation from the Governor of Karbala who wrote: ``Freeman has assisted in forming a warmer relationship with the Army . . . I think Capt. Freeman genuinely cares about what happens to Karbala and its people.'' For a member of a civil affairs unit, whose responsibility it is to assist the local population while developing and maintaining close relationships with indigenous government officials, I cannot think of any higher praise. Not surprisingly, Captain Freeman had been decorated with two Army commendation medals, two Army achievement medals, a national defense service medal and a global war on terrorism service medal. I also understand that he was a member of the Army's bobsledding team. America has lost another decorated hero. Captain Freeman had hope to make a difference during his time in Iraq. I believe that anyone who looks at the life and actions of Captain Freeman will see that he more than achieved that goal. Captain Freeman and his family will always be in my prayers.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, yesterday was a good day for democracy. It was a great day for American constitutionalism. I have said it before. I will continue to say it. All too often, we see judicial decisions on America's most important social issues made without any constitutional warrant. Too difficult to convince your community that it should not pray before football games? No problem. Just find a judge to say that the practice is unconstitutional. Too discouraged by the slow pace of the march toward same-sex marriage? Find a judge to declare that the State constitution has allowed it all along. A constitutional right to same-sex marriage-- ``presto chango.'' Americans of all political stripes understand that this highjacking of social policy from the people's representatives is deeply misguided. A good number of law professors, law students, judges, and politicians still continue to inject the judicial branch into social controversies. Yet, in attempting to smooth out the rough edges of democracy, activist judges have time and again undermined democracy and increased bitterness in our political debates. Yesterday's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart was a step toward righting that dangerous trend. It was a step toward restoring the people's liberties and the vitality of our democracy. Let me explain. In 2003, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This was well-considered legislation. It was broadly supported by the public. Senators of both parties, including my colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, supported the bill. And after years of trying, it finally became law. It was a modest bill, born of an existential abhorrence of a procedure that callously snuffed out human life. Nonetheless, a coalition of the usual proponents of judicial legislating attempted to undo this law. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld this legislation. It was a reasonable decision. And it showed a proper deference to the people and their representatives--deference that one would expect in a democracy. The public first became aware of partial-birth abortion in 1992, when Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing the procedure. A nurse who assisted him in a partial-birth abortion on a 26\1/2\ week fetus testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee of her experience with this procedure. It was shocking testimony. I am glad that Justice Kennedy included it in his majority opinion. I will not repeat it here. It was graphic. It was horrific. And it will stay with me forever. A 6-month-old fetus was treated worse than any animal--and disposed of like garbage. The American people were rightly appalled. It very well might be that there is some give in the seams of our Constitution. The meaning of every term and principle is not entirely clear. But if you are going to be making up constitutional rights without textual warrant, the American people understand what many law professors, radical--I mean, progressive--activists, and judges did not. It perverts our constitutional traditions to argue that a document committed to life, liberty, and the dignity of the human person would prohibit public condemnation and legal regulation of such barbarity. And the Court agreed. This was a reasonable and a limited decision. The Court rejected a facial challenge to the law. Relying on its precedent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Court held that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion. This was a reasonable decision, one rooted in a deep respect for the role of the people's representatives in Congress. And what is the response of the hard left? Hysteria. I know many of my colleagues in this body are familiar with the blog, Daily Kos. It is the online meeting room for the political left. The complaints of its members recently led a number of Democratic candidates for President to withdraw from a Fox News-sponsored debate. They were intimately involved in the debate in the House over how best to cut off funding for our troops. This is what one of these citizen agitators posted about the decision: The 5 Catholics on the court have ruled!! Why don't we just outsource the Supreme Court to the Vatican. Save some money!! There was a time when this anti-Catholic venom had no place in our political discourse. Unfortunately, liberal groups are becoming more and more radical, and less and less liberal in their thinking. This is what Nancy Keenan, of the radical abortion-rights lobby NARAL, had to say: An anti-choice Congress and an anti-choice president pushed this ban all the way to the Supreme Court. An anti-choice Congress? Is she kidding? Is the Democratic chairman of the Appropriations Committee anti-choice? Is the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee anti-choice? Is the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee anti-choice? Give me a break. The radicals criticizing this decision are seriously unmoored from the American people and our legal traditions. The radicals who support abortion on demand reject the choices of the American people. They reject the informed choice that the people's representatives made about this gruesome procedure. They are ``Johnny and Jane one-notes''-- abortion now, abortion always, abortion forever. The American people deserve better. We have been told by the new majority that America is done with partisanship. America needs results. Well, we got results with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This was a bipartisan achievement that brought together Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. It is unfortunate, then, to see certain Democratic candidates bemoaning this decision in the same old terms. It is not too surprising to see the New York Times editorial page hyperventilating over this decision. But we deserve more from our party leaders and Presidential candidates. I understand their predicament. When you have to answer to uncompromising abortion-rights groups, logic sometimes gets tossed by the wayside. When President Clinton was in the White House, he abandoned almost every liberal group imaginable in his quest for triangulation. But there was one group that he would never cross--the abortion-rights lobby. And given the knee-jerk reactions about this decision from the leftwing blogosphere and Democratic candidates, I have no doubt that this commitment will not change. I think that is sad. But if they want to have a fight, the centerpiece of which is judicial administration of a judicially created right to abort your baby at any time during pregnancy, I am sure many will gladly meet them in the ring. I think that these overheated comments are particularly interesting in light of the legislation that we considered earlier today. I was an original cosponsor of the court security bill. Obviously, our judges need to be protected from violent criminals. They are public servants. And all too often they are threatened with, or subjected to, physical violence. This is unacceptable. And so I joined with many of my Judiciary Committee colleagues in supporting this bill. But I want to distance myself from some of the remarks made by my Democratic colleagues yesterday. The suggestion that strong and vigorous criticism of judicial decisionmaking is somehow inappropriate or collaterally responsible for violence against judges is absurd. Violence against judges is unacceptable. But violence against judges is not caused by criticism of judicial activism. And it is not caused by overheated rhetoric. I find it particularly ironic that on the same day that liberal pundits and interest groups are bemoaning a moderate and limited Supreme Court decision as the catalyst for making women second-class citizens, Democrats took to the floor to brand serious and vigorous criticism of judges as irresponsible. In the end, I think Justice Scalia was right in his Casey concurrence. So long as the Court went about doing what lawyers and judges are supposed to do--interpret the law--nobody gave the Supreme Court a second thought. But when the Court decided that it should be a super legislature that second guesses the judgments of the American people and their representatives, the Court invited criticism. You act like legislators, you get treated like legislators. If my colleagues would like to see less criticism of judges, maybe they should stop advocating an undemocratic and constitutionally ungrounded judicial activism. The people can criticize the courts. And their representatives can criticize the courts. If Lincoln did it, and FDR did it, I think we are on solid ground. But I am not going to criticize yesterday's decision. I would like to close by again applauding it. It was not just a victory for the unborn child. It was a victory for moderation and the rule of law.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to pay special tribute to an extraordinary man, a loving husband, father and grandfather; a valiant soldier; and a true patriot in every sense of the word--BG Darrell S. Cramer. Darrell recently passed away, leaving a tremendous void in the lives of all who knew him. Yet his legacy of service, courage, and dedication will serve as an example for many generations to come. Darrell was born in Ogden, UT, to Olvie and Loretta Stuart Cramer and was the oldest in a family of five. He enjoyed his childhood immensely and excelled in athletics and academics. As a young child he developed a strong interest in aviation which would guide his future life. His dream of flying became a reality shortly after enrolling in a civilian pilot training course at Weber College. On December 7, 1941, Darrell was listening to the radio at home when he heard the news bulletin that stunned the Nation--Pearl Harbor had been attacked, and the United States was now joining the war. The very next day, he drove to Salt Lake City and visited the recruiting offices of both the Army and the Navy to try to enlist in the Aviation Cadet programs. At that time a recruit was to be at least 20 years old and have 2 years of college, so he was turned away. Just over a month later the rules were changed, and Darrell, eager to serve his country, immediately enlisted in the Army. He quickly became an excellent fighter pilot candidate and excelled in the training. Thus began a storied and exemplary military career. The highlights of his military service included many tours of duty beginning in November 1942, when Darrell was sent to the South Pacific area as a P-38 pilot assigned to the 339th Fighter Squadron of the 13th Air Force. The young airman flew in the campaigns of Guadalcanal, New Guinea, and North Solomons and completed his tour of duty with credit for the destruction of a Japanese Zero fighter and Betty bomber aircraft. In December 1943, he returned to the United States and was assigned to a P-47 combat training school in Abilene, TX. In June 1944, General Cramer was assigned to the European Theater of Operations and flew a P- 51 aircraft with the 55th Fighter Group. He finished this tour of duty as a squadron commander with a total of 300 flying hours in 60 missions and credited for the destruction of 11 German aircraft. As such, he joined an exclusive fraternity of fighter ace. At the end of World War II, Darrell returned home, and shortly after, he left active duty to go into business with his father forming the Cramer and Son Coal Company. He went on to pursue additional business opportunities but couldn't put his love of flying behind him and once again joined the Utah Air National Guard. When the Berlin Airlift began in 1948, he was again called to active duty for Operation Vittles. When that operation ended, Darrell once again returned to the United States and began service as director of flying in the Advanced Flying School at Williams Air Force Base in Arizona. This was followed 2 years later with his return to Europe to assume command of the 53rd Fighter Squadron and later the 36th Fighter Bomber Wing in Germany. This service was followed by assignments in Washington, DC, California, Turkey, Thailand, and Vietnam. In February 1971, General Cramer became the vice commander of the 17th Air Force, Ramstein Air Base in Germany. He was promoted to brigadier general in 1970 and retired from military service in June 1973. During his many years of military service, Darrell was recognized and awarded many times for his courage and exemplary service to our Nation. His military awards and decorations included the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with an oak leaf cluster, Distinguished Flying Cross with an oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with 21 oak leaf clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Presidential Unit Citation emblem with two oak leaf clusters, and an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award Ribbon with an oak leaf cluster. In addition, he was also inducted into the Utah Aviation Hall of Fame and the Order of the Daedalians, a fraternity of pilots. With all of these accomplishments, Darrell became a larger-than-life figure to all those who knew him. Yet his humble and unassuming spirit was demonstrated in all he did. His greatest accomplishments he always maintained was marrying the love of his life, Mildred ``Mick'' McPhie. They built a beautiful life together providing a loving, cherished home for friends, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to enjoy. In his later years, Darrell didn't just quietly sit and watch the days go idly by. He found happiness pursuing many hobbies and interests including golfing, skiing, and spending quality time with his brothers and sisters, grandchildren, and friends. He also appreciated computer technology and used it to modernize his work in genealogy and family history. He spent many hours serving in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Family History Program. He shared his knowledge and helped many search for their own ancestors. As the wonderful, strong military leader General George S. Patton once said, ``It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.'' While I don't believe it is foolish for many to mourn the loss of this great man, I do believe that many do thank our Heavenly Father that BG Darrell S. Cramer lived and that he provided such a powerful example of courage, service, and love for generations to follow.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy the Patent Reform Act of 2007, S. 1145. S. 1145 represents years of careful negotiation and input from a wide-spectrum of stake holders. In fact, the 2006 Hatch- Leahy bill has served as a blueprint for this year's legislation and contains substantially similar language. Chairman Leahy's desire to have a piece of legislation that is both bipartisan and bicameral is a great undertaking and represents a tremendous commitment by Congress to move forward in streamlining and strengthening our patent system. The patent system is the bedrock of innovation, especially in today's global economy. Last year, more than 440,000 patent applications were filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The sheer volume of patent applications reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology. Because America's ingenuity continues to fund our economy, we must protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn creates an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs: two significant pillars in our economy. In my home State of Utah alone, there are over 3,200 technology and 500 life science companies, and eight percent year-over-year growth. Utah leads the western States region in creating and sustaining these companies. Additionally, the concentration of college graduates in Utah is contributing to the State's technological friendliness, attracting growth companies to Utah and creating new ones. There is a large, young adult population in Utah attending not only the two world-class research universities of the University of Utah and Utah State University, but also Brigham Young University, Utah Valley State College and Weber State University. These universities and colleges are strong economic drivers that encourage technology industry growth in my State. For years, Chairman Leahy and I have been working together to craft meaningful patent reform to address problems that have been identified through a series of hearings and discussions with stake holders. This bill addresses many of the problems with the substantive, procedural, and administrative aspects of the patent system, which governs how entities here in the United States apply for, receive, and eventually make use of patents. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 includes provisions to improve patent quality. Many complaints about the current patent system deal with the number of suspect and over-broad patents that are issued. Because bad patents are generally of little value to productive companies, in many cases their value is maximized by using them as a basis for infringement suits against deep-pocket defendants. This bill institutes a robust post-grant review process so that third parties can challenge suspect patents in an administrative process, rather than through costly litigation. In the bill we introduced today, Section 6 has been tightened by including an anti-harassment provision to discourage companies from colluding and perpetually harassing one company. I am hopeful this will serve as a deterrent to those who seek to abuse post- grant review process. In addition, S. 1145 is designed to harmonize U.S. law with the law of other countries by instituting a first-to-file system. The United States is the only significant country following the first-to-invent system, in which the right of the patent lies with the first inventor, rather than the first inventor to file for a patent. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 provides greater certainty because the filing date of an application can very rarely be challenged. S. 1145 also seeks to provide fair and equitable remedies. Some claim that courts have allowed damages for infringement to be based on the market for an entire product when all that was infringed is a minor component of the product. The bill's language preserves the current rule that mandates that a damages award shall not be less than a reasonable royalty for the infringed patent, and further requires the court to conduct an analysis to ensure that when a reasonable royalty is the award, it reflects only the economic value of the patent's specific contribution over the prior art. There are a few provisions I believe need further discussion. I was disappointed that the inequitable conduct provision from last year's bill was removed. Attorneys well know that the inequitable conduct defense has been overpleaded and has become a drag on the litigation process. I think last year's language struck the correct balance by focusing on the patentability of the claims in dispute and properly prevented parties from asserting the defense frivolously. Let me hasten to add that I do believe there should be consequences for misconduct. I believe that reforms to the inequitable conduct defense should focus on the nature of the misconduct and not permit the unenforceability of a perfectly valid patent on a meritorious invention. And, sanctions should be commensurate with the misconduct. Moreover, establishing inequitable conduct is supposed to require independent proof that: (1) the information at issue was material; and (2) the person who failed to disclose it or made the misrepresentation had the specific intention of misleading the USPTO. The two elements have become linked, and courts often discount the intent requirement by finding that the information is ``highly material.'' In fact, the materiality standard has become so inclusive that virtually anything now is portrayed as material. Information should only be considered material when it causes the USPTO to improperly grant patent claims. Using a standard of whether USPTO examiners would reject the claims is a good approximation of materiality because of the prima facie standard they use to determine whether the claims meet the requirements for patentability. Unfortunately, this bill preserves the status quo. A provision that would provide attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing party was also left out of this bill. I included this provision in last year's bill to discourage weak cases from clogging the already-burdened judicial system. This is not a new concept in the realm of intellectual property. In fact, I note, Section 505 of the Copyright Act clearly provides courts the discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs. It seems logical that we would provide the same discretion in S. 1145 and I look forward to discussing this issue with Chairman Leahy. We opted this year not to include a provision that would repeal Section 271(f) of Title 35, pending a Supreme Court decision that is expected soon. Section 271(f) creates a cause of action for infringement due to foreign sales when a component of a patented invention is supplied from this country, knowing that a component will be combined in an infringing manner outside the United States. In the event of an unfavorable ruling, Chairman Leahy and I are committed to addressing this issue using the legislative process. Patent law is vital to our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy. S. 1145 is designed to ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of developing and translating new ideas into tangible goods and services through an effective patent review and protection system This bill represents a commitment from Congress to move forward in streamlining and strengthening our patent system. I am hopeful that further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that we can join efforts to refine and enact this important bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy the Patent Reform Act of 2007, S. 1145. S. 1145 represents years of careful negotiation and input from a wide-spectrum of stake holders. In fact, the 2006 Hatch- Leahy bill has served as a blueprint for this year's legislation and contains substantially similar language. Chairman Leahy's desire to have a piece of legislation that is both bipartisan and bicameral is a great undertaking and represents a tremendous commitment by Congress to move forward in streamlining and strengthening our patent system. The patent system is the bedrock of innovation, especially in today's global economy. Last year, more than 440,000 patent applications were filed at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The sheer volume of patent applications reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology. Because America's ingenuity continues to fund our economy, we must protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn creates an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs: two significant pillars in our economy. In my home State of Utah alone, there are over 3,200 technology and 500 life science companies, and eight percent year-over-year growth. Utah leads the western States region in creating and sustaining these companies. Additionally, the concentration of college graduates in Utah is contributing to the State's technological friendliness, attracting growth companies to Utah and creating new ones. There is a large, young adult population in Utah attending not only the two world-class research universities of the University of Utah and Utah State University, but also Brigham Young University, Utah Valley State College and Weber State University. These universities and colleges are strong economic drivers that encourage technology industry growth in my State. For years, Chairman Leahy and I have been working together to craft meaningful patent reform to address problems that have been identified through a series of hearings and discussions with stake holders. This bill addresses many of the problems with the substantive, procedural, and administrative aspects of the patent system, which governs how entities here in the United States apply for, receive, and eventually make use of patents. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 includes provisions to improve patent quality. Many complaints about the current patent system deal with the number of suspect and over-broad patents that are issued. Because bad patents are generally of little value to productive companies, in many cases their value is maximized by using them as a basis for infringement suits against deep-pocket defendants. This bill institutes a robust post-grant review process so that third parties can challenge suspect patents in an administrative process, rather than through costly litigation. In the bill we introduced today, Section 6 has been tightened by including an anti-harassment provision to discourage companies from colluding and perpetually harassing one company. I am hopeful this will serve as a deterrent to those who seek to abuse post- grant review process. In addition, S. 1145 is designed to harmonize U.S. law with the law of other countries by instituting a first-to-file system. The United States is the only significant country following the first-to-invent system, in which the right of the patent lies with the first inventor, rather than the first inventor to file for a patent. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 provides greater certainty because the filing date of an application can very rarely be challenged. S. 1145 also seeks to provide fair and equitable remedies. Some claim that courts have allowed damages for infringement to be based on the market for an entire product when all that was infringed is a minor component of the product. The bill's language preserves the current rule that mandates that a damages award shall not be less than a reasonable royalty for the infringed patent, and further requires the court to conduct an analysis to ensure that when a reasonable royalty is the award, it reflects only the economic value of the patent's specific contribution over the prior art. There are a few provisions I believe need further discussion. I was disappointed that the inequitable conduct provision from last year's bill was removed. Attorneys well know that the inequitable conduct defense has been overpleaded and has become a drag on the litigation process. I think last year's language struck the correct balance by focusing on the patentability of the claims in dispute and properly prevented parties from asserting the defense frivolously. Let me hasten to add that I do believe there should be consequences for misconduct. I believe that reforms to the inequitable conduct defense should focus on the nature of the misconduct and not permit the unenforceability of a perfectly valid patent on a meritorious invention. And, sanctions should be commensurate with the misconduct. Moreover, establishing inequitable conduct is supposed to require independent proof that: (1) the information at issue was material; and (2) the person who failed to disclose it or made the misrepresentation had the specific intention of misleading the USPTO. The two elements have become linked, and courts often discount the intent requirement by finding that the information is ``highly material.'' In fact, the materiality standard has become so inclusive that virtually anything now is portrayed as material. Information should only be considered material when it causes the USPTO to improperly grant patent claims. Using a standard of whether USPTO examiners would reject the claims is a good approximation of materiality because of the prima facie standard they use to determine whether the claims meet the requirements for patentability. Unfortunately, this bill preserves the status quo. A provision that would provide attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing party was also left out of this bill. I included this provision in last year's bill to discourage weak cases from clogging the already-burdened judicial system. This is not a new concept in the realm of intellectual property. In fact, I note, Section 505 of the Copyright Act clearly provides courts the discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs. It seems logical that we would provide the same discretion in S. 1145 and I look forward to discussing this issue with Chairman Leahy. We opted this year not to include a provision that would repeal Section 271(f) of Title 35, pending a Supreme Court decision that is expected soon. Section 271(f) creates a cause of action for infringement due to foreign sales when a component of a patented invention is supplied from this country, knowing that a component will be combined in an infringing manner outside the United States. In the event of an unfavorable ruling, Chairman Leahy and I are committed to addressing this issue using the legislative process. Patent law is vital to our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy. S. 1145 is designed to ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of developing and translating new ideas into tangible goods and services through an effective patent review and protection system This bill represents a commitment from Congress to move forward in streamlining and strengthening our patent system. I am hopeful that further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that we can join efforts to refine and enact this important bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concerns about S. 3, the Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007. Back in 2003, I helped draft the Medicare Modernization Act. I was one of the Senate's chief negotiators for the House-Senate conference on this legislation. We wrote legislation that was approved by both Chambers of Congress and signed into law by the President in December 2005. And by enacting this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries are now offered a quality prescription drug benefit at an affordable price. It is a successful program by any measure. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and what a difference it has made in the lives of Medicare beneficiaries. Today, there are 38 million Medicare beneficiaries and over 90 percent participate in the Medicare Part D program. Eighty percent of Medicare Part D beneficiaries are happy with their Medicare prescription drug plan. And they are happy with their plans, because they have a choice in coverage--beneficiaries are able to get a plan that meets their needs. We don't have a one-size-fits-all program attempting to stretch over 38 million people. The cost savings have been profound for both beneficiaries and for taxpayers. When the Medicare Part D plan first began in January 2006, we thought that the average premium would be around $37 per month. Because of plan competition, the average premium is $22 a month. That has reflected for taxpayers over $113 billion of savings over what Congress had originally estimated. And the other good news is that if a beneficiary hits the doughnut hole--the point where the beneficiary has to pay out of pocket for his or her prescriptions-- there are now plans in every State that will provide coverage through the doughnut hole period. As we all know, back in January, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would require the prices of prescription drugs received under the Medicare Part D program to be negotiated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Late last week, the Senate Finance Committee also approved S. 3, the Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007. While this legislation does not mandate that the Secretary negotiate drug prices for the Medicare Part D benefit, it gives the Secretary the discretion to do so. Any way you look at it, Congress requiring the Secretary to negotiate prescription drug prices would lead to a one-size-fits-all drug plan which would result in fewer choices. Beneficiaries would have less satisfaction with a one-size-fits-all plan. And, in my opinion, drug prices will not be lower. In addition, beneficiaries would have fewer choices. When you negotiate drug prices, there is really only one way to do it. You limit the choices available. You say I am going to take your medication off your drug plan or I am only going to pay X amount for a drug, a price so low that perhaps the manufacturer cannot participate. If the Government starts doing that, suddenly you have the Government making choices about who can get what drug as opposed to beneficiaries and their doctors making those decisions. Currently there are over 4,400 drugs available on Medicare Part D plans. Beneficiaries may choose a plan that meets their needs. That is exactly why 80 percent of Medicare Part D beneficiaries are happy. And for those who aren't, the good news is we can help find a plan that serves them better. If we had one plan, one formulary, then we would have a lot more unhappy people. And how does the Secretary of Health and Human Services feel about this new responsibility? I would like to take a minute to read an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post on January 11, 2007. This editorial was written by Secretary Mike Leavitt, not only a good friend of mine but a very thoughtful, knowledgeable, and openminded Secretary of HHS as far as health care policy is concerned. ``Medicare And the Market Government Shouldn't Be Negotiating Prescription Prices,'' by Mike Leavitt, Thursday, January 11, 2007; Page A25: We all want people with Medicare to get the prescription drugs they need at the lowest possible prices. The issue before Congress this week is how best to do that. Should consumer choice and private-sector competition determine prices--or should government? The success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit provides strong evidence that competition among private drug plans has contributed significantly to lowering costs. The average monthly premium has dropped by 42 percent, from an estimated $38 to $22--and there is a plan available for less than $20 a month in every state. The net Medicare cost of the drug program has fallen by close to $200 billion since its passage in 2003. Seniors and people with disabilities like the benefit. Studies consistently show that three-quarters of Medicare beneficiaries are satisfied with their coverage. Individuals like being able to choose the plan that best fits their needs. A single, one-size-fits-all drug plan would have made the choice easier, and Congress did create a standard plan. But fewer than 15 percent of enrollees have selected that standard plan--opting instead for plans with lower premiums, no deductibles and enhanced coverage. Despite the success of the benefit, some people believe government can do a better job of lowering prices than a competitive marketplace. Legislation under consideration would require the secretary of health and human services to negotiate and set the prices of drugs. In effect, one government official would set more than 4,400 prices for different drugs, making decisions that would be better made by millions of individual consumers. There is also the danger that government price setting would limit drug choices. Medicare provides access to the broadest array of prescription drugs, including the newest drugs. But price negotiation inevitably results in the withholding of access to some drugs to get manufacturers to lower prices. The Department of Veterans Affairs, often cited as an example of how government can negotiate prices, operates an excellent program for veterans, but the VA formulary excludes a number of new drugs covered by the Medicare prescription benefit. Even Lipitor, the world's best-selling drug, isn't on the VA formulary. That may be one reason more than a million veterans are also getting drug coverage through Medicare. Some observers point to the massive buying power of the federal government as the means to exert clout over drug companies, but the federal government has nowhere near the market power of the private sector. Private-sector insurance plans and pharmacy benefit managers, who negotiate prices between drug companies and pharmacies, cover about 241 million people, or 80 percent of the population. Medicare could cover at most 43 million. The independent Congressional Budget Office has said that government price negotiation would have a ``negligible effect on federal spending.'' And previous experience with Congress and Medicare regulating drug prices has not been reassuring. Medicare Part B, which covers physician services, outpatient hospital care and other services, sets the prices for some medicines--notably a number of cancer drugs. It has a history of reimbursing at rates substantially greater than prevailing prices. In 2005, Part B drug spending increased by almost 20 percent. If the Federal Government begins picking drugs and setting prices for all Medicare beneficiaries, administrative costs would add a new burden to taxpayers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have to hire hundreds of new employees. Legions of lobbyists would follow, each seeking higher Medicare payments for the drug companies they represent. As a Post editorial noted in November, ``having the government set drug prices is a sure way of flooding the political system with yet more pharmaceutical lobbyists and campaign spending.'' There is a proper role for government in setting standards and monitoring those who provide the benefit. We should ensure that beneficiaries have access to medically necessary treatments. But government should not be in the business of setting drug prices or controlling access to drugs. That is a first step toward the type of government-run health care that the American people have always rejected. There are many ways the administration and Congress can work together to make health care more affordable and accessible. But undermining the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which has improved the lives and health of millions of seniors and people with disabilities, is not one of them. Secretary Leavitt is correct--providing flexible prescription drug plans to beneficiaries should be one of our top goals. Getting Medicare beneficiaries the best price possible for their prescription drugs should be one of our top goals. And offering Medicare beneficiaries high quality prescription drug plans should be one of our top goals. In my reading of this legislation, passage will result in none of these goals being achieved and, in fact could result in the Medicare prescription drug benefit becoming a national formulary which could result in higher prices for drugs and limited choices for Medicare beneficiaries. When we were drafting this bill, we took great care to provide protections to Medicare beneficiaries who decided to participate in the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. We wanted to provide beneficiaries with a drug benefit that would not cost them an arm and a leg, and that would allow access to a wide range of prescription drug choices. In order to preserve those choices, the Medicare Modernization Act prohibits the Secretary from establishing a formulary. If the Secretary cannot lower prices without a formulary and if it is prohibited by law for the Secretary to establish a formulary then I ask you--what is the purpose of this bill? I believe that, should this bill become law, it will be no time before its supporters decide that now they want the Secretary to establish a formulary. I think this bill is a Trojan horse with a Medicare formulary hidden inside. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this issue. I urge them to talk to their Medicare beneficiaries in their states and ask them whether or not they are happy with their prescription drug plans. I believe that they will find that almost everyone is happy with their current benefit and changing this benefit is a terrible mistake on our part. federal income tax filing deadline

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the tax man cometh. Americans have April 17 circled on their calendars, and not with a smiley face. This year, roughly 135 million Americans sat down to complete their tax returns. Many have made the unfortunate discovery that they owe additional money to the IRS. Others are shocked to learn that they owe something called the alternative minimum tax. I would like to emphasize one point today, a point that many of my constituents have learned the hard way: their tax burden is already too high. For middle-class Americans, tax day has become an aggravation at best, and an outrage at worst. Many Utahns, as well as distraught taxpayers throughout the Nation, know the look of tax overload. They see it when they look in the mirror, and they see it when they look at their spouse. There is the kitchen table. A late night. Some scattered papers and receipts. An elbow on the table. And a hand on the forehead in disbelief. This is the look of overtaxed Americans. It is the look of misery and confusion. It does not need to be this way. There are economic burdens as well, and that burden is only going to grow if the Democrats get their way. Many of us pay too much in taxes already. But the policies of the congressional majority are a blueprint for even higher taxes. Neither our citizens nor our economy can bear much more. Middle-class Americans are overtaxed. According to the Tax Foundation, this year Americans will work 120 days to pay their total tax burden. Let's put this in perspective. They will work 62 days to pay for their house and home. They will work 52 days for health and medical care. They will work 30 days for food. But they will work 120 days to pay their taxes. If you told my parents' generation that their tax burden would be that high, they would have thought we lost a war to France. But the Democrats are not satisfied. They want the so-called rich to pay more of their so-called fair share. Let me translate. By ``rich'' they mean anyone with a job. And by ``fair share,'' they mean empty your wallet. According to recent data from the IRS, persons making more than $30,122, or the top 50 percent of all income earners, paid 97 percent of all income taxes in 2004, the latest year there were data available. Those who made more than $60,041 in 2004, the top 25 percent, paid 85 percent of all income taxes. These people are not rich. As one of my Democratic colleagues noted earlier this year, a mother and a father making $90,000 a year in a place like Virginia or New York or California or New Jersey are not rich. They are doing the best they can to provide for their families. And once you factor in taxes, housing, clothing, medical care, and college savings, those paychecks do not go that far. The middle class is already paying out much more in taxes than is spent by the Government on its behalf. According to the Tax Foundation, an individual making over $65,000 a year pays $7,217 more in taxes every year than is spent for him or her. But for some Members of this body, our system is still not progressive enough. I know that there are some policy wonks and political strategists who think the days of tax revolt are over. Apparently we are at some postpartisan, end of history, where Americans just accept big government and big bites out of their paychecks. I for one am not buying it. It seems some things never change in this country. One of those things is the commitment of Americans to their rights of life, liberty, and property. Americans remain very jealous of their liberties, and rightly so. Chief among our liberties is the freedom to use the money you earn through your hard work and initiative, to build your business, buy a home, and take care of your family. Working hard to fund some new Government bureaucracy is not at the top of the list. If taxes go up significantly, the party responsible is going to be in for a rude awakening. They are going to be reminded, with grave electoral consequences, that the Government can take only so much. Along with many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I think our tax burden is still too high. Many Americans still pay too much. The estate tax still destroys family businesses. Too many startup businesses are killed off by taxes before they have begun. We need to be providing tax incentives so people can responsibly save for their retirement and health care. We need to be coming up with innovative tax policies and entitlement reforms. Instead, the Democrats are keeping mum as Medicare and Social Security take on water, keeping to themselves their foolproof plan to bail us out: Raise taxes. The combined unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare is $84 trillion. That is ``trillion'' dollars. Where is that money coming from? They are having a hard time coming up with money today for a $50 billion 1-year fix for the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. Where are they going to get $84 trillion? Do not worry, they tell us; they are going to fix Social Security and Medicare. But fixing it their way will break the backs of middle-class taxpayers. Mark my words, they will raise taxes on the middle class, taking away or limiting savings vehicles for health and retirement. They will raise taxes on individuals, hiking rates and hurting families. And they will raise taxes on businesses, killing industry and choking initiative. Conservatives are fond of saying that ideas have consequences. They certainly do. There are important differences between the parties. In their guts, Democrats distrust markets, believe that more Government intervention and Government programs are the answer, and are willing to hike taxes to achieve their goals. Those of us on this side of the aisle believe in personal responsibility, low taxes, and encouraging the freedom, entrepreneurialism, and dynamism of the American people. Ideas have consequences. One leads to economic prosperity; the other leads to national stagnation. I want my constituents to know that on these debates to come, I stand with the taxpayers. We need to be encouraging industry. We need to be growing our economy. We need to be lowering and simplifying our tax burden. Today's Democratic majority promised real change. Instead, we are getting the same tired song. They are not taking our Nation's fiscal woes seriously. They are hoping Americans will not object when their taxes are hiked to pay for our coming entitlement train wreck. They should think twice before going down this road. Middle-class Americans, such as my constituents in Utah, are trying to get their taxes done by midnight tonight. They want their tax burden lowered, and so do I. There are lots of promises made by our friends on the other side to get rid of the AMT. They have had at least three chances to vote to get rid of the AMT for the vast majority in the middle class and they have refused do so. If left unchecked, the AMT is going to, within the next 10 years, be assessed on over 35 million Americans. Remember, it started out because there were about 159 people who did not pay their taxes, people who were immensely rich. Now we are talking up to 25 million Americans as we stand here today, and up to 35 million Americans within the next ten years. I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to live up to their campaign promises and let us get rid of AMT. It is very unfair to the middle class, and frankly, for most Americans. I promise to do all I can to see we do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Guy Clifton be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 3.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to reinforce the importance of water resource development projects in Juab County, UT, by introducing the Juab County Surface and Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2007, S. 1110. This legislation would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 2005 to include Juab County. Juab County's inclusion in that Act would allow the County to use Central Utah Project funds to complete water resource development projects, thus enabling the County to better utilize their existing water resources. I hope that by passing this legislation, we will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County will have a reliable water supply and a buffer in times of drought. Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Unit Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to receive supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, many central Utah Counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah established to manage Central Utah Project activities in Utah. Juab County, on the other hand, remained active in the Central Utah Water Conservatory District's efforts and has paid millions in property taxes to the District in hopes of benefitting from its membership. Currently, most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. This legislation would simply ensure that the citizens of Juab County can benefit from the system that they have financially supported for so many years. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to reinforce the importance of water resource development projects in Juab County, UT, by introducing the Juab County Surface and Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2007, S. 1110. This legislation would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 2005 to include Juab County. Juab County's inclusion in that Act would allow the County to use Central Utah Project funds to complete water resource development projects, thus enabling the County to better utilize their existing water resources. I hope that by passing this legislation, we will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County will have a reliable water supply and a buffer in times of drought. Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Unit Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to receive supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, many central Utah Counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah established to manage Central Utah Project activities in Utah. Juab County, on the other hand, remained active in the Central Utah Water Conservatory District's efforts and has paid millions in property taxes to the District in hopes of benefitting from its membership. Currently, most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. This legislation would simply ensure that the citizens of Juab County can benefit from the system that they have financially supported for so many years. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Today, Senator Stevens has the distinct honor of becoming the longest serving Republican Senator in this Chamber. I know of no greater patriot and lover of freedom than Ted Stevens. Whether flying his C-47 with the Flying Tigers in World War II, or serving in the Alaska House of Representatives, Senator Stevens' life is a model of heroism and personal integrity. Ted's tenure in the Senate has been equally impressive. He chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee for 6 years, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee for 2 years, and served as the Senate President pro tempore for 4 years. In each and every one of these high offices, Ted served with dignity and distinction. As one who has had a stewardship over our Nation's military for many years, there is no greater friend to our men and women in the military than Senator Stevens. No one in Congress has done more to make our Nation's military the great institution it is today. We all rely heavily on Ted's expertise on so many defense-related matters, as I believe many in this body and throughout the Federal Government do. He is the Senate's greatest asset with regard to the needs of the military, and his knowledge about defense issues has proven invaluable every time this Nation has faced a crisis in the last four decades. Although Ted is not the tallest man in the Senate, my colleagues and I all look up to the senior Senator from Alaska. When he comes to work in his Incredible Hulk tie, you know he means business and is ready to do whatever it takes to ensure legislation which improves the lives of Americans gets safely sheparded through the Senate. It has been my privilege to know and work with Ted for many years here in the Senate, and even though he has been described by some as gruff and grouchy, I have always found him to be very helpful and patient. Take for example a few months ago when I was meeting with several constituents from Utah in my DC office. During our conversations, we found that we needed some expertise that only Ted could provide. I hurriedly called him at home in Alaska without pausing to calculate the time difference. Although it was midmorning where I was sitting in DC, it was quite early in the morning in Alaska where a groggy Ted Stevens courteously took my call, helped me with the information I needed, and--I hope--promptly went back to bed to finish his night's sleep. Ted has shown similar types of courtesy and kindness to several Members of this body and he has always proven able to balance the delicate, yet competing, needs to maintain good friendships and still move the work of the country forward even when all sides are not in agreement. Ted's wisdom and his character have served as an example to everyone he meets, and I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to serve the people of the United States alongside my dear, dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens. So, from one old bull to another old bull, I would like to thank my good friend Ted for his friendship and leadership. Also, I would like to thank his wife Catherine for her selflessness and willingness to share her husband. The hours kept by a hard-working Senator are long and can be very demanding on families, but Catherine has been extremely patient and our Nation is grateful.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. I appreciate the arguments he has been making about this issue. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of embryonic stem cell research. First, I plan to vote in favor of both bills that will be considered today, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, and S. 30, the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act. I call upon my colleagues to vote in favor of and pass these bills. And I call upon the President to sign both bills into law. However, let me make one point perfectly clear while I will be voting for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly preferable to S. 30. S. 5 permits Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; S. 30 does not. I want everyone to understand that the votes we cast today could tomorrow mean the difference between a healthy life and one of misery for many, many Americans. I commend my good friends and colleagues for their hard work on S. 5--first, Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin, who held over 15 bipartisan hearings on embryonic stem cell research over the last several years. Next, I recognize Senators Kennedy, Smith and Feinstein for their courageous leadership and commitment to this important issue. And, in the House of Representatives, Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette must be singled out for their principled leadership on the companion embryonic stem cell research measure, which was approved by a strong bipartisan vote. Each day, the Congress must address consequential events--and even momentous threats to our Nation--but it is not often that we have the opportunity to cast a vote that is filled with as much hope and promise for the future as the embryonic stem cell research bill we are considering today. It reminds me of our country's quest for space many years ago, which was no more than a dream when the effort began. Yet what was only a vision when it was conceived, yielded wonders beyond anything we could have imagined. The American space program has spawned many important new advances. When I think of space exploration, I ponder the gift of global positioning technology. I consider the weather mapping that we depend upon to warn us of impending natural disasters. I marvel at the revolution of instantaneous worldwide communication. As a science, embryonic stem cell research today is where the space program was when we first dreamed of it. When I think of embryonic stem cell research, I imagine diabetics without insulin pumps. I dream of patients with Parkinson's Disease who sprint rather than shuffle. I conceive of patients with spinal cord injury who stand up and walk again. I think of 16-year-old Tori Schmanski of Orem, UT, who sustained a severe brain injury. I imagine Tori going back to the snowboarding and dancing that she loved. Tori Schmanski's parents flew her to China for stem-cell therapy. Her father said something that struck me. He said, ``Our hope is that next time we do this, we won't have to go to China.'' America has long been the world leader in ethical biomedical research, and we should not lightly cede this ground. When I consider the potential of stem cell research, I think of people like 17-year-old Travis Ashton of Highland, UT, whose brain was injured in a car accident. Today, he is struggling to dribble a basketball. I hope tomorrow he will be able not only to dribble a basketball but dunk a couple of baskets as well. And I think of my great friend, President Ronald Reagan, whose genius and energy were sapped away in what were to have been his golden years by the ravages of Alzheimer's disease. I imagine him finishing his days with his characteristic humor and vitality. Last year when Congress voted on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan sent me a letter urging the Senate to support the bill. Let me remind you what it so poignantly said: Dear Orrin: Thank you for your continued commitment to helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope to so many. It has been nearly a year since the United States House of Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that would open the research so we could fully unleash its promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific progress to help their loved ones, the wait for United States Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend. I understand that the United States Senate is now considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can count on friends like you to help make sure this happens. There is just no more time to wait. Sincerely, Nancy As we all know, last year, the Senate did approve this legislation, but President Bush vetoed it. And while I think we all know how this vote will come out today, it remains my fervent hope and prayer that President Bush--a person whom I greatly respect and with whom I share strong belief in the right to life--will sign this bill into law. I have received many letters from constituents who ask me, ``Senator Hatch, how can you support embryonic stem cell research when adult cell research is so promising?'' They ask, ``Why don't you realize that cord blood research makes embryonic stem cell research unnecessary?'' My answer is simple. Who among us can know which will yield the greatest breakthroughs? Who among us dares to predetermine the outcome by limiting the possibilities of ethical scientific research at the outset of this new field of research? The stories I have just related compel me to advocate for all types of ethical stem cell research--adult, cord blood, amniotic, and embryonic. Indeed, it must be recognized that in August, 2001, President Bush became the first President to support Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The President has my respect and admiration for his decision. At that time, he announced that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be eligible for Federal support. It was a good start. It was also a decision that recognized discarded embryos can, and should, be used to advance our Nation's scientific inquiry. That is fundamentally still the issue before us today. The President's policy has not lived up to its promise. In the past 6 years, much has changed. What was once thought to be over 70 stem cell lines has dwindled. A number of scientists have told me that in reality the number of usable cell lines has shriveled to merely a dozen or fewer. Scientists have told me that these lines are not enough to represent the general population anyway--they have been genetically distorted by years of replication. Furthermore, they are contaminated with so-called animal feeder cells and, therefore, can never be approved for use in human therapy. Existing Federal policy has created what I have characterized as handcuffed science. By this I mean that scientists are forced to go to extreme lengths to comply with Federal law. When they are able to scrounge up private funding for fresh embryonic stem cell lines, the scientists find their hands bound. They are afraid of violating Federal law by mixing research between the limited, contaminated, federally sanctioned stem cells and cells with the new cell lines lawfully developed with non-Federal funds. No equipment purchased with NIH funds touches the new, lawful cell lines and the result is that equipment purchased with Federal money lays underused while limited precious money is used to purchase duplicate equipment and supplies. Dr. Linda Kelley is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah. Dr. Kelley told me that the limited number of currently federally sanctioned cell lines is so unstable that, in her words, ``You are lucky if you can recover 10 percent of the cells they send you.'' She said the cells have been reused for so long that they have degraded and no longer represent the comprehensive human population. I do not want Utah's scientists moving to California or America's scientists moving overseas so they can do their research. Just as we are a nation that would never want to allow a situation to exist where American citizens must go abroad for best medical treatment, we should neither allow nor accept an atmosphere where our best doctors and scientists must go abroad to develop and provide the best medicine. I do not want U.S. scientists walking away from embryonic stem cell research because there are too many impediments to pursuing it in our country for our citizens. Dr. Marie Cseta is a cell biologist from Emory University and is one of the many scientists who firmly believe that embryonic stem cells hold unusual promise. She is unable to send her NIH-funded, post doctoral fellows to qualified laboratories to learn new procedures because those laboratories work with the new cell lines. She told me that the restrictions that current Federal policy places upon her and her colleagues are, in her words `` . . . so odious that many scientists just do not try.'' I want scientists to try. I think we will see after today's vote that most Senators want scientists to try. I am sure my friends, neighbors, and constituents in Utah want our best scientists to try. In forming my opinions and views on this topic, I met with many leading experts in the field of science, ethics, law and, yes, religion. I met with a number of Nobel Laureates including Dr. Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Thomas Cech of the Howard Hughes Institute of Medical Research and Dr. Paul Berg of Stanford University. I met with other leading experts including: Dr. Curt Civin and Dr. John Gearhart both of Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Irv Weissman of Stanford University; and the University of Utah's own Dr. Mario Capecchi. Let me tell my colleagues that we have some great scientists in the State of Utah. In fact, Dr. Capecchi, a leading research professor at the University of Utah, is widely recognized as one of the true pioneers of embryonic stem cell research. He has been working on embryonic stem cell research throughout his 40-year career. He has been the recipient of the prestigious Lasker Award which is considered the most prestigious American award in the biomedical sciences. It is often the case that Lasker Award winners go on to receive Nobel prizes. When I was home in Utah last week, I spent a lot of time talking to Dr. Capecchi. I asked him if he could provide me with what he believed are the top reasons why our government should fund embryonic stem cell research. He shared the following with me: 1. Potential source of cures. Embryonic stem cell research provides the potential to cure or ameliorate some of the most devastating and costly diseases faced by our Nation including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. 2. Embryonic stem cells grow quickly and are versatile. Two inherent properties of embryonic stem cells, not shared with adult stem cells, make them especially attractive cells for cell transplantation-based therapies: i) rapid cell division and ii) versatility. Rapid cell division is critical if we want to use any stem cells for transplantation therapy, as we must quickly expand a limited number of cells to the large mass required for therapeutic effect. Embryonic stem cells are almost unique in their capacity for rapid growth without loss of developmental function. The versatility of embryonic stem cells is truly remarkable. In the mouse, embryonic stem cells have been unequivocally demonstrated to be pluripotent, capable of generating every cell type present in the adult body. Studies in cell culture indicate that human embryonic stem cells also possess this remarkable pluripotency. 3. Adult stem cells grow slowly. In contrast, adult stem cells divide slowly and normally require a very specialized and undefined cellular environment--called a niche--for their survival and growth. For example, removal of adult intestinal stem cells from their biological niche leads to their automatic, programmed cell death. Blood stem cells, obtained from the bone marrow, are among the few adult stem cells currently in clinical use, but they cannot yet be expanded in culture without losing their developmental function, and hence their limited therapeutic utility. 4. Adult stem cells are very restricted in what cell types they can produce. Whereas embryonic stem cells are extremely versatile in their capacity to generate different cell types, adult stem cells appear to range in versatility from quite restricted--for example, blood stem cells that can generate multiple types of blood cells, but nothing else--to completely restricted, for example, muscle stem cells that generate only muscle cells. 5. Many important organs do not have adult stem cells. Many tissues such as liver, pancreas, and blood vessels do not appear to have a corresponding adult stem cell population. Therapies of diseases involving these tissues would therefore not be readily approachable by adult stem cell-based therapy, but could be approached using embryonic stem cell-based therapies. 6. The usefulness of existing embryonic stem cell lines is extremely limited. The approved set of human embryonic stem cell lines, authorized nearly 6 years ago for federally funded research, is woefully inadequate. Some of them apparently do not exist at all, others are embroiled in extensive proprietary agreements and all of them though suitable for some research purposes, will never be suitable, due to problems with contamination, for therapeutic purposes. More importantly, ongoing research--funded by private foundations and industry, or performed abroad--has brought about improvements in how laboratories isolate and grow embryonic stem cells. Mouse embryonic stem cells were first characterized over 25 years ago, yet the cell lines that researchers use today are far superior to the ones available 5 or 10 years ago. With the hope of further improvements, we continue to isolate new mouse embryonic stem cell lines. So long as the Federal funding ban remains in place, the majority of American researchers cannot make similar progress with human embryonic stem cells, nor exploit the advances made by others. With the limits currently in place, American human embryonic stem cell researchers are in the unfortunate and unique position of being frozen in time, trapped by the technical limitations of mid-2001, while other disciplines continue to advance. This makes no sense from a medical or scientific perspective. Although today's debate focuses on the use of spare embryos to develop embryonic stem cell lines, the next two points that Dr. Capecchi makes center on a different method of producing embryonic stem cell lines. For the last three Congresses, Senator Feinstein and I have introduced legislation that addresses this form of embryonic stem cell research. Although this issue is not squarely before us today, I hope that the majority leader will allow us to take up this important matter sometime this Congress. 7. Somatic cell nuclear transfer as a research tool. A limitation of IVF embryo-derived stem cells is their potential of rejection by the patient because of immunological incompatibility. A potential solution is the generation of ``customized'' embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, which has been demonstrated in proof of concept experiments in mice. While, at present, nuclear transfer using human eggs to generate customized embryonic stem cells for therapy would be too complex and too controversial to be applicable for routine transplantation medicine, it represents an important tool for investigating the mechanism of converting a somatic cell such as skin cell into an embryonic stem cell. We need to learn the ``reprogramming rules'' the egg uses to convert the adult nucleus into an embryonic state following nuclear transplantation. One goal of research in this field is to convert a somatic cell to a pluripotent embryonic stem-cell-like state in culture without SCNT. We need to use eggs temporarily to learn how to reprogram the adult nucleus without the need for human eggs. Progress toward this goal can only be assured if Federal funding would be able to support research in this field in the best academic institutions of our country. 8. Embryonic stem cells to study human disease. Because SCNT allows production of patient-specific embryonic stem cells, this approach would allow establishing research tools for the investigation of complex human diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, or diabetes in cell culture. An embryonic stem cell line derived from such patients would carry in its genome all genetic alterations that caused the disease. Thus, differentiating these patient-specific embryonic stem cells in culture to a cell type that is defective in the patients may provide crucial insights into the pathology of the disease and may provide a critical platform to identify drugs that help prevent, ameliorate, or cure the disease. 9. Lack of government commitment means lack of future researchers. The brightest young researchers in our country are currently not engaging in human embryonic stem research because they are aware of its uncertain future, the low level of commitment by our government to its support and of the cumbersome restrictions faced by scientists participating in this research. We are losing the scientists that will carry this critical research into the future. 10. Health and economic implications. The health and economic implications of human stem cell research are enormous and other countries have recognized this potential. They are heavily investing in embryonic stem cell research. Our country is in grave danger of falling behind in one of the most promising fields of biomedical research. Dr. Capecchi gives very compelling reasons for funding embryonic stem cell research. I believe that all ethically responsible avenues of stem cell research should be pursued and that is the Congress's obligation to the American public to see that they all are pursued. But let me caution that no one should imagine that one bill is a substitute for the other. S. 30, introduced by Senator Norm Coleman, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on pluripotent stem cells that do not damage a human embryo. It also specifies work on naturally dead embryos. But, the concept of alive-but-naturally-dead embryos is based upon limited research that has not yet been duplicated widely. It is promising research, but it is no more than that at this stage. In fact, some scientists are worried that these arrested embryos are defective and would, therefore, produce defective stem cells. And it is by no means certain that an arrested embryo can be differentiated from one that could develop further. In short, this idea may not pan out. Recently, there was another flurry of activity around the possibility that certain cells in amniotic fluid behave similarly to stem cells. But even Dr. Anthony Atala who characterized these cells has said that it is a mistake to assume that they are a substitute for embryonic stem cells. The vote that counts in the minds of our best and brightest scientists--and should count for my colleagues in the Senate and the American public--is your vote for S. 5, the Specter-Harkin bill that has already passed the House by a broad bipartisan vote. Our leading scientists, including more than 40 Nobel Laureates, tell us at this time there is no known scientific substitute for embryonic stem cells. Yet I understand that the vote I ask you to cast is ethically troubling for some of my colleagues. I have a long, proud and strong record as a right-to-life Senator. I stand against abortion on demand, and I think that Roe v. Wade should never have been decided the way it was. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I worked toward a constitutional amendment banning abortion. In the 108th Congress, I was at the President's side when he signed the bill banning the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. I was chairman of the House-Senate conference committee that finalized the bill. So why does a pro-life Senator support embryonic stem cell research? Because I do not consider a frozen embryo to be a human life until it is implanted in a woman's uterus. S. 5 allocates Federal research funding to embryonic stem cells derived from frozen embryos that are to be discarded. In fact, thousands of such embryos are routinely discarded each year. I should explain why frozen embryos exist and why they are discarded. As part of the fertility treatment process, multiple embryos are created and only one or a few of those that are created are ultimately used. The rest can be stored for years in liquid nitrogen. About 11,000 embryos per year are discarded by their donors and could be used for research. I see ethics as being on the side of creating human life through fertility treatments. I see it as trying to cure human misery through ethical stem cell research as is provided through S. 5. When I first took this position in 2001, it was over the objection of some of my constituents in Utah. Utah is a very conservative State. Since that time, however, the majority of Utahns and the majority of Americans have come to support the use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research conducted under ethical guidelines. This year, as in past years, I have had a steady stream of Utahns with chronic diseases visiting my office urging me to continue to push for stem cell research. One young man who has been afflicted with diabetes since youth now has a son with the disease. He urged me to continue with this fight so that maybe his son might be spared the ravages of the disease. A woman disabled with multiple sclerosis earnestly told me to persist. A constituent with Parkinson's disease told me to do whatever it takes. They all want hope. NIH support is the bedrock of scientific research in the United States and really around the world. And without NIH support, embryonic stem cell research will never reach its full potential. While constrained by his position in the administration about what he can and cannot say about the legislation before the Senate, in testimony before the Congress, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni recently made it abundantly clear that--based on consideration of science alone--embryonic stem cell research presents great opportunities for scientific advancement. And Dr. Zerhouni is not alone. As I emphasized, one reason is that the limited and continually shrinking number of federally sanctioned contaminated cell lines are so tired that they no longer adequately represent the genetic code of the larger human family. A second is that the logistics of investigation are burdensome and impractical because of the need to separate funding sources for research with the limited, deficient federally sanctioned stem cell lines and the newer cell lines lawfully developed within Federal support. A third reason is that scientists cannot now use Federal funds for research on any embryonic stem cell line that they could implant in humans--these federally sanctioned lines are contaminated with animal cells. A fourth reason is the need to be able to bring the fruits of basic research to the patient. It is one thing to find several hundred thousand dollars of private money to complete an early stage research project on stem cell lines in the laboratory. However, when it comes time for clinical testing, the costs of research are in the millions of dollars, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars per experiment. Typically, this kind of private money is not available unless it is from industry. Clinical research with stem cells will hit the wall without NIH funding when that time comes. The private sector will not want to invest millions of dollars into stem cell lines that we already know will never yield ethical human treatments. Nor should Congress and the public allow the status quo to continue. If we unlock the shackles on our scientists, I believe we can materially shorten the time between basic and applied research--the time between the test tube and the patient's bedside. Let me give you just a few examples of what has been accomplished since the Senate last debated this issue. In last October's Nature, biotechnology investigators reported that they could convert human embryonic stem cells into cells capable of synthesizing insulin, the missing hormone in diabetics. This work was conducted on privately funded stem cell lines. At the University of California, Los Angeles researchers demonstrated that they could coax embryonic stem cells into becoming T-cells of the immune system, the missing cell line in AIDS patients. And in my own State of Utah, Dr. Raymond D. Lund, a professor of the Moran Eye Center at the University of Utah, reported that human embryonic stem cells injected into the eyes of blind rats improved their vision. This important work was conducted with private funding. An Israeli team partially funded by the Israel Science Foundation reported engineering a small piece of heart tissue derived from human embryonic stem cells that contracted rhythmically, carrying promise for future cardiac replacement therapies. Last month, Dr. Dachun Wang and Dr. Rick A. Wetsel at the University of Texas reported a procedure that differentiates human embryonic stem cells into the lung cells that are missing from many lung diseases. The work was funded with a grant from a private donor. Finally, in a recent Nature Medicine Journal, human embryonic stem cells delayed the onset of the mouse equivalent of a degenerative brain disease by 70 percent. The approach described in the article holds exciting potential for treating dreadful diseases such as ALS and Alzheimer's disease. As you can see, there is a lot of promising work being done in the field of embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, due to the limitations and restrictions placed on the few cell lines eligible for Federal research assistance, much of most promising work is being done outside the normal channel of the NIH research network. Yet with all this progress, is science progressing as fast as it should? I recently asked this question of an eminent neuroscientist who directs the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, Dr. Story Landis. At the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's hearing entitled ``Can Congress Help Fulfill the Promise of Stem Cell Research,'' committee members heard from scientists, from a young patient who suffered from diabetes, and from Dr. Landis. I asked Dr. Landis if NIH funds were made available for research on all ethically obtained embryos from in vitro fertilization, would the probability of finding cures for human diseases increase? Her response was as follows: Absolutely it would increase. There is no question about it. We would have a real opportunity. I can give you one specific example. Huntington's disease is an inherited disease. It caused a particular kind of nerve cell in the brain to die . . . If we had embryonic stem cells derived from discarded embryos that were not implanted, we would be able to make extraordinary inroads into therapeutics for that disease. Much is weighing in the balance on today's vote. I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the positions they take today. In the interests of all those who suffer from debilitating diseases and hope for deliverance, I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 5. Let me close by making a point I made to President Bush back in 2001. In the opening days of your term in office, scientists have completed the task of sequencing the human genome. While this accomplishment--the work of many in the public and private sectors--is of historical significance, it is only the end of the beginning in a new era of our understanding of the biological sciences. Over your next eight years in office, you have an unprecedented opportunity to provide the personal leadership required to see to it that your Administration will be remembered by future historians as the beginning of the end for such deadly and debilitating diseases as cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes. That is what S. 5 is all about--providing a potential new avenue of research that may lead to treatments and cures for many diseases that afflict many families across our Nation and the world. Mr. President, while I have no objections to S. 30, let us not delude ourselves into thinking it is the best solution to this. Again, while I will be voting for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly preferable to S. 30. S. 5 permits Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, S. 30 does not. S. 5 is the bill that will clearly make a significant difference in the future of medical research. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 5.