Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at this point, I yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Coburn, who did an excellent job as Mr. Holmes's principal advocate before the Judiciary Committee, as my designee to handle the proceedings in the Senate this afternoon and tomorrow on the confirmation of Mr. Holmes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the American Bar Association issued a release today summarizing a report by a blue ribbon task force which concluded that President Bush's signing statements are in violation of and undermine the important doctrine of separation of powers. As it has been widely recorded, President Bush has undertaken a practice of issuing a signing statement at the time he signs congressional action into law. The task force said its recommendations ``are intended to underscore the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers and, therefore, represent a call to the President and to all his successors to fully respect the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.'' Noting that the Constitution is silent about Presidential signing statements, the task force found that while several Presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the administration of President Bush. According to a press release issued today by the ABA, the task force report notes: From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush . . . has produced more than 800. The report found that President Bush's signing statements are ``ritualistic, mechanical, and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation.'' Even when ``[a] frustrated Congress finally enacted a law requiring the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report of any instance in which that official or any officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a policy of refraining from enforcing any provision of any federal statute, . . . this, too, was subjected to a ritual signing statement, insisting on the President's authority to withhold information whenever he deemed necessary.'' This request raises serious concerns on the proceedings for separation of powers. The ABA states that its report goes on to say: If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this subject and found that this practice does threaten the separation of powers doctrine. The hearing showed that the Constitution is clear, that when both Houses of Congress pass legislation and submit that legislation to the President, the Constitution calls either for the President to sign the legislation, to engage in what could be called a pocket veto, or to veto the legislation and send it back to Congress. If there is a constitutional issue and the President concludes that portions of the statute are unconstitutional, he has an oath to uphold the Constitution. And the way to fulfill that oath is to return the legislation to the Congress with a veto message noting the unconstitutionality of the provision and giving Congress the option of altering the legislation to satisfy the President's request, passing it over the President's veto, or declining to act further. Additionally, the task force has urged the Congress to enact legislation to require the President to submit a report to the Congress of any such signing statement and has urged the Congress to enact legislation. During the course of the hearing before the Judiciary Committee, in my capacity as chairman, I made the request to Bruce Fein, who had been a lawyer in the Department of Justice during the Reagan administration, to take the lead and prepare legislation on the subject. Mr. Fein and my staff have been working on legislation. It is my expectation that, before the weekend, we will submit legislation to the Senate which will give the Congress standing to seek relief in the Federal courts in situations where the President has issued such signing statements and which will authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements, with the view to having the President's acts declared unconstitutional. That is our view as to the appropriate status of these signing statements. It is worth noting that the task force members include a very distinguished array of former public servants, including former CIA Director William Sessions; former Republican House Member Mickey Edwards; Court of Appeals Judge Patricia M. Wald, and others. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the news release from the American Bar Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Are we prepared to proceed at this time with the consideration of the Voting Rights Act?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a historic day for the Senate and really a historic day for America as we move forward with Senate action to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. This action, coming from the Judiciary Committee in our executive session yesterday afternoon, passed unanimously--18 to 0--moves the Senate toward completion of this reauthorization today and for submission to the President and for the formal signing next week. In an era where many have challenged the ability of the Congress to function in the public interests and in an era where there is so much partisan disagreement, it is good to see the two parties in the House and the Senate coming together to reauthorize this very important legislation. I thank and congratulate the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for pulling together and moving ahead at this time, with a prodigious amount of work, to bring this important matter to the floor. The committee has proceeded with 9 hearings. We have had 46 witnesses. We have had 11 leading academics come to testify from such distinguished institutions as the Yale Law School, Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, New York University Law School, and others. The House of Representatives held 12 hearings to gather evidence on voting discrimination, featuring testimony from some 46 witnesses. We have had some of the leading luminaries in the Nation testify, such as Professor Chandler Davidson, coauthor of the landmark book on the Voting Rights Act ``Quiet Revolution in the South;'' Theodore Shaw, Director-Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; Fred Gray, veteran civil rights attorney who began his career in the midst of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and has represented such civil rights leaders as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mrs. Rosa Parks. We have been mindful in presenting these witnesses and compiling this record that the Supreme Court has required very extensive records. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the landmark legislation protecting women against violence because the Court disagreed with the congressional ``method of reasoning.'' It is a little hard to understand that conclusion, but they have the final word. They have a test on the adequacy of the record; that it be congruent and proportional. It is sometimes hard to understand exactly what that test is, but we are on guard to compile a very extensive record in order to avoid having the act declared unconstitutional. The bill which we will vote on today accomplishes many important items. First, it strengthens voting rights protections nationwide by allowing voters who successfully challenge illegal voting practices to recover reasonable expenses of litigation. Second, it extends the protections for voters with limited English skills for 25 years. Those voters will continue to enjoy the protection of bilingual ballots and assistance at the polls. It also extends for 25 years the requirements that the Department of Justice preclear any voting change in certain covered jurisdictions where there has been a history of discrimination. The bill clarifies how the preclearance protections should work, guaranteeing that voting laws enacted with a discriminatory purpose never get enacted into law. So, it moves America in the right direction. The benefits and effects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been profound, to put it mildly. It is the political power of the minorities for whom the Voting Rights Act was designed who pushed the Congress forward a year in advance of the expiration of the Voting Rights Act, to move ahead and get this important job done early. If you contrast 1964, before the Voting Rights Act was passed, with what is happening in America today, it is a different America. It is a different political reality. In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African Americans in public office, including just 3 in the Congress. Few, if any, Black elected officials came from the South. Today, there are more than 9,000 Black elected officials, including 43 Members of Congress. This is the largest number ever. Quite a record. The Voting Rights Act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials who have been elected, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. This progress is especially striking in covered jurisdictions where hundreds of minorities hold office. In Georgia, for example, minorities are elected at rates proportionate to or higher than their numbers. In Georgia, the voting-age population is 27 percent African American. Almost 31 percent of its delegations to the House of Representatives are African American, and 26.5 percent of officials elected statewide are African American. Black candidates in Mississippi have achieved similar success. The State's voting age population is 34 percent African American. Almost 30 percent of its representatives in the State House and 25 percent of its delegations in the U.S. House of Representatives are African American. The Congress of 1965 relied on evidence that Black registration was so dramatically lower than White registration that the differences could only be explained by purposeful efforts to disenfranchise Black citizens. Indeed, in some cases, the gap was 50 percentage points. In Alabama, Black registration was just at 18 percent, and in Mississippi, a little over 6 percent. Today, in Alabama and Louisiana, Blacks are registered at approximately the same rate as White voters, and in Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas, Black registration and turnout in the 2004 election was higher than that of the Whites. The Congress of 1965 relied on findings of Federal courts and the Justice Department that the covered States were engaged in the practice of deliberate unconstitutional behavior. For example, the 1965 Senate report noted that Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi had lost every voting discrimination suit brought against them, and in the previous 8 years, each State had eight or nine courts find them guilty of violating the Constitution. Today, the statistics paint a starkly different picture. Since 1982, only six cases have ended in court ruling or a consent decree finding that one of the 880 covered jurisdictions had committed unconstitutional discrimination against minority voters. During that time, six cases have found that a noncovered jurisdiction committed unconstitutional discrimination against minority voters. If the data is focused on the last 11 years, the results are even more dramatic. Since 1995, only two cases ended in a finding that a covered jurisdiction unconstitutionally discriminated against minority voters. Looking at voting rights cases paints a similar picture. In 1982, 39 court cases ended with a finding that one of the 880 covered jurisdictions had violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That is the provision that prohibits discrimination nationwide. During the same period of time, 40 court cases have ended with a finding that one of the noncovered jurisdictions have violated Section 2. Not a perfect record, but it shows that discrimination has become more incidental and less systematic. There is no doubt this improved record is a direct result of the Voting Rights Act. When we take a look at civil rights legislation generally, the Voting Rights Act is the most important part of our effort to give minorities--give all Americans--their full range of constitutional civil rights. When we take a look at the activities of the three distinguished women for whom the Voting Rights Act has been named--Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hamer--we see the enormous contribution which they have made. Mrs. King, the widow of pioneering civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., devoted a lifetime to opposing racism, whether the 1960s segregation Alabama or the 1980s apartheid in South Africa. Fortunately, she lived to see so much of the progress America has made. Sadly, her husband, Dr. King, did not see that. I recall, not too long ago, when Mrs. King came to the Senate, in the adjoining room to the Senate Chambers, and spoke out forcefully on the issues of civil rights. She was a real heroin in America, to pursue the work of Dr. King. Every American schoolchild knows the story of Miss Rosa Parks who, on December 1, 1955, refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. She explained her motivation simply: People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically. . . . I was not old, . . . I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in. Fannie Lou Hamer first learned that African Americans had a constitutional right to vote in 1962, when she was 44 years old. Ms. Hammer later explained that, despite death threats and violence, she was determined to exercise her constitutional rights and said: The only thing that they could do to me was to kill me, and it seemed like they had been trying to do that a little bit at a time ever since I could remember. So we come to this day in the Senate where we are on the verge of passing the Voting Rights Act, reauthorizing it as the House has done. The President will be speaking within the hour to the NAACP convention and doubtless will refer proudly to the acts of the Congress in presenting him with this bill. I want to pay tribute to the Judiciary Committee. All the members worked very hard to get these nine hearings and to examine the witnesses and to create a record. Senator Kennedy, who is on the floor, has been a stalwart leader in this field for a very long time. He was here when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Not too many current Members of the Senate were present. Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye--this is not in my prepared text. I may be omitting someone. Senator Stevens came shortly thereafter--1968. Senator Kennedy doesn't need a microphone when he speaks about civil rights in this Chamber. He can be heard on the House floor--quite a distance away, past the Rotunda. He has not only been a spokesman for this act, he has been a persistent advocate. Not that it needed a whole lot of advocacy to persuade the latest chairman or my distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, to move ahead. This has been our priority item. We got the Judiciary Committee together on a Wednesday afternoon. It is pretty hard to get the Judiciary Committee together any time and to get a quorum, but we were present, 16 of the 18 members. One member was on the floor managing a bill and the other couldn't be there. So there was that kind of enthusiasm. Now I want to yield to Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member. The committee has quite a record for 18 months. We moved promptly on January 4 to confirm the President's designee for Attorney General. We moved ahead to pass reform legislation on class actions and bankruptcy. We moved ahead, with Senator Leahy's leadership and the leadership of Judge Becker, to move asbestos out of committee--yet to be acted on, on the floor. We have confirmed two Supreme Court Justices and have moved the immigration bill out of committee. But none of our activities has been as important as the one we presented to the floor of the Senate yesterday when we voted out the Voting Rights Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is with special thanks that I acknowledge Senator Leahy's leadership and cooperation, that I now yield to him.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to elaborate upon views expressed earlier today by several of my colleagues. Senators McConnell, Hatch, Kyl, and Cornyn engaged in a colloquy regarding the meaning of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization bill presently before this body. I wish to express my agreement with those comments and add a few thoughts of my own. Section 5 of the proposed bill overturns two Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish, or Bossier Parish II, and Georgia v. Ashcroft. The goal of the bill is to protect districts that contain a majority of minority voters. We are well aware of efforts in the past to disenfranchise minority voters. As a consequence, this language prohibits legislators from acting purposely, with the intention of harming minority voters, to ``unpack'' majority-minority districts and to disperse those minority voters to other districts. First, the bill overturns Bossier Parish II by prohibiting voting changes enacted with ``any discriminatory purpose.'' This language bans a government official from discriminating against minority voters. If a government official could create a district that would benefit minorities, but purposely chooses not to do so because it will be majority-minority then that government official will have violated this bill. Although this is an important requirement, I have heard concerns that the Justice Department may abuse the new language designed to overturn Bossier Parish II and require States to maximize the number of majority-minority districts--or to create so-called coalition or influence districts. In cases such as Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 921, 1995; Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 1996; and Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 1999, however, the Supreme Court has held that the Justice Department's one time policy of requiring States to maximize majority- minority districts violated the Constitution. I want to make it clear that this bill does not allow such behavior, much less require it. As I understand it, the new language we are adding allows the Justice Department to stop purposeful, unconstitutional behavior. It does not grant the Justice Department license to violate the Constitution. It does not authorize the Justice Department to define for itself what is a ``discriminatory purpose.'' And it does not give the Justice Department a blank check to require States to maximize influence or coalition districts. Second, the bill overturns Georgia v. Ashcroft by protecting the ability of minorities to ``elect their preferred candidates of choice.'' Some commentators have read Georgia v. Ashcroft as allowing States to break up naturally occurring majority-minority districts to create other districts where minorities have less voting power but still exercise important influence in elections. The bill's new language protects districts in which minority citizens select their ``preferred candidate of choice'' with their own voting power. In short, it provides additional protection for naturally occurring majority-minority districts. The bill does not demand that such districts be disbanded to create influence districts. I hope this language is now clear. I also thank my colleagues-- Senators McConnell, Hatch, Kyl, and Cornyn--for their lucid explanations earlier.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will seek recognition in a moment, but for the time being, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the pending legislation to pass the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This legislation is named for Adam Walsh, a child who was abducted and murdered. Adam's father, John Walsh, has diligently pursued efforts to save other children from the fate which befell Adam by working to enact Federal legislation which will establish a national registry for sex offenders. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that there are at least 100,000 sex offenders who are not accounted for by law enforcement. John Walsh estimates the figure to be higher, approximating 150,000. Statistics show that sex offenders prey most often on juveniles; that two-thirds of the sex offenders currently in State prisons are there because they have victimized a child. Compared with other criminals, sex offenders are four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. It is estimated that some 500,000 children are sexually abused each year. According to Department of Justice statistics, child molesters have been known to re-offend as late as 20 years after their release from prisons. There are currently State laws which require registration of sex offenders, but unfortunately they have proved to be relatively ineffective, which requires the Federal Government to act on the national level. I first met John Walsh after the disappearance of his son, Adam, some 25 years ago, when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At that time, in conjunction with Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida, we took the lead in establishing the Missing Children's Act of 1982, which has been very successful in locating children, where, in a variety of ways--on billboards, on milk cartons, on posters--missing children were identified and publicized. Many missing children were recovered. In the intervening 25 years, John Walsh has undertaken a national crusade. He has been instrumental in advocating and persuading both the House and the Senate to move ahead with this legislation. He has had very strong support from the leadership of Senator Hatch, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch has promoted this legislation, has initiated meetings, organized a meeting with John Walsh in the last several days in the Office of the majority leader where we organized plans to get this bill enacted so that it will be ready for signing by the President on July 27th, which is the anniversary of the abduction of Adam Walsh. It has been a prodigious job to get this bill cleared on both sides, not having anything added on to it, and many efforts were made so that it would be enacted in time to mark the anniversary of the abduction of Adam Walsh. For that timetable, Senator Hatch deserves a great deal of credit. As is well known, Senator Hatch chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee for many years. His leadership is still a very key factor, especially on this legislation. I compliment my colleague, Senator Rick Santorum, as well as Senator Kyl, Senator DeWine, Senator Talent, and others, for their support in producing this bill, which will protect children with the assistance of some 200 new Federal prosecutors, 45 new computer forensic experts to prevent child pornography, 20 new Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, and the Department of Justice's Project Safe Childhood Program and new SMART Office, which are both dedicated to protecting children from sex offenders. A special note of commendation is due to Senator Santorum for his work on two important components of the bill: First, on Project Safe Childhood and second, on the Safe Schools Act. These provisions and others will help stop sex offenders such as Brian McCutchen, who was sentenced last year to 35 to 70 years in a Pennsylvania prison for attempting to murder and rape an 8-year-old Philadelphia girl in a public restroom. He was a repeat offender. He had been convicted of assaulting a 9-year-old girl in a similar public restroom attack in Manayunk, PA, in 2001. Had the provisions of the law been in place 2 years ago, the second crime might not have happened because the community would have been on notice of McCutchen's first attack on a little girl. I know from my work as district attorney of Philadelphia the impact of sex crimes on children. To be a victim of a crime is a horrible experience for anyone, but to be a child and the victim of a sex crime leaves an indelible imprint--hard to shake, hard to forget, traumatic, and of gigantic importance in the balance of that child's life. We are taking a very important step forward. I thank and commend John Walsh for his leadership and again thank and commend Senator Hatch for his leadership in the Senate on this important issue. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for his cooperation and coordination, and also to the staffs. I will single out especially Michael O'Neill, who is chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. In my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I seek recognition to speak briefly on four judicial nominees currently before the Senate. I begin with the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to be a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Mr. Gorsuch has an excellent academic background with a bachelor's with honors from Columbia University, 1988, a law degree with honors from Harvard Law School in 1991, a Doctorate of Philosophy from Oxford University in 2004. He clerked for Judge David Sentelle of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Byron White and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He was a partner in the distinguished law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, and principal deputy to the Associate Attorney General for the Department of Justice from 2005 to the present. I also support the nomination of Bobby Ed Shepherd to be a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He is a candidate with an excellent academic record. He earned his bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in 1973 from Ouachita Baptist University, and law degree with high honors from the University of Arkansas in 1976. He had a varied legal practice as a solo practitioner and as a partner with various law firms, most recently Landers & Shepherd. In 1991, Judge Shepherd was elected a circuit-chancery judge for the 13th judicial district for the State of Arkansas. Since 1993 he has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Judge Shepherd, like Mr. Gorsuch, has come to this position with unanimous approval. We expect their confirmation on a voice vote later today. I also support the nomination of Daniel Porter Jordan III to be a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Mississippi in 1987 and a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School in 1993. He was a legislative assistant to Senator Trent Lott. He was an associate of the law firm of Butler, Snow from 1993 to 1999 and has been an equity member, equivalent of partner, since 2000. Again, Mr. Jordan has, I believe, unanimous support. We expect him to be confirmed later this evening on a voice vote. I also support the nomination of Gustavo Antonio Gelpi to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico. Mr. Gelpi has a bachelor's degree from Brandeis University and a law degree from Suffolk University Law School. He was a law clerk to Federal Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez and later served in the Office of the Federal Public Defender, before joining the Puerto Rican Department of Justice. At that Department he served as an assistant to the Attorney General of Puerto Rico before becoming Deputy Attorney General for the Puerto Rican Office of Legal Counsel. I ask unanimous consent the complete resumes of these distinguished nominees be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly about the situation with Hamas attacking Israel from the south, the Hezbollah attacking Israel from the north, and the actions of Israel in defending herself in accordance with international law under article 51 of the United Nations charter. The action against Israel from the south was provoked by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority with the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the firing of rockets into southern Israel. The action against Israel from the north was provoked by Hezbollah firing rockets into northern Israel. Regrettably, the conflict has escalated but the parties responsible for the conflict are Hamas to the south and Hezbollah to the north. The action of Hezbollah comes as a surrogate for Syria and from Iran. An Israeli ship was struck by an Iranian missile in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence of Iran having so-called advisers in Lebanon. There is strong reason to believe that the rocket was fired by Iran--not conclusive, but strong reason to believe. If so, it is an act of war. The United Nations ought to call Iran and Syria on the carpet to explain their conduct in backing Hezbollah, in providing personnel to do more than train Hezbollah, more than advisers being integral parts of the military offensive of Hezbollah. The Israelis living in northern Israel have complained about Hezbollah having a knife at their throat. With so many rockets poised on the southern Lebanese border and with a provocation of Hezbollah, it certainly warrants the action which has been taken by Israel on the premises. It is regrettable that there have been civilian casualties, but I do believe that Israel has made every reasonable and realistic effort to minimize such casualties. There is inevitably collateral damage in war, but this is an occasion when the international community ought to call Iran and Syria to task for their provocative acts for using Hezbollah as a surrogate. In the context of what has happened, I think President Bush was entirely correct in his statements that Israel had a right to defend itself against Hezbollah in the north and a right to defend against Hamas in the south. Mr. President, I speak today about the recent unprovoked and coordinated attacks that have been launched on Israel by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. These provocative attacks are further highlighting the role both Iran and Syria play in supporting Hezbollah. Israel is now forced to fight a defensive war on two fronts as Hezbollah terrorists and Palestinian militants are committing countless acts of aggression towards Israel. Israel's response to Hamas's and Hezbollah's continuing bombardment of Israel, the murder of its soldiers, and the capture of three Israeli soldiers is justified. Israel unilaterally evacuated settlements and military bases in Gaza last September after an occupation since the 1967 Middle East war. It has not returned with significant forces since then, despite near-daily rocket fire from the Gaza strip into southern Israel. As recognized by the U.N., Israel completely pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, despite missile fire from Southern Lebanon into Israel. The capture of Israeli soldiers was unprovoked by Israel. Were the United States bombarded by Kassams and Katyusha and were its soldiers kidnapped we would also respond with force--proportionate force--the force necessary to cease the bombardments and kidnappings. Yet again, the Middle East faces a crisis brought on by those opposed to the peace that is sought by so many. On September 12, 2005, to the jubilation of the Palestinians living in Gaza, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military and civilian presence from every inch of Gaza as part of a bold and courageous effort to reduce the tensions with Palestinians and enable them to better build a strong society on their own territory. The Palestinians in Gaza wasted no time destroying all Jewish houses of worship that were left behind in Gaza, but the world, including the Israelis, remained silent because they did not want anything to derail this sincere effort for peace. Just several months later, the Palestinians elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, to lead its government. During this time, Kassam missles have been regularly launched from Gaza into Israel and on June 25th, Palestinian gunmen within Hamas captured a 19- year old Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, and killed two others, at an army post within Israel. Corporal Shalit is the first Israeli soldier to be kidnapped by a Palestinian armed group since 1994. Israel immediately demanded release of the soldier. Hamas responded by offering only to provide information about Corporal Shalit, not his release, in exchange for the release of over 400 Palestinians in Israeli jails. Israel rightly refused an exchange, and hoped that international pressure would succeed. Having waited 3 days, on June 28th, Israeli troops pushed into Gaza to find and free Corporal Shalit. President Bush appealed to Palestinian Fatah leader, Abbas and our Middle-East allies to exert pressure on Hamas to free Corporal Shalit. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, called on the Syrian president, Bashar Assad to arrest Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who is harbored in that country. Additionally, Egypt and Jordan urged Syria to use its influence with Hamas to win Shalit's release. With no soldier and no prospect of his release, Israel continued its offensive, arresting 60 Palestinian officials and launching air strikes on bridges to prevent movement of Shalit, on weapon storage sites, and on Gaza's central power station. Hamas continued to launch Kassam missiles into Israel targeting civilian population centers; and Palestinian militants, seeking cover among Palestinian civilians, used RPGs, grenades, mines, and assault rifles to impede Israel's actions. This is how the Palestinian leadership responds to Israel's genuine actions for peace. The Israelis endured great political and emotional divisions when they forcibly removed their own people from Gaza, but they thought these sacrifices were necessary for a lasting peace. The Israelis demonstrated remarkable restraint in the face of these attacks from Gaza and in the initial days of the kidnapping of Corporal Shalit. But, when it became clear that Hamas did not share Israel's desire for peace, they had no choice to respond with force. Then on July 12th, Hezbollah killed eight soldiers and captured two more from within Israel, near the border with Lebanon. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said that this was not in response to Israel's recent air strikes in Gaza, but was something they had wanted to do for ``over a year''. Hezbollah's killing of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others represents an unprovoked act of war against Israel. Israel fully withdrew from southern Lebanon in May 2000. This peaceful step by Israel was certified by the U.N. Security Council as having met the requirements of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, which called for an Israeli withdrawal and for Lebanon to assert control over the area vacated by Israel. Israel rightfully opposes any prisoner exchange with Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel cannot send the message that it will release hundreds of prisoners each time Hamas and Hezbollah capture an Israeli, soldier or civilian. That would only encourage more kidnappings, and increase the power of Hamas and Hezbollah resulting in greater instability to the region and undermining the peace process. Following Hezbollah's kidnapping, its firing of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel and demand for a prisoner swap, Israel responded with military force directed at Hezbollah's infrastructure in Lebanon, accurately calling Hezbollah's actions an act of war. Israel struck Beirut's airport to prevent the removal of the Israeli soldiers and to disrupt military supplies, struck Hezbollah's television station, and struck numerous roads, bridges and Hezbollah quarters to disrupt communication. Hezbollah responded with increased and deeper rocket attacks, which for the first time reached far enough into Israel to strike Haifa, 20 miles over the border. These far reaching missiles appear to be built by the Iranians and pose an extreme threat that Israel has not previously faced with Hezbollah. In 2004, the United Nations passed a resolution calling for Hezbollah to be disarmed. Not only has no serious effort been undertaken to disarm them, but rouge regimes continue to supply them with new weapons, training, and other support. The world should unite in its outrage at this behavior by Hezbollah and its allies and unite behind Israel and the forces of peace to bring a swift end to this conflict and to press for the safe return of Israel's soldiers and the enforcement of the UN resolution. It is worth noting that while Israel has responded with strong force in its attempts to rescue its soldiers and root out the terrorist networks on its borders, it has made great efforts to minimize civilian casualties. Israel regularly drops pamphlets to warn civilians of upcoming actions and attempts to secure meaningful intelligence so that its strikes are targeted on the people and places involved in terrorist activity. These are courtesies that the Hamas and Hezbollah do not extend. As we all now know, these actions of Hezbollah and Hamas can be seen as an extension of aggression from Iran and Syria. Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated his desire to ``wipe Israel off the face of the map.'' The Iranians have helped Hezbollah launch hundreds of missiles into Israel and have provided Hezbollah $100 million annually. Syria provides the home, safe haven and command center to Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, and it continues to sponsor acts of terrorism. The timing of these attacks served to destabilize negotiations between the Hamas and Fattah Palestinian parties, derailing progress in the peace process. The events also distract the international community from Iran's nuclear ambitions at a time of heightened pressure on the Iranian government to curtail its program. I support the President's statement that calls for an unconditional release of the captured soldiers, and holds Syria and Iran accountable for Hezbollah's actions but I encourage him to do more. There is opportunity for hope in this crisis. Many Palestinians and Lebanese citizens do not support the aggressive actions of Hezbollah or Hamas's military wing. The international community must support the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority in representing their many moderate citizens who seek peace and security for their families and communities. Now is the time for the forces of peace and moderation in Lebanon to not only aspire for peace but take action to stop Hamas and Hezbollah from pulling their people into deeper conflict. If terrorist factions continue to attack Israel and capture Israeli soldiers, Israel is left with no other choice but to defend its people and its borders. I have made many trips to Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East and am deeply saddened by the recent events. I will continue to support peace in the region and oppose all acts of terrorism.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce a bill to provide private relief to the survivors of Christopher Kangas of Brookhaven, PA. This is a final attempt to recognize the public service of Christopher Kangas, a junior firefighter of the Brookhaven, PA, fire department, who, on May 4, 2002, was struck by a car and killed while riding his bicycle to the site of a fire emergency. I characterize the bill I introduce today as a ``final attempt'' to recognize the public service of Christopher Kangas as a fallen firefighter because previous legislative corrections have been blocked while the Kangas family languishes in the lengthy appeals process to overturn the U.S. Department of Justice's, DOJ, denial of public safety officer benefits. During both the 108th and 109th Congresses, I introduced the Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act, S. 2695 and S. 491, respectively, designed to correct a flaw in the current definition of ``firefighter'' under the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. That legislation would clarify that all firefighters will be recognized as such ``regardless of age, status as an apprentice or trainee, or duty restrictions imposed because of age or status as an apprentice or trainee'' and applies retroactively to the date of Christopher Kangas' death in 2002. However, this legislation has been prevented from moving forward due to objections that expansion of benefits under the program would result in a serious drain on the Treasury when, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill would cost approximately $2 million in the first year of enactment and an average of less than $500,000 in each year thereafter. In addition to a legislative remedy, Christopher Kangas' family has been pursuing the Federal benefit through the U.S. Federal Claims Court. On March 27, 2006, the court ruled in favor of the Kangas family ordering DOJ to pay $250,000. However, on May 26, 2006, DOJ filed a notice of appeal to this decision, further delaying recognition of Christopher Kangas' public service and status as a fallen firefighter. Under Pennsylvania law, 14- and 15-year-olds such as Christopher are permitted to serve as volunteer junior firefighters. While they are not allowed to operate heavy machinery or enter burning buildings, the law permits them to fill a number of important support roles, such as providing first aid. In addition, the junior firefighter program is an important recruitment tool for fire stations throughout the Commonwealth. In fact, prior to his death Christopher had received 58 hours of training that would have served him well when he graduated from the junior program. It is clear to me that Christopher Kangas was a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Were it not for his status as a junior firefighter and his prompt response to a fire alarm, Christopher would still be alive today. Indeed, the Brookhaven Fire Department, Brookhaven Borough, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all recognized Christopher's public service as a fallen public safety officer and provided the appropriate death benefits to his family. Yet while those closest to the tragedy have recognized Christopher as a fallen firefighter, the Federal Government has not. The Department of Justice determined that Christopher Kangas was not eligible for benefits based on a twofold interpretation of the law. First, because he was deemed as not acting within a narrow range of duties at the time of his death that are the measured criteria to be considered a ``firefighter,'' and therefore, was not a ``public safety officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. Second, that his death was deemed as not sustained in the ``line of duty'' because as a junior firefighter he was prohibited from operating a hose on a ladder or entering a burning building. As a result of this determination, Christopher's family cannot receive a Federal line-of-duty benefit. In addition, Christopher is barred from taking his rightful place on the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD. For a young man who dreamed of being a firefighter and gave his life rushing to a fire, keeping him off of the memorial is a grave injustice. Any firefighter will tell you that there are many important roles to play in fighting a fire beyond operating the hoses and ladders. Firefighting is a team effort, and everyone in the Brookhaven Fire Department viewed young Christopher as a full member of their team. As such, I support amending the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act to ensure that the Federal Government will recognize Christopher Kangas and others like him as firefighters. However, considering the significant opposition to that solution, I am offering this private bill in honor of Christopher Kangas to provide his family with the $250,000 as ordered by the Federal Claims Court and to allow his name to be included on the National Fallen Firefighter's Memorial. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce a bill to provide private relief to the survivors of Christopher Kangas of Brookhaven, PA. This is a final attempt to recognize the public service of Christopher Kangas, a junior firefighter of the Brookhaven, PA, fire department, who, on May 4, 2002, was struck by a car and killed while riding his bicycle to the site of a fire emergency. I characterize the bill I introduce today as a ``final attempt'' to recognize the public service of Christopher Kangas as a fallen firefighter because previous legislative corrections have been blocked while the Kangas family languishes in the lengthy appeals process to overturn the U.S. Department of Justice's, DOJ, denial of public safety officer benefits. During both the 108th and 109th Congresses, I introduced the Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act, S. 2695 and S. 491, respectively, designed to correct a flaw in the current definition of ``firefighter'' under the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. That legislation would clarify that all firefighters will be recognized as such ``regardless of age, status as an apprentice or trainee, or duty restrictions imposed because of age or status as an apprentice or trainee'' and applies retroactively to the date of Christopher Kangas' death in 2002. However, this legislation has been prevented from moving forward due to objections that expansion of benefits under the program would result in a serious drain on the Treasury when, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill would cost approximately $2 million in the first year of enactment and an average of less than $500,000 in each year thereafter. In addition to a legislative remedy, Christopher Kangas' family has been pursuing the Federal benefit through the U.S. Federal Claims Court. On March 27, 2006, the court ruled in favor of the Kangas family ordering DOJ to pay $250,000. However, on May 26, 2006, DOJ filed a notice of appeal to this decision, further delaying recognition of Christopher Kangas' public service and status as a fallen firefighter. Under Pennsylvania law, 14- and 15-year-olds such as Christopher are permitted to serve as volunteer junior firefighters. While they are not allowed to operate heavy machinery or enter burning buildings, the law permits them to fill a number of important support roles, such as providing first aid. In addition, the junior firefighter program is an important recruitment tool for fire stations throughout the Commonwealth. In fact, prior to his death Christopher had received 58 hours of training that would have served him well when he graduated from the junior program. It is clear to me that Christopher Kangas was a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Were it not for his status as a junior firefighter and his prompt response to a fire alarm, Christopher would still be alive today. Indeed, the Brookhaven Fire Department, Brookhaven Borough, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all recognized Christopher's public service as a fallen public safety officer and provided the appropriate death benefits to his family. Yet while those closest to the tragedy have recognized Christopher as a fallen firefighter, the Federal Government has not. The Department of Justice determined that Christopher Kangas was not eligible for benefits based on a twofold interpretation of the law. First, because he was deemed as not acting within a narrow range of duties at the time of his death that are the measured criteria to be considered a ``firefighter,'' and therefore, was not a ``public safety officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. Second, that his death was deemed as not sustained in the ``line of duty'' because as a junior firefighter he was prohibited from operating a hose on a ladder or entering a burning building. As a result of this determination, Christopher's family cannot receive a Federal line-of-duty benefit. In addition, Christopher is barred from taking his rightful place on the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD. For a young man who dreamed of being a firefighter and gave his life rushing to a fire, keeping him off of the memorial is a grave injustice. Any firefighter will tell you that there are many important roles to play in fighting a fire beyond operating the hoses and ladders. Firefighting is a team effort, and everyone in the Brookhaven Fire Department viewed young Christopher as a full member of their team. As such, I support amending the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act to ensure that the Federal Government will recognize Christopher Kangas and others like him as firefighters. However, considering the significant opposition to that solution, I am offering this private bill in honor of Christopher Kangas to provide his family with the $250,000 as ordered by the Federal Claims Court and to allow his name to be included on the National Fallen Firefighter's Memorial. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since we will be proceeding to the Voting Rights Act tomorrow morning at 9:30, I thought you would be interested to know, since you are on the Judiciary Committee, there will be no executive committee meeting because Senator Leahy and I cannot be in two places at the same time. There will be no executive meeting tomorrow at 9:30. We will try to have a meeting off the floor if we can to pass out the judges. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 521, H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act. I further ask there be 8 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with no amendments in order to the bill, and that following the use or yielding of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: We have 1 hour equally divided?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is to delete a provision in the bill which would prohibit the hopper dredge McFarland from remaining in operation. I submit this bipartisan amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Carper, of Delaware. It is a little hard to understand why this pending bill seeks to retire this vessel, which does important dredging work, on a bill which is denominated to provide for the consideration of the development of water and related resources and authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, because this dredger is very important for the specific stated purposes of the bill. I would start with the important role this dredging vessel, the McFarland, plays with respect to the Nation's military operations. The McFarland is one of only three active dredging vessels owned by the U.S. Government, with one other held in reserve. The other two active vessels are on the west coast. The McFarland is available to respond immediately to emergency blockages at the Department of Defense- designated strategic military seaports. At a time when terrorism is a major threat in this country, it is hard to understand why we would want to give up the only dredger which is available on the east coast and on the gulf coast. I think there may be many Senators whose States will be adversely affected, as will Pennsylvania and Delaware and New Jersey--the States in our region-- when you take a look at the Defense-designated ``Strategic Military Seaports'' within the operating range of the McFarland, which covers New York and New Jersey; Hampton Roads, VA; Morehead City, NC; Wilmington, NC; Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA; Jacksonville, FL; Gulfport, MS; Beaumont, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; the Earle Naval Weapons Station, NJ and Sunny Point, NC. Senators from those States, beware about what is going to happen to your State if you don't have this dredger available to perform strategic military seaport operations at a time when there is a significant risk of terrorism. The McFarland has also played a key role in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters. Most recently, the vessel was dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina response efforts. So, Senators of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and Alabama, beware if this vessel is not available. There are two on the west coast. They can't get to these areas to perform needed rescue efforts. There has been no plan put forward to address the void in the Nation's dredging capacity that will be created in the absence of the McFarland. The GAO has been critical of restricting the Federal hopper dredge fleet. It made a finding in a March 2003 report that the decreased utilization of the Federal fleet has imposed additional costs on the Corps and not produced significant benefits. That is because those in the private sector are on notice, with a Federal dredger available they are not in a position to raise their costs without the competition that would be supplied by the Federal dredger. It isn't exactly a matter of having a great Federal fleet and looking to privatize or looking to help the private sector. You have 15 private dredgers, and they are interested in eliminating competition so they can raise the prices. There was a report by the Corps of Engineers on June 3, 2005. That report does not provide sufficient support for its recommendation to eliminate the McFarland. You would think, if the committee was going to come forward and wanted to eliminate the McFarland, they would have some Federal report with verified data to rely upon, but they do not. The GAO, in 2003, says we ought not eliminate the limited Federal dredgers. The Corps of Engineers' report of 2005 doesn't give sufficient reasons for what the committee report seeks to accomplish. There has been some suggestion that the McFarland is in need of repairs. That is contrary to fact. That is a scare tactic. The fact is that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10 to 12 years without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. As of March 23 of this year, just a few months ago, it was fully certified by the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping. The McFarland is able to be dispatched immediately to these areas. Again, the availability of the McFarland ensures that prices will be reasonable when the Corps of Engineers contracts with private industry to perform dredge work. If the McFarland were to be decommissioned, maintenance dredging costs on the Atlantic and gulf coast will be entirely at the hands of the private dredge industry, and the Corps of Engineers' dredging costs will likely increase during peak work periods, when the availability of private bidders is limited. The McFarland facilitates the safe and reliable movement of commercial goods. On the Delaware River alone, the McFarland helps maintain a shipping channel which supports 38 million metric tons of cargo per year at a total value of $14 billion--amounts which rank second and eighth in the Nation respectively. It is a big economic blow to my State and a big economic blow to Delaware and a big economic blow to New Jersey and a big economic blow to other States to have this McFarland phased out. I am at a loss to see the motivation for the committee to come forward with this recommendation and in effect to pick a fight with half the States in the country. I will be anxious to see what the committee has by way of argument to justify eliminating the McFarland. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am reserving 10 minutes for Senator Carper, but I am waiting with interest to see what the chairman of this committee has to say.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to address some of the comments made by my colleagues, Senators Brownback and Coburn, during the debate regarding H.R. 810. Senator Coburn stated that ``every disease Senator Harkin listed-- every disease save ALS--has an adult stem cell or cord blood stem cell cure that has already been proven in humans, without using embryonic stem cells.'' Senator Harkin listed the following diseases and injuries: cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, birth defects, and severe burns. My response to Senator Coburn is where are these cures of which he speaks? Cardiovascular disease remains the No. 1 killer of Americans. Autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and lupus confound family members of Senators in this Chamber. Nancy Reagan would likely have heard of a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Christopher Reeve recently passed away and his spinal cord injury was not healed by adult or cord blood stem cells. To say that ``proven cures'' exist is to defy the experience and insult the intelligence of millions of Americans. Senator Coburn stated that we are telling the American people that there are ``no cures other than fetal stem cell research . . . the fact is there is not one cure in this country today from embryonic stem cells.'' First, I have always supported all forms of medical research. My goal is to attain cures and treatments for diseases by whatever technology works. If there were restrictions on adult stem cells, I would be the first to introduce legislation to eliminate those restrictions. The fact is, there are no restrictions on Federal funding for adult stem cell research, and there are severe limitations on Federal funding for embryonic stem cells. Now, to the point on there being no cures from embryonic stem cells: That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Human embryonic stem cells were discovered in 1998. Since that time, there have been severe limitations on the funding for basic research into how to make proper use of these incredible cells. Perhaps, if we had not had any restrictions, there would now be cures available. When I say that ``embryonic stem cells hold great promise for treating, curing and improving our understanding of diseases'' like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and heart disease, I am quoting Dr. Elias Zerhouni, President Bush's appointee as head of the National Institutes of Health, NIH. When I say that ``human stem cell research represents one of the most exciting opportunities in biomedical research,'' I am quoting Dr. David Schwartz, the Director of the National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences and 18 other Directors of the NIH. These are the leaders of the biomedical research enterprise in the United States and the world. Senator Coburn stated, that ``as a matter of fact, [these stem cell lines] are not contaminated.'' I can only respond by telling you that Dr. James Battey, the Chairman of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force--and the man in charge of keeping track of the 21 approved lines--says ``All of the 21 human embryonic stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding have been exposed to mouse cells.'' It is unlikely these cells will ever be useful for the clinical applications and cures that everyone wants. Senator Coburn stated that ``there is no limitation in this country at all on private research.'' I do not agree with that statement. Privately funded research in the United States counts on scientists and doctors trained by the NIH. The chokehold on Federal funding has kept young scientists from entering the field of stem cell research and limited the number and quality of scientists who can do the work that private investors would like to see done. In addition, when it comes to the basic research that is a necessary first step in curing diseases, private funds are no match for the almost $30 billion investment we make at the NIH. Senator Brownback notes that this is a question of when life begins. I say this is a question of when life ends. These embryos are already slated to be thrown away. The decision the Senate faces is do we throw these cells away or do we use them to treat diseases that affect over 100 million Americans. This is most definitely a question of when life ends. Senator Brownback has introduced into the record a list of 72 Current Human Clinical Applications Using Adult Stem Cells. That list includes lupus, multiple sclerosis, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. I was surprised to find Hodgkin's lymphoma on this list as I have some personal experience with that disease. My physician, Dr. John Glick, a recognized expert in the field of Hodgkin's lymphoma, stated that he had never heard of such a treatment or cure. I wish that I had known that a ``cure'' existed for this disease when I was undergoing chemotherapy, as I would have liked to have avoided some of the unpleasant side effects. I state this to illustrate the point that the diseases on that list are diseases for which adult stem cell therapies have been attempted. In most cases, it just means that doctors tried a bone marrow transplant. There is no doubt that bone marrow transplants are a miraculous treatment, however, they have only been proven to be helpful in blood diseases and enhancing immune systems. The great promise of embryonic stem cells is to expand the group of diseases that can be cured to include motor-neuron, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases. This is the great potential that makes patients, like me so excited. My goal is to enable our scientists and doctors to discover cures that will end the suffering of millions of Americans. Passing H.R. 810 will enable scientists to include stem cell research in their search for cures.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding me the time. As we prepare for the vote, it is my view that it is a clear-cut question to use embryos to save lives because otherwise they will be destroyed. There are some 400,000 frozen embryos, and the choice is discarding them or using them to save lives. Embryonic stem cells have the flexibility for the potential to cure Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease and cancer. I have a constituent, Jim Cordy, in Pittsburgh, PA, who suffers from Parkinson's. Every time I see Jim Cordy, he displays an hour glass. He inverts it, and as the sand passes from one part of the hour glass to the lower, Jim Cordy makes the dramatic point that is the way his life is slipping away in the absence of utilizing all means possible to cure Parkinson's. The number one possibility is embryonic stem cell research. Senator Brownback and I had a debate where he challenged me on when life began, and I retorted--suffering from Hodgkin's cancer myself--the question on my mind was when life ended. Life will never begin for these embryos because there are 400,000 frozen embryos in the US. Notwithstanding millions of dollars appropriated to encourage adoption, only 128 have been adopted. So those lives will not begin, but many other lives will end if we do not use all the scientific resources available. In bygone years, Galileo was prosecuted when he insisted the world was round. Columbus was discouraged from seeking America because the world was flat and it was impossible to find a new continent. Boniface VIII stopped the use of cadavers, indispensable for medical research. And the Scottish Turks prohibited anesthesia for women in childbirth because it was God's will that women should suffer. A century from now people will look back in amazement that we could even have this debate where the issues are so clear-cut. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2754, which I cosponsored with Senator Santorum, which is long run----