Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as far as I know, other than the few remarks I will make right now, I think Senator Frist is the only speaker remaining on our sex offender bill. I would feel bad if I did not mention a number of the staff people who have helped us on this bill. My own staffer, Ken Valentine, who is a Secret Service agent, has been serving as a detailee in my office and has really carried the mail on this like few members of the Senate staff I have ever known. Tom Jipping, on my staff; Dave Turk, on Senator Biden's staff, had a great deal to do with this, as well. Bradley Schreiber, with Mr. Foley's staff; Mike O'Neill, of Senator Specter's staff; Mike Miners, Senator Specter's chief counsel, crime counsel; Todd Braunstein, with Senator Specter; Matt McPhillips, with Senator Specter; Julie Katzman, with Senator Leahy; Bruce Cohen, Senator Leahy's chief of staff on the Judiciary Committee; Noah Bookbinder, with Senator Leahy; Christine Leonard, with Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has played a significant role here. He was willing to withdraw the hate crimes bill so that this bill would pass readily through both bodies. I am very grateful to him. Reed O'Connor of Senator Cornyn's staff; Nicole Gustafson of Senator Grassley's staff; Sharon Beth Kristal, Senator DeWine's staff; Gabriel Adler, of Senator Dorgan's staff; Joe Matal, from Senator Kyl's staff; Avery Mann, from America's Most Wanted, who played a significant role here; Bradley Hayes, from Senator Sessions' staff; Lara Flint, from Senator Feingold's staff; Cindy Hayden, from Senator Sessions' staff; Allen Hicks, of course, from Senator Frist's staff; and Brandi White, from Senator Frist's staff. Of course, I would like to mention Michelle Laxalt, who took a great personal interest in this bill and from the outside helped us a great deal. We want to thank the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, especially Ernie Allen, John Libonati, Robbie Callaway, and Carolyn Atwell-Davis, who has carried so many balls for us here, and Manus Cooney, who used to be chief of staff under me on the Judiciary Committee. And then I would like to pay respect to just some of the victims who really helped with this bill: Elizabeth and Ed and Lois Smart; Linda Walker, the mother of Dru Sjodin; Mark Lunsford; Erin Runnion; Marc Klass; Polly Franks, Patty Wetterling; and last but not least--really, really, we can never thank them enough, John and Reve Walsh. So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to do something very important for a precious national resource: our children. We must seize this opportunity and approve H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. As the father of six and the grandfather of 22, and about to be 23, my heart reaches out to parents whose children become the victims of sexual predators. I cannot imagine what a nightmare that must be. And as a legislator, I want to assure those parents that we are doing all we can to make certain this never happens again. I am very confident that due to passing this legislation, there will be fewer sex offender victims in America, and fewer sex offenders roaming free. This bill has enjoyed vast bipartisan support. When Senator Biden and I first introduced the legislation in the Senate, in the form of S. 1086 the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act--42 Senators quickly signed on as cosponsors. In particular, I thank for their support my colleague from Utah, Bob Bennett, and Senator Grassley. I also thank Representative Mark Foley who introduced a companion bill in the House and Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, who moved this through the House Judiciary Committee. Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker Hastert are to be applauded for coming together to make sure this bill passed. I thank them all. Technology of the 21st century, such as DNA testing, has empowered law enforcement to identify, prosecute, and punish sex offenders--the most despicable of criminals--as never before. But advanced technology has also empowered sexual predators in way that outrages and disgusts me. Some have compared the Internet to an ``open game preserve'' where sex offenders can prey on vulnerable children, meeting them in chat rooms and luring them into horrible situations. Pedophiles use the web to hunt our children; now we will start using the web to hunt down sexual predators when this bill passes. Today, there are more than 500,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Unfortunately, many of them receive limited sentences and roam invisibly through our communities. With too many, we don't know where they are until it is too late. We have tried tracking sex offenders through Web sites before, but these sites are virtually useless because the information is frequently wrong and outdated. Most offenders register once a year, by mail. Moreover, state Web sites do not correspond with each other, and sex offenders are under penalty of only a misdemeanor if they lie or just decide not to participate. There are 150,000 out there that we do not know where they are. This bill will enhance the web technology available for tracking convicted sex offenders and replace outdated, inaccurate Web sites with meaningful tools to protect children. It will be a searchable national Web site that interacts with state sites. Citizens in every state will be able to inform themselves about predators in their communities with accurate information. Under this legislation, offenders will be required to report regularly to the authorities in person, and let them know when they move or change jobs. And if they don't want to follow the rules, they will go to jail, because failure to provide truthful information will become a felony. Those who break such a sacred trust and harm our children, no matter who they are, where they are from, or where they commit their crime, will have obligations under this law to make their whereabouts known voluntarily or subject themselves to additional prison time. The bill also provides money to put tracking devices on high-risk sex offenders who are released from jail. If we convict these monsters, we can't lose track of them. These are all common-sense solutions to a dark and horrible problem in our society. We have all heard with horror the tales of sexual predators. One of those tales that has captured national headlines comes from my home state of Utah. Elizabeth Smart, then a 14-year-old girl, was kidnapped from her home in 2002. Miraculously, she was rescued nine months later. Since then, she and her father, Ed Smart, have vigorously labored on behalf of sex-crime victims and laws to help them, including this law. Ed and Elizabeth have joined me in the Senate today. I thank them publicly, both for standing up and for fighting back. It means so much to all of us. I have come to know and love them both, and I am grateful for the devotion they have shown for the children of this country. This bill will call for the creation of a new office within the Department of Justice--called the SMART Office--the Director of which will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. SMART is an acronym which represents the reaffirmed efforts of the Justice Department to, Sentence--Monitor--Apprehend--Register--and Track, sex offenders. It is also named after Elizabeth Smart. I thank the Department of Justice for their commitment to the issues of sex offenders, child pornography and the creation of the SMART Office--and I want to, again, thank the Smart family for their active participation in this debate and for helping to move this bill forward. This legislation is truly ``smart'' legislation. Also included in this legislation are child protection provisions first introduced in the House by Representative Mike Pence, and which I introduced here in the Senate. This legislation will help prevent children from participating in the production of sexually explicit material. It strengthens current law by requiring producers of sexually explicit material to keep records regarding the identity and age of performers. I thank the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, who was this bill's original cosponsor, and the 29 other Senators, on both sides of the aisle, who joined as cosponsors of this bill. As my colleagues are aware, Congress previously approved the PROTECT Act of 2003 against the backdrop of Department of Justice regulations applying recordkeeping statutes to both primary and secondary producers. Along with the act's specific reference to the regulatory definition that existed at the time, this signaled Congress's agreement with the Department's view that it already had the authority to regulate secondary producers. A Federal court in Colorado, however, recently enjoined the Department from enforcing the statute against secondary producers, a decision that conflicted with a DC court ruling on this point. Title V of the Adam Walsh Act will eliminate any doubt that the recordkeeping statute applies to both primary and secondary producers. It clearly expresses Congress's agreement with the Department's regulatory approach and gives the Department the tools to enforce the statute. I want to thank the American press corps for the attention it has given to this issue. News outlets have diligently raised the American public's awareness of the grave threat posed by today's sexual predators. And the press have followed the lead of John Walsh, host of ``America's Most Wanted.'' He and his wife, Reve, have waited nearly 25 years for the passage of this bill. Next Thursday, July 27, 2006, marks 25 years since the abduction and murder of their son Adam. And on that 25th anniversary, it is our hope the President will sign into law legislation that will help law enforcement do what John has been doing all along--hunt down predators and criminals. Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, along with Robbie Callaway, John Libonati, and Carolyn Atwell-Davis were also very prominent spokespeople for this legislation, and I want to personally thank them. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is one of the unsung heroes in the efforts to stop the abduction, exploitation, and murder of children. Their staff works long hours, and their commitment to stopping child pornography and sexual assault against kids is hard to match. I am grateful that the Senate will soon act on this bill. In the preamble to our Nation's great Constitution, we the people promise to establish justice, promote the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. There is no defense more sacred, nor welfare more precious, than those of our children. Currently, we track library books in this country better than we do sex offenders. With this measure, however, law enforcement will have the best means possible to protect our Nation's most precious national resource: our children. Now, I appreciate the help of all of my colleagues. I certainly appreciate this time from the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma because I wanted to make this statement, and this was a good time to make it. I am grateful to him for providing the time. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask everybody in the Senate to vote for this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska on the Senate floor. I believe he would like to introduce some people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of stem cell research. I plan to vote in favor of each of the three bills that we will be considering today. I call upon my colleagues to pass all three of these bills. I call upon the President to sign all of them into law. Make no mistake about it. This is an important debate. We will cast important votes today. Even with all the events taking place the world today, including the developments in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, it is my hope--and the hope of many others--that when the history of our time is written, the ultimate outcome of today's debate over stem cell research will have been a major breakthrough in our understanding of, and ability to promote, human health and prevent and treat disease. I admire and respect President Bush tremendously for being the first President to dedicate Federal funds for stem cell research. As many may recall, in August 2001, the President announced that Federal funds would be used for research on 60 stem cell lines that were created from embryos that have already been destroyed. Unfortunately, many of these stem lines became contaminated so the cells could never be used for scientific research. I believe that H.R. 810 must be signed into law in order to make the President's policy work because in my view, the President already made the decision to use the cells. H.R. 810 just changes the guidelines for stem cell research by allowing embryos that would otherwise be discarded to be made available for research. I believe that by using these embryos for medical research, we are, in fact, promoting life. One of the reasons why so many are so interested in this debate is that literally everyone either has, or knows, a loved one who has, one of the diseases or conditions that may one day benefit from stem cell research. One reason why I support stem cell research so strongly is because I have heard from so many of my fellow citizens of Utah and fellow Americans about how important this issue is to them and their families. That is the reason why Nancy Reagan wrote me the following letter about stem cell research: May 1, 2006 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. I want to make it clear that there is broad consensus among leading scientists that among the three bills we will vote upon today--the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 810; the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754; and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006--it is H.R. 810 that can most immediately advance science. The vote on H.R. 810 is the one that really counts. Some in this debate suggest that passage of the Specter-Santorum alternatives bill would obviate the need for H.R. 810. Neither Senator Specter nor I believe that. Nor do the leading scientists in America believe that. Nor should you believe that. To put a point on it, the other two bills, S. 2754 and S. 3504, are most emphatically not a substitute for H.R. 810. These bills complement H.R. 810. In no way can, or do, they replace H.R. 810. I support the alternatives bill, S. 2754, for a lot of the same reasons why I coauthored the cord blood stem cell research bill that President Bush signed into law last year. I believe that all scientifically credible and ethically sound avenues of stem cell research ought to be pursued. I might add that when we passed the cord blood legislation, that form of research had already yielded tangible results for several types of diseases, such as some forms of bone marrow cancer. In sharp contrast, whatever benefits the alternatives bill may yield, experts tell us that they are largely unrealized today and, as often the case with cutting edge science, uncertain in the future. But that is the way science works. Advance in science often progresses in fits and starts. Sometimes, actually most of the time, particular avenues of research are found to be blind alleys and advances do not come. Many seeds of discovery have to be planted for the flower of progress to bloom. Today's votes give us an opportunity to move forward on several fronts. Let us be clear that the centerpiece of today's debate is H.R. 810. This is the bill that will help provide the long overdue expansion of the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally funded biomedical research. This is what our leading scientists have told us they want and need to move the field of stem cell research forward. I have worked with leading scientists throughout my 30-year career in the Senate. Few, if any, issues have created the genuine sense of excitement among the scientific community as have the current opportunities in stem cell research. Listen to what Dr. Harold Varmus has said about the promise of stem cell research. Dr. Varmus is a Nobel Laureate. He is the former Director of the National Institutes of Health. He currently runs the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. By all accounts, he is one of the leading scientists in the world. I met with Dr. Varmus on several occasions to learn what scientists think about stem cell research. Here is Dr. Varmus' assessment: (t)he development of a cell that may produce almost every tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific breakthrough. It is not too unrealistic to say that this practice has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine. More than 40 other Nobel prize-winners and as well most of our Nation's leading scientists, disease advocacy organizations, and many other interested citizens and organizations share this view. For example, here is what Dr. Edward Clark of the University of Utah Department of Pediatrics has told me about stem cell research: . . . I can assure you that the scientific progress of stem cell research is extraordinary. . . . In pediatrics, stem cell research offers therapy, and indeed possibly a cure, for a wide variety of childhood diseases, including neurologic disease, spinal cord injuries, and heart disease . . . I can think of nothing that will provide as much meaningful therapy for children and children's problems than the promise offered by stem cell research. It is not hard to understand why the additional stem cell lines that can and will be used by federally funded scientists if H.R. 810 becomes law is so exciting for scientists and important for the American public. The stakes of today's debate are high. As a report of the influential National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine has stated: (S)tem cell research has the potential to affect the lives of millions of people in the United States and around the world. This Institute of Medicine Report goes on to cite the following high prevalence diseases as likely candidates for stem cell research: Cardiovascular Disease--58 million U.S. patients; Autoimmune Diseases-- 30 million U.S. patients; Diabetes--16 million U.S. patients; Osteoporosis--10 million U.S. patients; Cancer--10 million U.S. patients; Alzheimer's Disease--5.5 million U.S. patients; Parkinson's Disease--1.5 million U.S. patients. What family in America does not include someone afflicted with a disease on this list? And a complete list includes many other diseases and conditions such as spinal cord injuries, burns, and many birth defects. Experts believe that upward of 100 million Americans--and hundreds of millions of others around the world--may one day benefit from stem cell research. For example, let us consider spinal cord injuries. Who does not know, or know of, someone whose life has been devastated by a spinal cord injury? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I received just last month from Michael Armstrong, Chairman of the Board of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this letter describes groundbreaking research conducted by a Johns Hopkins scientist, Dr. Douglas Kerr, on how mouse embryonic stem cells have been able to regenerate damaged nerve tissue in paralyzed rats. According to the letter from Johns Hopkins University, one of the world's most respected biomedical research institutions in the world, Dr. Kerr's ``breakthrough represents the first time that scientists have actually re-grown damaged components of a nervous system, and it could lead to human therapies that seemed previously to be beyond our reach. Treatments not only for paralysis, but for ALS, multiple sclerosis, and similar diseases of the brain now seem possible.'' The current Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, has said that this research is ``a remarkable advance that can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great promise.'' However, unless H.R. 810 becomes law and the number of stem cells lines eligible for Federal funding is expanded, this promising research could die on the vine. As Mr. Armstrong explains in his letter: The level of funding that will that will ultimately be required to advance this field of science to human clinical trials, however, suggests that federal funding will be necessary. Yet, under current federal policy, the only stem cell lines eligible for federal funding were created using mouse feeder cells and could never be used in clinical trials with humans. It is therefore crucial that current stem cell policy be revised. The precise type of revision that the scientists at Johns Hopkins tell us is needed is precisely the change in Federal policy that H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette bill, will bring about. And the scientists at Johns Hopkins are hardly alone. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Dr. Darrel Kirch, President of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this organization represents our Nation's 125 accredited medical schools, 400 teaching hospitals, and more than 105,000 medical school faculty in 94 academic and scientific societies. This letter, sent to all Senators last Tuesday, call for us to support H.R. 810. The AAMC letter states: The therapeutic potential of pluripotent stem cells is remarkable and could well prove to be one of the important paradigm-shifting advances in the history of medical science. Support for H.R. 810 is not confined solely to academicians. Last year, when the House took up and passed H.R. 810 on a bipartisan basis, over 200 organizations gave their wholehearted support for this legislation. This includes many leading patient advocacy organizations such as the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the American Association for Cancer Research, and the Alliance for Aging Research, to name a few. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of organizations that support the passage of H.R. 810.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, support for the passage of H.R. 810 is not limited to the not-for-profit sector. While it is sometimes typical for the private sector to keep out of some controversial issues, this is not the case with stem cell research. Last week, I received a letter of support for H.R. 810 from the Biotechnology Industry Organization. BIO represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, state biotechnology centers, and academic institutions. The BIO letter notes: Expanded support of embryonic stem cell research could also go a long way toward reducing the time and expense needed to develop drugs because new chemical or biological compounds meant to treat diseases could be tested in specific human cells prior to their use in live human beings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the July 12, 2006, letter from BIO calling for passage of H.R. 810.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, some aspects of this issue involve complicated scientific facts and complex moral questions. Elected officials and the American public alike have had much to learn and consider since this issue first arose on the scene in 1998. The more the American public thinks about this issue, the more it coalesces around the policy embraced by H.R. 810 which will significantly improve and expand taxpayer supported stem cell research. Public opinion polls show that U.S. citizens are squarely behind stem cell research and H.R. 810. For example, a poll commissioned by the Coalition for the Advancement of Stem Cell Research and taken in May of this year found that 72 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research and 70 percent favor the Senate adopting H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This finding of broad public support is consistent with other previously conducted polls. For example, a Harris poll taken in August 2004 found that 73 percent of Americans think stem cell research should be allowed and a June 2004 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll placed public support for this research at 71 percent. Some may try to quibble about how particular poll questions were phrased in particular surveys, but few would question the fact that for some time most Americans have wanted the type of research that H.R. 810 will help enable to go forward. I can tell you this. The poll results I have just cited are consistent with what I hear from my neighbors and constituents in Utah. I come from a conservative State. But whenever the issue of stem cell research comes up at one of my meetings in Salt Lake City or other places in my State, somebody will come up to me to tell me their personal story with the diseases of a loved one and tell me that I am doing the right thing on stem cell research. One of the reasons why I got involved with the issue of stem cell research in the first place was because of a little boy named Cody Anderson, whose family used to live in West Jordan, UT. Cody and his family came to visit me in Washington in 2001 to tell me their tragic family struggle with diabetes. Cody's grandfather succumbed to diabetes at age 47 after a series of painful amputation operations. Cody, his grandfather's namesake, never got the chance to meet or know his grandfather because of diabetes. Let me read you part of a letter that Cody and his family wrote me: I don't want other small children like me to have to go through the things that I have already had to go through. I do not want to suffer the effects that my grandfather did throughout his life because of this disease. I want to grow old and not have to worry about all the bad things that could happen to me because of diabetes. We have seen what diabetes can do to an innocent life. Please don't let this happen to me in my life now. I hope you will take it in your hearts to listen to us, the people who live with this disease for every minute of every day for now and the rest of our lives. In a few hours we can pass a bill that can only help Cody and thousands of others suffering from diabetes and millions of others who suffer from other diseases and conditions that may benefit from stem cell research. How do you think young Cody's parents felt when they learned of their son having the same diagnosis as his grandfather? How would you feel if you were told that your child would lead a life revolving around multiple daily blood tests, insulin injections, and a tightly regulated diet and constricted activity schedule that no child would relish? The answer of any parent is that you would want your government to leave no stone unturned in finding a cure for that disease. And you would want the cure found as soon as possible. Let me say a few sobering words about the immediacy of the promise of stem cell research. Cures are not around the corner. While stem cell research may prove in time to be a revolutionary advance in science such progress does not come quickly or on the cheap. If we start a vigorous program of federally funded stem cell research program progress will not likely be measured in hours and days. It will take years, perhaps 10 or 20 years, before American patients are administered a new class of products and treatments derived from stem cell research. In this regard I am reminded of an instance in which, when advised that a certain type of rare plant took years and years to bloom if placed in a certain hostile environment, a great French General simply said, ``Then we must not delay, we must plant today.'' We have to proceed with stem cell research with a passion and urgency today precisely because we do not know how long it will take to find tomorrow's cure. But we do know that the sooner we start, the faster we will get there. Nor will this research be inexpensive. No doubt one reason why the biotechnology industry is supporting H.R. 810 is because since the end of World War II basic biomedical research in this country has primarily been funded by taxpayers through the programs conducted or supported by the National Institutes of Health. Today, about 80 percent of the $28 billion NIH budget is invested in highly-competitive, peer-reviewed research that is undertaken by universities and research hospitals. There has been a continuum of effort between the public sector basic research and private sector applied research that attempts to translate the new basic knowledge gleamed from federally supported NIH research into tangible FDA-approved products or other treatments before they can reach even the first patient's bedside. Americans should take pride in the fact that virtually every major advance in the biological sciences in the last 50 years emanated in some way from our investment in the NIH. In my view, it would be in tragic and nearly incalculable mistake for our country to continue our present policy that materially constricts the cadre of investigators leading over 46,000 ongoing university based, NIH research grants from pushing the envelope of stem cell research. To cede our leadership in such a promising field of endeavor of biomedical research as stem cell research can only be shortsighted in the long run. For example, the University of Utah is the proud home of one of the world's foremost mouse stem cell researchers. His name is Dr. Mario Capecchi and he has already won one of the most prestigious awards in American science, the Lasker Award. A great deal of the support for Dr. Capecchi and other researchers at the University of Utah and other research universities across the country come from NIH grants and contracts. I want Dr. Capecchi to stay in Utah. I want the world's leading scientists to stay in the United States. It is critical to relax the current straitjacket on testing new stem cell lines if we are to keep the best stem cell researchers in this country. Some might say good riddance to this research and to stem cell researchers. Look what happened in South Korea when a group of stem cell researchers conducted unethical experiments, faked the results and lied to the public. I say that if the NIH is involved in this research and it is conducted in America, federally supported researchers will have to live within longstanding NIH ethical guidelines and principles as well as special rules that will apply only to stem cell research. In this way, as we have done so many times in the past with breakthrough research such as with recombinant DNA technology and organ transplants, the United States can help set a moral and ethical climate that our neighbors in the world community will emulate and follow. I hope we never reach the day when the best biomedical researchers trained in America must go elsewhere to conduct the most cutting-edge basic biomedical research. Once that happens, we could face the day when sick Americans must actually leave our country to get the latest in treatments. I sure would not want to see a day when a citizen of Salt Lake City has to go to South Korea or any place else to get the best medical treatment possible. Today, for all of its warts, the U.S.A. is widely recognized as the world's leader in developing and disseminating the latest in medical breakthroughs. Passage of H.R. 810 will help us keep it that way. The purpose of H.R. 810 is to expand the opportunities for the type of federally funded basic biomedical research that has proven so beneficial to the American public time and time again in the past. Having described how many experts and interested parties believe that the promise of stem cell research is so great, I want to spend the next few minutes describing why some are opposed to this research and why I think their opposition is misplaced. In order to do this, I feel compelled to spend a few minutes to define and discuss some technical scientific terms. I know that others have used many or all of these terms during the course of the debate but please bear with me if I am repeating some one or get too technical. Perhaps the best place to start a discussion of stem cell research is with a broader term that many scientific experts believe more accurately describes the field and what is at stake. The term is regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine seeks to uncover knowledge about how healthy cells contained in tissues and organs are formed and how they are lost through normal wear and tear or impaired more extensively through injury or degenerative disease. The growing field of regenerative medicine is increasing our understanding of embryonic development, birth defects, organ transplantation, and the developmental biology of both healthy and diseased tissues. A key avenue of research of regenerative medicine involves stem cells. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has the unique capacity to renew itself and give rise to specialized cell types. These stem cells are called pluripotent because of this ability to develop into different kinds of specialized cells, perhaps into all or most of the 200 known types of tissues that comprise the human body. Stem cells have the ability to divide and replicate for long periods of time in a laboratory colonies called cell lines. The flexibility of these pluripotent stem cells is distinct from most cells in the body, because most cells are typically dedicated to performing a specific task such as heart muscle cells and specialized nerve cells. Scientists, like Dr. Kerr, the Johns Hopkins nerve cell researcher whom I talked about earlier, hope to be able to use stem cells to study how healthy and diseased cells work and, one day use this knowledge and use stem cell lines to treat or repair diseased tissues or organs. If this research is successful, many currently untreatable diseases and conditions may go the way of small pox and polio. There are several different sources of stem cells. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are found in specialized adult tissues. These cells can renew themselves and, with certain limitations, can differentiate to yield all the specialized cells types of the tissue in which they are found, and perhaps others as well. Adult stem cells have been found in many tissues including bone marrow, blood, the brain, skeletal muscle, dental pulp, liver, skin, eye, and the pancreas. There is no serious opposition to adult stem cell research. I fully support this research. There is, however, much debate over the potential limitations of adult stem cell research. For example, the seminal 2001 National Academy of Sciences study I mentioned earlier summarized the concerns: (I)t is not clear whether . . . adult stem cells . . . truly have plasticity or whether some tissues contain several types of stem cells that each give rise to only a few derivative types. Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to identify and purify, and when grown in culture, are difficult to maintain in the undifferentiated state. It is because of those limitations that even stem cells from bone marrow, the type most studied, are not available in sufficient numbers to support many potential applications of regenerative medicine. Although some opponents of H.R. 810 have taken exception to this characterization of the limitations of adult stem cells, it is my understanding that most experts in the field believe that embryonic stem cells offer advantages over adult stem cells because of the reasons I have just reported from the NAS study. Moreover, some proponents of adult stem cell research claim that many diseases have been effectively treated with adult stem cells. Unfortunately, the weight of evidence does not support many of these claims. Nor do most of the leading experts in the field agree with the notion that adult stem cell research exceeds the promise of embryonic stem cell research despite the fact that adult stem cell research has at least a 40-year head start on embryonic stem cell research and has enjoyed a sustained funding commitment from the NIH. The current issue of Science magazine contains a detailed letter written by three scientists, Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven Teitelbaum challenging claims made by a leading advocate of adult stem cell research, Dr. David Prentice. I understand that most experts come down on the Smith-Neaves-Teitlebaum side of the debate concerning the scientific limitations and opportunities of embryonic stem cells relative to adult stem cells. Additional sources of stem cells are those acquired from placental and umbilical cord blood. Last fall the Congress passed and President Bush signed into law legislation that I co-authored to expand the use of the valuable and proven source of stem cell therapy. Due to the work of pioneers like Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg from Duke University and Dr. Pablo Rubinstein of the New York Blood Center, cord blood has become an important mode of treatment for diseases like bone marrow disorders and has proven to be particularly useful in the African-American community where it is often difficult to find suitable bone marrow matches. Yet another source of stem cells is those derived from human embryos. Public debate and discussion have centered on two types of embryonic stem cells. First, stem cells may be derived from embryos created for, but no longer needed in, the in vitro fertilization process. Second, stem cells can potentially be derived from so-called cloned embryos through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Today's debate centers on the first source of embryonic stem cells-- excess embryos formed in fertility clinics slated for destruction. Under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement--and it is an agreement I fully support and commend Senators Frist and Reid for negotiating--the bills we debate today do not involve cloned embryos formed by somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is the process whereby the nucleus of an egg and its complement of 23 chromosomes is removed and replaced with the nucleus of one of the standard 46-chromosome containing somatic cells that constitute the 200-plus tissues of the human body. Senator Feinstein and others have developed legislation that would ban and criminalize the act of using the somatic cell nuclear transfer process to give birth to a cloned human being. In addition, our bill, the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act, S. 876, would set forth a tightly defined set of ethical restrictions and NIH oversight for anyone in the private sector that undertakes somatic cell nuclear transfer in order to produce new stem cell lines. Others, led by Senator Brownback, have offered legislation that would effectively ban somatic cell nuclear transfer altogether, even purely for research purposes and even with tight ethical controls that will govern wholly private sector funded experiments. One day we will have that debate. We will not have it today under the rules of this debate. As I will describe, those opposed to deriving additional stem cell lines through the somatic stem cell process also oppose using spare embryos as a source of additional stem cell lines and do so for the same basic argument. The great topic of today's debate is whether it is ethical and proper for taxpayer funded scientists to use stem cells derived from embryos no longer needed in fertility treatment. The process of in vitro fertilization consists of fertilizing a woman's egg in a laboratory and then placing the fertilized egg in a woman's womb so that gestation and childbirth can occur. This is what is done when couples have fertility problems. Although IVF procedures were very controversial when they were first developed and used back in 1983, over 200,000 Americans have been born through this technique that is widely accepted today. Many had grave reservations about the IVF process when it was developed. Some of the fiercest opponents of IVF back then are also the most ardent opponents of S. 810. While I respect their views--and these are sincere and earnest individuals--I think they were wrong then and wrong now. As part of the fertility treatment process, it is inevitable that there will be some test tube embryos that will not be needed and will never be implanted in a mother's womb. And let me be clear here, I believe that the highest and best use of a human embryo is to be used by loving parents to add to their family. I wholeheartedly support adoption of spare embryos and would give adoption precedence over use for research. I think most would agree with me on this. But the fact of the matter today is that there may exist at any point in time more than 400,000 such unused embryos in the United States and each year tens of thousands of such spare embryos are routinely and unceremoniously discarded and destroyed. It is important to note that more than 11,000 of these embryos have already been used for research. It is from these embryos that scientists have derived stem cell lines. Here is how it works. During the first few days of embryo development, whether in a mother's womb or in a Petri dish inside a fertility clinic, the fertilized egg--called a zygote--begins to divide and transform into a sphere of cells called a blastocyst. Depending on its stage of development, a blastocyst is comprised of about 30 to 150 cells. It is from the inner layer of the blastocyst that scientists can derive the unspecialized but pluripotent stem cells that hold so much promise. As I said earlier, while there is some debate on this issue, the great bulk of the evidence and consensus view of leading experts is that, at this point in time, research on the embryonic stem cells holds at least as much, and probably a lot more, promise than research on adult stem cells and cord blood. That is because the experts believe that embryonic stem cells appear to be easier to identify and work with and appear to be more flexible than other sources of stem cells. The sole purpose of H.R. 810 is to expand the number of stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding. If H.R. 810 passes and is signed into law, Americans will finally get the vigorous program of federally funded stem cell research complete with a rigorous system of Federal oversight of the ethical protections that the National Institutes of Health will place on this research. The policy dispute that requires the legislative fix set forth in H.R. 810 revolves around the moral status of a spare embryo. Some, including President Bush and some in Congress, have reservations about using stem cells derived from embryos for research purposes. This concern is anchored in the perspective that human life begins at the moment of conception, be it in the womb or in the lab of a fertility clinic. While I respect this view and those who hold it, I do not agree with it. Let me say that I come into this debate as longtime, right-to-life Senator. I oppose abortion on demand. I think that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I have worked to return the power to outlaw abortion from the courts to the states. In 1981, I proudly worked to report an anti-abortion constitutional amendment from the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the 108th Congress, I served as chairman of the House-Senate Conference Committee that finalized long-overdue legislation to outlaw the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. I was at the President's side when he signed this bill into law. When it comes to a right-to-life philosophy, I do not take a back seat to anyone in this Chamber or the House of Representatives. I will put my pro-life track record up against anyone inside or outside of Congress. When I considered the question of the moral status of stem cells created for, but no longer needed in, the in-vitro fertilization process, I did so from a long and fervently held pro-life philosophy. I have discussed this issue with many experts in science and ethics on all sides of this issue. I spoke to many Utahns and other citizens about their views on this matter. I consulted books ranging from medical texts and the Bible. I thought long and hard about this matter. Sometimes, I simply prayed to God for guidance. I take my pro-family, pro-life philosophy very seriously. I believe the worth of each soul is absolute. Accordingly, I reject any purely utilitarian argument that the promise of stem cell research is so great that the ends justify the means. I do not think that research can ever justify the taking of even a single human life, no matter how frail or defenseless that person may be. Let me just say that there is not a fairer or finer man in the U.S. Senate than my friend from Kansas, Senator Sam Brownback. As he has attempted to frame the issue: The central question in this debate is simple: Is the embryo a person or a piece of property? If you believe . . . that life begins at conception and that the human embryo is a person fully deserving of dignity and the protection of our laws, then you have to believe that we must protect this innocent life from harm and protection. After much thought, reflection, and prayer, I concluded that life begins in, and requires, a nurturing womb. Human life does not begin in a Petri dish. I do not question that an embryo is a living cell. But I do not believe that a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic freezer constitutes human life. To my knowledge, as a matter of law, no member of the U.S. Supreme Court has ever taken the position in even a dissenting opinion, let alone a majority opinion, that fetuses, let alone embryos, are constitutionally protected persons. I cannot imagine, for example, that many Americans would view an employee of a fertility clinic whose job it is to destroy unneeded embryos as a criminal--and a murderer at that. Yet this is a task that is performed thousands of times each and every year by hundreds of fertility clinic employees. As well, the logical extension of Senator Brownback's life-begins-at- conception view might be to criminalize the actions of a woman or her doctor from using, or recommending the use of, some longstanding forms of contraception that impede fertilized eggs from attaching onto the uterine wall. I simply do not believe that passing H.R. 810 and allowing federally funded researchers to use new stem cell lines derived from spare embryos from fertility clinics is somehow ethical. It seems to me that you would have to believe that the in vitro fertilization process was unethical to begin with if you believe that it is unethical to use spare embryos that would never be used for fertility purposes and were slated for routine destruction. I find both fertility treatment and embryonic stem cell research to be ethical. I believe that being pro-life involves helping the living. Regenerative medicine is pro-life and pro-family; it enhances, not diminishes human life. My friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, and I share a similar perspective on this important issue. Here is Senator Smith's eloquent response to the concerns raised by our friend, Senator Brownback: . . . when does life begin? Some say it is at conception. Others say it is at birth. For me in my quest to be responsible and to be as right as I know how to be, I turn to what I regard as sources of truth. I find this: ``And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.'' This allegory of creation describes a two-step process to life, one of the flesh, the other of the spirit . . . Cells, stem cells, adult cells, are, I believe, the dust of the earth. They are essential to life, but standing alone will never constitute life. A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. An ancient apostle once said: ``For the body without the spirit is dead.'' I believe that life begins in the mother's womb, not in a scientist's laboratory. Indeed, scientists tell me that nearly one-half of fertilized eggs never attach to a mother's womb, but naturally slough off. Surely, life is not being taken here by God or by anyone else. I find much wisdom in Senator Smith's remarks and ask all of you to reflect upon his thoughtful and valuable perspective. When the roll is called on H.R. 810, I will vote yea. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I applaud President Bush's decision to allow Federal funds to be used in connection with a limited number of stem cell lines that preexisted his August 9, 2001 speech. Frankly, I had hoped back in 2001 that President Bush would announce a more expansive policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I wrote to President Bush on this matter in June, 2001 on the issue of stem cell research as well as an accompanying letter to then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, although at one time it appeared that as many as 78 stem cell lines might qualify under the President's policy, as many had feared, the number of lines that might be practically accessed today is no more than around a dozen at best. Moreover, all of these cell lines were grown with so-called mouse feeder cells so could never pass muster with the FDA for use to make products for humans. Thus for the President's initial goals to be accomplished, new embryonic stem cell lines must be made available. It has been over a year since he House has taken its historic action of passing H.R. 810 by a bipartisan 235-to-189 vote. I commend the leadership of Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette for moving the bill through the House. I must pay special respects to Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin for their dogged determination in conducting a series of some 15 oversight hearings on the issue of stem cell research since this breakthrough science was first reported in 1998. In fact, it was the work of the Specter-Harkin Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that developed the factual basis and legal analysis that resulted in the legislation that became H.R. 810. At long last, today the Senate will finally vote on this important legislation. I hope that it will pass and if it does, I will strenuously urge President to reconsider his position and sign this bill into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we face the close of the 109th Congress in the coming months, I feel it is important that we reauthorize the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. It is my pleasure to introduce this reauthorization bill along with the ranking minority member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom I worked on the original legislation over 10 years ago. Our colleagues on the House side, Representatives Bill Pascrell, Jr., and Todd Russell Platts, have just recently introduced a companion bill with the same goal of reauthorizing the TBI Act this year. Sustaining a traumatic brain injury--or TBI--can be both catastrophic and devastating. The financial and emotional costs to the individual, family, and community are enormous. Traumatic brain injuries contribute to a substantial number of deaths and cases of permanent disability annually. Of the 1.4 million who sustain a TBI each year in the United States: 50,000 die; 235,000 are hospitalized; and 1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department. Brain injuries are the most frequent reasons for visits to physicians and emergency rooms. These statistics are more revealing when one considers that every 16 seconds someone in the U.S. sustains a head injury; every 12 minutes, one of these people will die and another will become permanently disabled. Of those who survive, each year, an estimated 80,000 to 90,000 people experience the onset of long-term disability associated with a TBI. An additional 2,000 will exist in a persistent vegetative state. Even more startling is the fact that brain injury kills more Americans under the age of 34 than all other causes combined and has claimed more lives since the Turn of the Century than all United States wars combined. Sixty-eight percent of war veterans are returning home with sustained brain injuries. The distress of TBI is not limited to diagnosis. A survivor of a severe brain injury typically faces 5 to 10 years of intensive services and estimated lifetime costs can exceed $4 million. Direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost productivity of TBI totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in 2000. The Traumatic Brain Injury Act is the only Federal legislation specifically addressing issues faced by 5.3 million American children and adults who live with a long-term disability as a result of traumatic brain injury. Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act will provide for the continuation of research, not only for the treatment of TBI but also for prevention and awareness programs which will help decrease the occurrence of traumatic brain injury and improve the long-term outcome. In 2006, Congress has an opportunity to strengthen the TBI Act by authorizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to determine the incidence and prevalence of traumatic brain injury in the general population of the United States, including all age groups and persons in institutional settings such as nursing homes, correctional facilities, psychiatric hospitals, child care facilities, and residential institutes for people with developmental disabilities. This legislation authorizes the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to make grants for projects of national significance that improve individual and family access to service systems; assist states in developing service capacity; improve monitoring and evaluation of rehabilitation services and supports; and address emerging needs of servicemen and women, veterans, and individuals and families who have experienced brain injury through service delivery demonstration projects. This bill also authorizes HRSA to include the American Indian Consortium as an eligible recipient of competitive grants awarded to States, Territories, and the District of Columbia to develop comprehensive system of services and supports nationwide. Furthermore, this bill instructs HRSA and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities to coordinate data collection regarding protection and advocacy services. The TBI Act offers balanced and coordinated public policy in brain injury prevention, research, education, and community-based services and supports for individuals living with traumatic brain injury and their families. Mr. President, reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act will further provide mechanisms for the prevention, treatment and the improvement of the quality of life for those Americans and their families who may sustain such a devastating disability. I ask my colleagues' support in promptly reauthorizing the Traumatic Brain Injury Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we face the close of the 109th Congress in the coming months, I feel it is important that we reauthorize the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. It is my pleasure to introduce this reauthorization bill along with the ranking minority member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom I worked on the original legislation over 10 years ago. Our colleagues on the House side, Representatives Bill Pascrell, Jr., and Todd Russell Platts, have just recently introduced a companion bill with the same goal of reauthorizing the TBI Act this year. Sustaining a traumatic brain injury--or TBI--can be both catastrophic and devastating. The financial and emotional costs to the individual, family, and community are enormous. Traumatic brain injuries contribute to a substantial number of deaths and cases of permanent disability annually. Of the 1.4 million who sustain a TBI each year in the United States: 50,000 die; 235,000 are hospitalized; and 1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department. Brain injuries are the most frequent reasons for visits to physicians and emergency rooms. These statistics are more revealing when one considers that every 16 seconds someone in the U.S. sustains a head injury; every 12 minutes, one of these people will die and another will become permanently disabled. Of those who survive, each year, an estimated 80,000 to 90,000 people experience the onset of long-term disability associated with a TBI. An additional 2,000 will exist in a persistent vegetative state. Even more startling is the fact that brain injury kills more Americans under the age of 34 than all other causes combined and has claimed more lives since the Turn of the Century than all United States wars combined. Sixty-eight percent of war veterans are returning home with sustained brain injuries. The distress of TBI is not limited to diagnosis. A survivor of a severe brain injury typically faces 5 to 10 years of intensive services and estimated lifetime costs can exceed $4 million. Direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost productivity of TBI totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in 2000. The Traumatic Brain Injury Act is the only Federal legislation specifically addressing issues faced by 5.3 million American children and adults who live with a long-term disability as a result of traumatic brain injury. Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act will provide for the continuation of research, not only for the treatment of TBI but also for prevention and awareness programs which will help decrease the occurrence of traumatic brain injury and improve the long-term outcome. In 2006, Congress has an opportunity to strengthen the TBI Act by authorizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to determine the incidence and prevalence of traumatic brain injury in the general population of the United States, including all age groups and persons in institutional settings such as nursing homes, correctional facilities, psychiatric hospitals, child care facilities, and residential institutes for people with developmental disabilities. This legislation authorizes the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to make grants for projects of national significance that improve individual and family access to service systems; assist states in developing service capacity; improve monitoring and evaluation of rehabilitation services and supports; and address emerging needs of servicemen and women, veterans, and individuals and families who have experienced brain injury through service delivery demonstration projects. This bill also authorizes HRSA to include the American Indian Consortium as an eligible recipient of competitive grants awarded to States, Territories, and the District of Columbia to develop comprehensive system of services and supports nationwide. Furthermore, this bill instructs HRSA and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities to coordinate data collection regarding protection and advocacy services. The TBI Act offers balanced and coordinated public policy in brain injury prevention, research, education, and community-based services and supports for individuals living with traumatic brain injury and their families. Mr. President, reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act will further provide mechanisms for the prevention, treatment and the improvement of the quality of life for those Americans and their families who may sustain such a devastating disability. I ask my colleagues' support in promptly reauthorizing the Traumatic Brain Injury Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would correct a property trespass question involving a 25-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, land in Garfield County, UT. The parcel is part of the Turn-About Ranch, which hosts a successful and popular program to rehabilitate troubled youth. The trespass conflict is the result of an erroneous survey at the time that Congress approved a major land exchange--Public Law 105-335-- between the State of Utah and the BLM in January 1999. The legislation at hand would grant the owners of the ranch the opportunity to purchase the erroneously surveyed land at fair market value so that this very important program for at-risk youth can continue unimpeded. Since 1995, Turn-About Ranch has graduated some 500 troubled and at- risk teenagers through an intense program of training and rehabilitation. The ranch employs some 35 Garfield County residents, and the Turn-About Ranch program has strong support from the local community and the local civic leaders in the area. Historically used for agriculture and grazing purposes, it was purchased by the Townsend Family and leased to Turn-About Ranch, Inc., for the purpose of restoring dignity and self-esteem to wayward teenagers. Because Government-owned land administered by the BLM surrounds the private land, the only way to resolve the trespass is to ask for the blessing of Congress. Mr. President, this legislation offers a simple and fair solution to a fairly technical problem on our public lands. I hope Congress can use this legislation to resolve this problem in the very near future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would correct a property trespass question involving a 25-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, land in Garfield County, UT. The parcel is part of the Turn-About Ranch, which hosts a successful and popular program to rehabilitate troubled youth. The trespass conflict is the result of an erroneous survey at the time that Congress approved a major land exchange--Public Law 105-335-- between the State of Utah and the BLM in January 1999. The legislation at hand would grant the owners of the ranch the opportunity to purchase the erroneously surveyed land at fair market value so that this very important program for at-risk youth can continue unimpeded. Since 1995, Turn-About Ranch has graduated some 500 troubled and at- risk teenagers through an intense program of training and rehabilitation. The ranch employs some 35 Garfield County residents, and the Turn-About Ranch program has strong support from the local community and the local civic leaders in the area. Historically used for agriculture and grazing purposes, it was purchased by the Townsend Family and leased to Turn-About Ranch, Inc., for the purpose of restoring dignity and self-esteem to wayward teenagers. Because Government-owned land administered by the BLM surrounds the private land, the only way to resolve the trespass is to ask for the blessing of Congress. Mr. President, this legislation offers a simple and fair solution to a fairly technical problem on our public lands. I hope Congress can use this legislation to resolve this problem in the very near future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senator makes some good points, but I don't think we should saddle Oman with what happened in Jordan. Saddling this agreement with that accusation, it seems to me, is not quite fair. Mr. President, whenever I begin my examination and analysis of a proposed free-trade agreement, my first question is always: How will this agreement affect my folks, my people in Utah? Any objective analysis would indicate that the passage of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will have only a de minimis effect on the State of Utah, since Oman only has a gross domestic product of $24.8 billion. The second question I ask is whether an agreement will have a positive effect on the American economy. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the FTA will have a small, but it will be a positive, impact. Specifically, trade between our two nations totaled over $1 billion in 2005, with the U.S. exporting $593 million worth of goods and services to Oman and importing $555 million from that country. This is a trade surplus for us of $38 million, which is a positive development, since our Nation bore a $48 million trade deficit with Oman as recently as 2004. Yet despite this positive trade balance, trade with Oman only accounts for 0.04 percent of all U.S. trade. So what is the advantage for the American people and the people of Utah? The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, as does the Bahrain FTA that preceded it, sends a very important message that the United States strongly supports the economic development of moderate Middle Eastern nations. This is a vital message in the global war on terrorism. As you well know, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has, on a number of occasions, accepted nonreciprocal trade concessions in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War foreign policy objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe nonreciprocal access to American markets during the 1950s and 1960s in order to strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread of communism. At the time, this policy was affordable due to the tremendous size of the trade surpluses the United States enjoyed. However, those times have passed. Our Nation has not enjoyed a trade surplus since 1975, and last year's deficit widened to a record $726 billion, increasing to 5.8 percent of the gross domestic product, from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003. My colleagues may look at these hard truths and question the need for any further trade agreements, including the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. But I must remind my colleagues that we have a trade surplus with Oman and this agreement will permit more American companies to have full access to the Omani market. Further, Oman is quickly running out of oil and, as a result, has launched a series of measures to reform its economy. Those measures will require American products, and this free-trade agreement immediately removes Oman's uniform tariff of 5 percent ad valorem on U.S. goods and phases out other tariffs on U.S. goods. Now, this means that the Omanis will have more money to buy what they are buying from us now: machinery, transportation equipment, and measuring instruments--products that provide good jobs for our fellow Americans. I have also become aware of media reports that state the agreement provides Omani port operators an absolute right to establish or acquire operations to run port facilities within the United States. This, of course, is not accurate. The Oman FTA preserves the right of the United States to determine for itself whether to block a foreign investment in the United States in order to protect our essential security interests, including any potential investment in port authorities and activities. I also should point out this agreement does not affect current U.S. law that authorizes the President to block proposed foreign investment in the United States that threatens U.S. national security. Mr. President, these Middle Eastern nations such as Oman are countries who work with us in the global war on terrorism. They are people who have taken care of our troops. They are people who help us with our military. They are people who are moderate in nature, and, for the most part, do a lot of good things and have a constructive view of the world. Therefore, I think a free-trade agreement with Oman is very important. I also want to thank the vast majority of the people of the United Arab Emirates for the friendship they have shown to our country and, really, to the world at large. Therefore, Mr. President, I will continue to support such agreements as the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this agreement. Let's not give too much credibility to some of these arguments that are being made against this agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the unanimous consent agreement on stem cell research legislation propounded by our majority leader, Senator Frist. Overall, this is a fair proposal and it is certainly a matter that this Senate should be prepared to debate and vote upon as soon as possible. It is over a year since the House of Representatives acted in a bipartisan fashion to adopt legislation, H.R. 810 that would increase the number of stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding if those stem cell lines were derived from embryos no longer needed for in vitro fertilization. This is a good bill that Senators Specter and Harkin have urged on this body since 2001. It is time to debate and vote upon this proposal. The unanimous consent agreement also accommodates the interests of other Senators by including two other bills in this package. I believe I can support these other two measures which are designed to outlaw so-called fetal farming and to encourage alterative means of devising new stem cell lines. While I do not think that the alternative measure can or should be thought of as a replacement for the new cell lines that will be derived if H.R. 810 is passed, I am supportive of this type of research. The stem cell issue is ripe for debate and resolution and I think that this unanimous consent agreement will move us down the road in a constructive fashion. While this unanimous consent agreement does not address the issue of cloning, or somatic cell research as it is known in the language of science, we will have ample time to debate these matters in the future. And as much as Senator Feinstein and I and others would like to debate and vote on our bill to ban reproductive cloning and to erect ethical safeguards to govern therapeutic cloning that advances the science of regenerative medicine, we can agree to have this somewhat different debate on a different day. It is time for the Senate to vote on the Castle-DeGette bill that passed the House last year. Scientists tell us that there is great advantage to expanding the number of stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding. Here is what one Nobel Laureate, Paul Berg of Stanford University, has said about the importance of passing this legislation: Dear Senator Feinstein, The Senate will shortly be considering legislation to permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund research with additional and new and existing human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. As a staunch supporter of biomedical research and particularly research with hESCs, I trust that you will exert your influence to ensure passage of H.R 810. Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on you and like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage. The President must also be persuaded not to veto this legislation for if we continue on the path he set five years ago United States investigators will be out of the running in converting embryonic stem cells into important new therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant funds for research with the hundreds of hESC line generated outside the United States or generated in this country with private funding. Paul Berg When our Nobel Award winning scientists, like Dr. Berg, are telling us how important this research is, we should all pay careful attention. Many among the American public agree that the time has come for the Senate to take up and pass the legislation that the House has already passed over a year ago. Let me just share with you a letter that I received from Nancy Reagan on this important issue. Office of Nancy Reagan, Los Angeles, CA, May 1, 2006. Hon. Orrin Hatch, Washington, DC. 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 Reagan. I think that Mrs. Reagan has it exactly right. We need to debate and vote on this issue and we need to do it now. That is what I understand that the unanimous consent agreement proposed by Senator Frist will accomplish. I am pleased that all of my colleagues have agreed to this unanimous consent agreement. This agreement is acceptable to some of the staunchest opponents of H.R. 810. For example, I do not think that anyone has been as outspoken in their opposition to H.R. 810 than my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback. But I understand that this unanimous consent agreement is acceptable to him. Both Senator Brownback and I--and many others--might have crafted a slightly different unanimous consent agreement--but I think that most would agree that what is being proposed by Senator Frist gives a fair series of votes that could be accomplished in a reasonable amount of floor time in a part of the year when floor time is becoming a precious quantity. Stem cell research presents a great opportunity for scientists to gain knowledge that can help those families in America and around the world in which loved ones suffer from currently incurable diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's to name a few. In order to develop a better understanding of the causes and cures of many diseases tomorrow, we must conduct a vigorous research program today. And let me be clear, cures will not happen overnight or will come easily. We have years of hard work ahead of us. But we have much work to do today to bring about these future advances. In my view, what this unanimous consent agreement does is to move the ball forward. I am pleased that no one appears to be objecting to this agreement so we can give this matter the debate and votes that it deserves. The House has acted on an important bill and, in this case, I believe that the Senate should give the American people a simple, an up-or-down vote on this measure. I think that each of these three bills can gain substantial majorities. I support the unanimous consent agreement. I am prepared to vote and hope my colleagues will support this agreement that will allow us to debate and have votes in a manner that does not allow parliamentary tactics to unduly delay or otherwise obstruct debate on this important legislation. This unanimous consent agreement is a step in the right direction and I look forward to the debate on these three bills which can benefit the American public so much down the road. This is good news for individuals like young Cody Anderson of Utah, who suffers from juvenile diabetes. This is good news for many individuals. I commend the majority leader and my colleagues for tonight's agreement on a way to move forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the nomination of Henry Paulson for Treasury Secretary. I believe we are quite fortunate to have someone of Mr. Paulson's caliber nominated to this vitally important position. Mr. Paulson has quite ably served in Government before in several positions before embarking on his impressive career on Wall Street, which culminated in his becoming CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs. I am hard-pressed to think of many others in this country who might be more qualified for this position than Mr. Paulson. Henry Paulson is joining the Bush administration at a very important time. Our Federal Government is in a precarious position as it stares down the abyss of ever-increasing entitlement obligations that threaten to swallow more and more Government revenue and, along with it, other vitally needed programs. As our Nation's baby boomers enter their retirement years, we will have fewer people working per retiree to support them while the cost of providing them benefits inexorably increases. It is a trend that cannot continue without bankrupting the country. Despite the highly partisan environment in which we find ourselves, it is at precisely this moment in history when our economy is strong and Government revenues are increasing sharply that we need strong leadership both from Congress and the administration. I believe that strong leadership and some bipartisan cooperation we will be able to successfully address these growing problems and come up with a lasting solution. Now is also a propitious time to consider how to address the difficult problems facing our tax system. We need an Internal Revenue Code that is simpler, that promotes savings and economic growth, and that allows American businesses to compete fairly in the global marketplace. The Tax Code should serve the interests of the many, not the few, and one that is worthy of this great Nation. Mr. Paulson is uniquely qualified to address the issues facing our country today. I view the expediency by which we have acted on his nomination as a confirmation both of Mr. Paulson's fitness for the job as well as of the importance of the position of Treasury Secretary. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him as our next Treasury Secretary.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about this amendment this morning because there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about it. There are those who believe this amendment interferes with First Amendment rights and privileges. It does not. The media has largely portrayed this amendment as a ban on flag desecration. It is not. This amendment is, pure and simple, a restoration of the Constitution to what it was before unelected jurists, in a 5 to 4 decision, changed it. In 1989, five justices ruled that flag desecration, including burning the flag or any number of similar offensive acts, is speech. Four of them, led by the opinion of Justice Stevens, one of the most liberal members of the Court, found that such conduct does not constitute speech. Fifty State legislatures, both red States and blue States, have called on us to pass this amendment. There are 60 up-front primary cosponsors of this amendment. There are at least six others who have said that they will vote for it. If that is all true, we are 1 vote short of having 67, with just a few who may still be undecided. We are hopeful that they will understand that this amendment simply says that ``Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away from it when they decided the Johnson case in 1989. That is very important to understand. Today, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, is holding a hearing on Presidential signing statements, which he and some others believe actually take away power from the Congress of the United States. We have heard various Members on both sides of the aisle get up and say that they are tired of the other branches of Government, meaning the executive and judicial branches, taking away powers from the Congress. This amendment would restore power to Congress. That is its importance. The amendment does not ban anything. It does not require the creation of a statute. It does not say what is and what is not desecration of the flag. That would have to be defined later, assuming that the Congress decides, under its own power, through its own Representatives, to try to pass a statute that would define physical desecration of the flag. And if Congress did, at some point in the future, decide to exercise this power, then I believe that the good Members of Congress would very narrowly construe in a statute what is and what is not desecration of the flag. Once again, fifty States, 50 State legislatures, every State in the Union has called for this amendment. Sixty-six Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, support this amendment. We are hopeful that there will be one or two others who will vote with us, and I believe if we get that 67th vote we will have 75. In addition, anyone who tries to say that this proposed amendment interferes with First Amendment rights has not read it, as many in the media have not. This amendment would have no effect on the First Amendment. It merely returns the power to protect the flag back to the Congress of the United States. In his speech yesterday, Senator Durbin, my dear colleague from Illinois, who is the Democratic whip, suggested that this amendment is unnecessary. He based his assertion on the supposition that there are relatively few incidents of flag desecration. So why bother, was basically his argument. Why should we address what appears to be a matter of minor significance? I will tell you why. As I stated, this amendment does not ban anything. But let me assume, as Senator Durbin did, that it does. Just one incident, just one, is enough to justify action. One flag burning is enough, I think, for most people in this country. Principles are not creatures of convenience, despite assertions to the contrary. As my colleagues know, 48 States, plus the District of Columbia, had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong. Do my colleagues know the basis for the ruling? Five lawyers decided that all of these 48 State legislatures, as well as the District of Columbia, were wrong and that their measures were unconstitutional. But I ask, where does the Constitution say these measures are unconstitutional? Where in the text of the Constitution does it say this? The silence is deafening. We all know the Constitution does not say these measures are unconstitutional. Five lawyers came to this conclusion on the basis of a legal seance. Now, I wonder, why did 48 States act in this area if anti-desecration laws are unnecessary? I will tell you why. Incidents of flag desecration are much more frequent than many of my colleagues have suggested. The Citizens' Flag Alliance has been cataloguing reported incidents of flag desecration since 1994. Now, these are the incidents that are made public generally in the media. Their list is by no means comprehensive. There are many, many incidents of flag desecration, even some that are extremely offensive or even obscene, that are just not reported. I know these people in the Flag Alliance. They are true citizen activists. They do not have high-priced lobbyists and $500-an-hour attorneys working for them. Many of them are working individuals who are simply committed to the values and ideals the flag represents. These hard-working individuals have devoted their time and energy fighting for the right to protect these values. The Citizens' Flag Alliance has kept an eye on the news throughout the country to watch for reports of flag desecration. But with over 1,450 newspapers in this country it is no small feat to maintain a comprehensive list. Despite the difficulties in tracking these occurrences, the information that the Citizens' Flag Alliance has gathered appears to counter my colleagues' suggestion that there were not many incidents of flag desecration at all. Since the Citizens' Flag Alliance began keeping count in 1994, there have been over 130 recorded incidents of flag desecration. In small rural areas as well as cities like Cincinnati, OH and Washington, DC, some of these people have defiled the very meaning of the flag by desecrating it, and, in many of those cases, more than one flag was desecrated. For example, 10 flags were vandalized at the American Legion building on the Veterans of Foreign Wars post in New Hampshire just a few months ago. And, just last week in New York, there was an incident in which seven flags displayed on citizens' private property were desecrated and burned. These reported occurrences of flag desecration are simply the tip of the iceberg. Besides the difficulties in monitoring the news for flag desecration incidents, there are many other acts of flag desecration that go unreported either because citizens know that the individual responsible cannot be prosecuted thanks to the Supreme Court decisions or because the media just plain doesn't care. I heard the other day that protesters recently desecrated an American flag at the funeral of one of our fallen soldiers at Arlington Cemetery. This is just in the last few weeks. I have yet to see this reported by the press. The bottom line is that, while this may not be a common offense, it is an ongoing and perpetual offense against common decency. Like I said, one flag desecration is enough for the majority of people in this country, let alone hundreds of them. Now, I would add that these counts miss the point. No matter how many incidents of flag desecration, the American people, through their representatives, should be allowed to pass judgment on this behavior. The courts, including the Supreme Court, used to understand this. They used to respect the considered judgment of the people's representatives. They understood that the desecration of this unique symbol, our symbol, the flag, had a unique impact on the communities that suffer through these events. The opponents of this constitutional amendment can only offer an admonition to grin and bear it, suggesting that we should all be bigger people and not worry about those desecrated flags. I do not think my colleagues appreciate the harm done to these communities when flags are desecrated on our Independence Day, on Memorial Day, or on our Veterans Day. The American people do. The American people understand that even one such event is one too many. Consider these accounts and tell me these communities have not suffered. Let me refer to this chart. This is from the Las Vegas Review Journal. It is entitled: ``Misdemeanor Filed in Flag Burning in Las Vegas,'' dated September 14, 2004. [Stephen Drew] Hampton burned a U.S. flag during a tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks . . . Hampton set fire to a U.S. flag and waved it around before he was ushered out of the event by Las Vegas police and city marshals. Hampton also burned a U.S. flag last year on Sept. 11 in front of the New York-New York Hotel & Casino. We were not even talking about the flag amendment then. This is simply the way some people handle our flag. This individual is by no means the only example. The fact is that this is not a partisan issue. The American people want this amendment. This is an issue supported by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans nationwide. This amendment is supported in a bipartisan manner by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. The problem is not that there is a rash of flag burning, although by anybody's count you would have to say there certainly is. This is not what this resolution is meant to address. Suggesting that we could only legislate to protect against widespread flag desecration is a red herring. What we are doing here is restoring the power of the American people over their own communities. Let's be honest about it. This amendment is a very simple amendment. It says nothing about banning flag desecration. It does nothing to the First Amendment. It simply says we are going to return this issue back to the Congress where it should have been to begin with. This amendment says these words: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Does that mean the Congress has to prohibit desecration of the flag? No. Will the Congress? I hope so. But the Congress does not have to. Even if, assuming this amendment is passed by this body and ratified by 38 States, Congress decides to bring forth a statute, it would still have to have a super-majority vote in the Senate because of those who would be opposed to it, who would filibuster it, and who would require us to invoke cloture. Therefore, it would only pass after the whole Congress has spent a considerable amount of time figuring out how best to define flag desecration. Mr. President, I notice the distinguished Senator from Florida is on the floor and would like to make some remarks, so I will relinquish the floor at this time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what does the Bill of Rights have to do with this? That argument is not a valid argument. Look at what the amendment says: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. There is no interference with the Bill of Rights. Yet the Senator-- the Senators--who want to so-called protect the Bill of Rights have come up with a statute that does exactly the opposite, according to their way of looking at it. Frankly, there are only five Justices who said that defecating on the flag, urinating on the flag, burning it with contempt, and stomping on it is not a violation of the first amendment. But this amendment does not have anything to do with that. All this amendment says is that we are going to give the power back to the people and to the people's representatives in Congress, and they will make the determination as to how we protect the flag, if they decide to. In other words, we are going to restore the Constitution to what it was before these unelected five Justices on the Supreme Court changed it. And four others disagreed with them. By the way, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said this is election-year politics. I wonder how he explains the 6 years in a row that the House of Representatives, in bipartisan votes, has passed this amendment by the requisite two-thirds vote? I wonder how he is going to explain that 48 States had antiflag desecration statutes before the Supreme Court wiped all of that out and all of the people's work and all of the people's will out. What is he going to say about the 50 States, including his, that have petitioned us for this amendment? Fifty State legislatures have asked for this amendment. There are 60 cosponsors in the Senate. There are at least six others who have always voted to protect the flag. I question whether all six of those will vote for this. But the fact is, they should because they have always voted for it. So there are at least 66 people who should be voting for it. There is no narrowing of the Bill of Rights by this amendment. That argument would have to take place after this amendment passes by the two-thirds vote, if it could, and then is ratified by 38 States. Then there would be a debate where they could raise all the issues they want about the first amendment, faulty though they are. The fact is that I was asked this afternoon by a large body of media: Is this the most important thing the Senate could be doing at this time? I can tell you, you're darn right it is. The fact is, we had five unelected Justices who overturned 100 years of Supreme Court precedent, backing up 48 States that have had antiflag desecration amendments. We have had 50 States ask for a change here so we can go back to protecting our flag. What we would be doing is sending a message to the Court: You cannot usurp the power of the Congress of the United States. That is what is involved. I hear time after time complaints about the courts usurping the powers of the Congress and other branches usurping the powers of the Congress. Here is a chance to bring that power back to the Congress where it belongs and then have that debate. It would still take 60 votes because of the opposition of some. It would still take 60 votes to pass a statute if we could pass this amendment. The fact is, if you want to respect the Constitution, let's restore it to what the Constitution was before five unelected jurists changed that Constitution. The fact is, this amendment is one of the most important things we can do to send a message to the U.S. Supreme Court that: You cannot usurp the power of the legislative branch of this Government. It does nothing about the Bill of Rights. That would have to be argued later if we pass this amendment and have it ratified. Then we could argue about the Bill of Rights later. And I will bet you money, the only reason Senators are claiming the Bill of Rights is to try to justify their vote. But now, if they believe the Bill of Rights is being interfered with, then why would they come up with a statute to do the very same thing they are saying this amendment does? Why have they always come up with a statute that basically, if you use their logic, invades the first amendment to the Constitution? Why would they do that? There is only one reason. It is a political reason to cover their backsides. Mr. President, I thank the Senate.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

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