Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are here ostensibly debating a resolution that deals with the Secretary of Defense but, of course, the conversation has devolved into a discussion of the war against the radical Islamists and the battle in Iraq, a battlefront of that war.

Let me begin, though, by asking unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks we have printed in the Record a letter from Josh Bolton, of the administration, to the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. President, that letter goes to one of the points of the resolution that we are ostensibly debating, a resolution which seems to mock the phrase ``stay the course,'' claiming that the current stay- the-course policy has made America less secure.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by stay the course because, if you mean by stay the course don't abandon the effort, then of course the administration and the Senate do not want to abandon the effort and therefore do want to stay the course. At least the people on this side of the aisle do not want to abandon the effort. But if it means don't change the way you are doing anything, obviously that is another matter. The problem is, it is a straw man for those on the other side to argue that the administration is not willing to change anything. The letter from Mr. Bolton to the distinguished minority leader will demonstrate the fact that, just as the enemy is agile and changes its tactics, so, too, has the United States changed the way that it deals with the enemy in Iraq.

So, yes, stay the course if by that we mean don't abdicate the mission; no, if it means don't ever change the way you operate.

The other part of the resolution I found rather odd was the condemnation of Secretary Rumsfeld, which for days now we heard is coming. I was rather bracing for an indictment of the Secretary of Defense who, of course, needs no one to defend him. He is an honorable and effective and totally self-sacrificing public servant who has served the President and the American people well. But I noted that the big indictment is that President Bush needs to change course in Iraq-- undefined how that change in course might operate--to provide a strategy for success--the strategy was announced over and over by the President, reiterated in his speech yesterday--and one indication of a change of course would be to replace the current Secretary of Defense.

I suppose it would be. That is a bit of a tautology. But it doesn't suggest that it would do anything or accomplish anything except, perhaps, embarrass the President, perhaps undermine our credibility abroad, perhaps embolden our opponents and raise questions by our allies. That is not a very constructive proposition by our friends on the other side of the aisle. But, on the other hand, not much that they have offered is very constructive.

It is easy to criticize, easy to play Monday morning quarterback. It is a little more difficult when you are in the middle of the battle, charged with the responsibility of success. I shudder to think what these Monday morning quarterbacks would have done in World War II or World War I, a day after the landing on D-day or at Iwo Jima--10,000 casualties. Or the Civil War. It occurs to me we would not be here debating as a unified nation today if one of the greatest generals in the history of America, Robert E. Lee, hadn't made a monumental mistake at Gettysburg. The reality is mistakes are made in war and it is very difficult while the war is going on, and before the historians have the context in which to reflect on it, to debate the mistakes, especially when the enemy is listening and certainly our allies and our troops are listening as well.

But just to reflect on a couple of these, one comment by one of the Senators was the problem is we are trying to do a war without enough military. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have steadfastly supported a stronger more robust military. Sometimes we don't get a lot of support on the other side of the aisle for that. But the comment was we do need more troops, from a Senator who wants to withdraw our troops.

I happen to agree with my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, who has said we need more troops. The best way to do that, at least under current circumstances, is to not withdraw an American soldier for every Iraqi trained but combine the two armies as the Iraqis are trained up in order to go into a place like Baghdad and get control. That is not reducing troops, obviously; that is enhancing the total power there.

How do we get more troops if every time we train up an Iraqi an American has to leave? Or we set a timetable for leaving by the end of the year? I am at a loss to understand this notion: Our problem is we need more troops, so let's bring our troops home. I don't get it. Unless, of course, we are not concerned about the outcome--and that is the question.

That, unfortunately, is the question that must be in the minds of our allies. It must be in the minds of our enemies when they hear a debate like this and they hear: We need more troops, let's bring our troops home. They must ask: Okay, what does that mean? Does it mean America is in it for winning or does it mean we are going to be leaving, and the vacuum that is created will be an opportunity to move in and do our evil deeds?

The President, in his speech yesterday, was very clear about the nature of the enemy, an enemy that sees the Iraq battlefront as a central part of what he called World War III, their attempt to either make us bow down to their will or kill us or, if we succeed, they die trying. It is a win-win for them either way, according to them.

The reality is, this is a battle we cannot leave. This is a fight we cannot walk away from. If we are going to win the war against the terrorists, we have to win the battle in Iraq. There is no other way around that proposition. We cannot abdicate Iraq and still hope to win this war against these radical Islamists, at least not without taking horrendous casualties and losses in the meantime until our allies and some in America determine it is worth fighting, that it is a serious enemy, that we have to do whatever it takes to win, and that includes fighting in places such as Iraq.

I conclude with this notion, and the Senator from New Hampshire made the point earlier in a very eloquent way. After recounting all of the carping and criticism of what could have been done differently, he asked: Is there no credit for what we have achieved in Afghanistan, a country that was ruled by the Taliban, where women were beaten, where people were taken to the soccer stadium and shot, where little girls could not go to school and on and on, an altogether horrific place? Is there no credit for the fact that the people of Afghanistan are now free? Is there no credit for the fact that a brutal dictator who killed thousands and thousands of his own citizens, gassed many of them to death, killed hundreds of thousands of people in neighboring countries and was prepared to do battle with us, is there no credit for the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone, that his people have now been afforded the opportunity to freely elect their own government, and we are in the process of helping them secure that freedom? Is there no credit for the fact that Qadhafi decided America's will was pretty well demonstrated in Afghanistan, and he was not going to buck that will by continuing his evil way and developing nuclear weapons, so discretion being the better part of valor, he would get on the right side of history and be with us in this war? Is there no credit for any of these achievements?

No, no, not when you are discussing the President of the United States, who in some circles has to be vilified in the name of political discourse. This is not the way to conduct this debate. The way to conduct a debate over the strategy and over the course of history is to have a civil discussion that does not focus on an individual in the administration--who, after all, is only one person making the decisions and who has served this country ably--but, rather, on the strategic objectives over the goals.

Can anyone doubt what the goals in the war have to be? Can anyone doubt that the goal has to be to retain the ability of the country of Iraq to keep terrorists out and to ensure the safety and security of their own citizens in the future? I don't think there can be any doubt about what the goals ought to be.

Yet the President was right yesterday in reiterating those goals because there appear to be some who have lost sight or who have not ever realized the true evil nature of this enemy, who don't quite comprehend what it will take to defeat this enemy, who do not connect the dots to see we cannot walk away from Iraq and still be able to defeat this enemy, the radical Islamist, both the Sunni and the Shia Islamists, the people who would do us evil if we do not stand in that way. If you do not understand the enemy, I suppose it is not hard to conclude that, because the going is getting tough in Iraq, we ought to leave. The people who believe that are very strong, as the President said, maybe quite patriotic but very wrong.

It is the terrorist leaders themselves who believe that Iraq is a central battlefield in what we call the Third World War, a war that obviously the United States is leading. With our allies, we need to bring this to a successful conclusion.

I quote from the President's speech the words of Osama bin Laden who said:

I now address the whole Islamic nation. Listen and

understand. The most serious issue today for the whole world

is this third world war that is raging in Iraq.

He calls it a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam and concludes that the whole world is watching this war, and it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

In the latter, I think he was correct. We have to make sure that it is his misery and humiliation and the terrorists' misery and humiliation that is the result of the conflict in Iraq and not that of the United States. In order to ensure that, it is incumbent upon us to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion and not leave this difficult battlefield prematurely--in the process, by the way, support those who are working very hard on our behalf, not denigrate them. It is fine to show the loyalty and the gratitude to our troops that the resolution does, and which I do, but it is also important to show that same kind of gratitude to other people who are trying very hard to protect the American people. That includes the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.

Exhibit 1

Response from the Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to a Democratic Letter

September 5, 2006.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your September 4 letter to

the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires

an accurate and fair-minded description of our current

policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq

that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In

order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along

three main tracks--political, economic, and security. Along

each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics

to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both

successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of

every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed ``new

direction'' in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-

established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously

misguided.

First, you propose ``transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq

to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force

protection.'' That is what we are now doing, and have been

doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi

Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the

past three years. Our military has had substantial success in

building the Iraqi Army--and increasingly we have seen the

Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free

Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S.

support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat

support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current

situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more

capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than

a year ago--and because of the extraordinary efforts of the

United States military, we expect they will

become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your

recommendation that we focus on counterterrorism training and

operations--which is the most demanding task facing our

troops--tracks not only with our policy but also our

understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and

other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front

in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes ``working with Iraqi leaders

to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and

sustainable political settlement, including amending the

Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and

resources.'' You are once again urging that the Bush

Administration adopt an approach that has not only been

embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-

Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is

an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has

the support of the United States, our coalition partners and

the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented.

Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who

boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved

in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a

free government that represents all communities in Iraq for

the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context

of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting

national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis

will consider what amendments might be required to the

constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the

matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime

Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition

leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and

implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate

members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for ``convening an international

conference and contact group to support a political

settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to

revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding

effort.'' The International Compact for Iraq, launched

recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United

Nations, is the best way to work with regional and

international partners to make substantial economic progress

in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and

rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just

political settlement in Iraq--all while preserving Iraqi

sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum,

and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are

already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the

region.

On the fourth element of your proposed ``new direction,''

however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for

redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground

allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of

defending their nation, and when our military commanders

believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of

these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin

withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard

to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks

specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is

contemplated by the ``phased redeployment'' you propose. (One

such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory

to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be

redeployed as a ``quick reaction force'' to Okinawa, which is

nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by ``phased

redeployment,'' any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would

have disastrous consequences for America's security. Such a

policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes

of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of

huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies

have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the

Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would

have been in vain. This ``new direction'' would lead to a

crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for

Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President

will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to

victory--and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the

counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the

region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of

Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree. Secretary Rumsfeld is

an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership,

the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown

two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million

people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary

Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President's vision for a

transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in

forging and implementing many of the policies you now

recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full

confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the

Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our

troops and promote our national security, which we believe

can be accomplished only through victory in this central

front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten,

Chief of Staff.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006. This Act will enhance and improve the statutes governing material support for terrorism, protection of classified information, terrorist hoaxes, and terrorist murders and assaults. Specifically, the TPA expands the reach of statutes punishing material support for terrorism, making it a crime to reward the family of a suicide bomber or other terrorist with the intent to facilitate terrorism, and increases penalties for existing material support offenses; clarifies and improves the Classified Information Procedures Act in light of the lessons learned in the Moussaoui trial; expands the reach of the terrorist hoax statute, and increases penalties for hoaxes about the deaths of U.S. soldiers during wartime; increases penalties for terrorist murders, kidnappings, and assaults committed overseas against U.S. nationals, and increases penalties for terrorist crimes resulting in death; and improves the United States's ability to investigate terrorist crimes by protecting the confidentiality of FISA investigations, authorizing multi-district search warrants in terrorism cases, and increasing penalties for obstruction of justice in terrorism cases.

I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of the Terrorism Prevention Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006. This Act will enhance and improve the statutes governing material support for terrorism, protection of classified information, terrorist hoaxes, and terrorist murders and assaults. Specifically, the TPA expands the reach of statutes punishing material support for terrorism, making it a crime to reward the family of a suicide bomber or other terrorist with the intent to facilitate terrorism, and increases penalties for existing material support offenses; clarifies and improves the Classified Information Procedures Act in light of the lessons learned in the Moussaoui trial; expands the reach of the terrorist hoax statute, and increases penalties for hoaxes about the deaths of U.S. soldiers during wartime; increases penalties for terrorist murders, kidnappings, and assaults committed overseas against U.S. nationals, and increases penalties for terrorist crimes resulting in death; and improves the United States's ability to investigate terrorist crimes by protecting the confidentiality of FISA investigations, authorizing multi-district search warrants in terrorism cases, and increasing penalties for obstruction of justice in terrorism cases.

I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of the Terrorism Prevention Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Ensign, Feinstein and Reid to introduce the Lower Colorado River Multi- Species Conservation Program Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River and to provide assurances to the affected water and power agencies of Arizona, California, and Nevada that their river operations may continue upon compliance with the underlying program.

The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, otherwise known as the MSCP, is a comprehensive, cooperative effort among 50 Federal and non-Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada whose purposes are to: 1. protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations; 2. protect threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act; and 3. prevent the listing of additional species on the lower Colorado River.

To accomplish these goals, the MSCP will create more than 8,100 acres of riparian, marsh, and backwater habitat and implement additional measures to protect 26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species. The program covers approximately 400 miles, including the full-pool elevations of Lake Mead to the United States-Mexico Southerly International Boundary.

The program costs will be spread over 50 years, and split 50/50 between the Federal Government and the non-

Federal entities covered by MSCP. Arizona and Nevada will each bear 25 percent of the non-Federal costs and California will bear 50 percent of the non-Federal costs.

Although implementation of the program began in April 2005 under the U.S. Department of the Interior's existing authority, legislation is needed to protect the substantial financial commitments that the non- Federal parties are making to species protection. To that end, the bill: 1. expressly authorizes appropriations to cover the Federal share of the program costs; 2. directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage and implement the MSCP in accordance with the underlying program documents; and 3. provides a waiver of sovereign immunity to allow the non-Federal parties to enforce, if necessary, the underlying program documents. The waiver, however, does not allow an action to be brought against the United States for money damages.

While some minor issues remain regarding the continuity of the program documents, we have every confidence that these issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses.

In summary, this bill will ensure the certainty of existing river water and power operations while at the same time conserving and helping the recovery of endangered species on the lower Colorado River. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Ensign, Feinstein and Reid to introduce the Lower Colorado River Multi- Species Conservation Program Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River and to provide assurances to the affected water and power agencies of Arizona, California, and Nevada that their river operations may continue upon compliance with the underlying program.

The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, otherwise known as the MSCP, is a comprehensive, cooperative effort among 50 Federal and non-Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada whose purposes are to: 1. protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations; 2. protect threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act; and 3. prevent the listing of additional species on the lower Colorado River.

To accomplish these goals, the MSCP will create more than 8,100 acres of riparian, marsh, and backwater habitat and implement additional measures to protect 26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species. The program covers approximately 400 miles, including the full-pool elevations of Lake Mead to the United States-Mexico Southerly International Boundary.

The program costs will be spread over 50 years, and split 50/50 between the Federal Government and the non-

Federal entities covered by MSCP. Arizona and Nevada will each bear 25 percent of the non-Federal costs and California will bear 50 percent of the non-Federal costs.

Although implementation of the program began in April 2005 under the U.S. Department of the Interior's existing authority, legislation is needed to protect the substantial financial commitments that the non- Federal parties are making to species protection. To that end, the bill: 1. expressly authorizes appropriations to cover the Federal share of the program costs; 2. directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage and implement the MSCP in accordance with the underlying program documents; and 3. provides a waiver of sovereign immunity to allow the non-Federal parties to enforce, if necessary, the underlying program documents. The waiver, however, does not allow an action to be brought against the United States for money damages.

While some minor issues remain regarding the continuity of the program documents, we have every confidence that these issues will be resolved as the legislation progresses.

In summary, this bill will ensure the certainty of existing river water and power operations while at the same time conserving and helping the recovery of endangered species on the lower Colorado River. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 4842. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside for the purpose of this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden not be shown as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I notify my colleagues that this is a small piece of an amendment that yesterday was objected to, properly, under the rules, but I believe there could be unanimous consent that this piece would be permitted to proceed. I have given copies of the amendment to Senators Inouye and Stevens, and Senator Domenici has approved it. Senator Bingaman has a copy. It deals with royalty relief. We discussed this yesterday. Really the controversial amendment, as I say, has been objected to.

I hope my colleagues will agree to allow this to be either voice voted or approved in some other way. I don't intend to take any more time on it. Certainly, we would leave time for people to take a look at it if they want to, to see if there is an issue with it, and if they do have an issue that they see me about it.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order, and I call up amendment No. 4842, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ensign be added as a cosponsor and indicate that I am ready to vote, and I do not call for a rollcall vote or the yeas and nays at this time.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am not sure what the status is now. Is the regular order to take the vote on amendment No. 4842?

As I said, Mr. President, I am prepared to vote and will not call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am happy to explain this amendment.

This amendment deals with royalty relief and requires that the Secretary of the Interior put a price threshold on any royalty relief in the future and confirms his authority to have done so in the past.

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington had printed in the Record a letter from an official in the State of Washington. In response and in refutation of the point of that letter, I will read from a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Employment Standards for the U.S. Department of Labor, Victoria Lipnick.

Mr. President, this letter is dated August 2. It says, among other things:

Were this passed into law, the Wage and Hour Division of

the Department of Labor would read section 402 as protecting

the current minimum wages of the tipped employees in the

seven states that now exclude tipped employees' tips from

being considered as wages. To do otherwise would be

inconsistent with what we understand to be the intent of the

Congress and Fair Labor Standards Act which the WHD enforces.

The bottom line of this legislation, as has been said, is it will increase the standards of living and decrease the cost of dying.

I urge my colleagues to support moving forward with it.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment 4775 and send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment simply adds $100,000 to the sum that would otherwise be appropriate to the National Guard for the purpose of constructing the fence. There is some question about whether the appropriations for vehicle barriers we have in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill will be added to construct the full number of barriers that are required. This is a very slight addition to the funding called for in the underlying amendment to help ensure we have that funding as well.

What Senator Sessions and I are committed to doing is ensuring that the authorization for construction of fencing is fully funded so that we can assure our constituents that we have done everything necessary to provide the fencing on the border that the experts have said is necessary. When we talk about vehicle barriers, let me describe briefly how that fits into fencing.

Fencing is primarily a way for the Border Patrol to ensure, as it patrols the border in urban areas primarily, that it is very difficult to cross. It is hard for the Border Patrol in urban areas to be able to patrol on a continuous basis and deal with the large volume of people who could come across if there is not adequate fencing. I think we have all seen the pictures of the rush to the border at border points of entry where large numbers of people congregate on the Mexican side of the border, come rushing across, and it is virtually impossible for the Border Patrol to deal with that mass of people when they cross. In order to make it more difficult in the urban areas where this is likely to occur, they prefer fencing as one of the mechanisms for securing the border.

Fencing is not effective unless you also have Border Patrol to patrol along the fencing because it is possible, in most cases, to get over a fence or through a fence. But it slows people down to the point that the Border Patrol is able to apprehend them and ensure that they do not cross illegally. One of the reasons for a double fence is that the Border Patrol can get to the point where people are trying to cross illegally if you have a double fence, and that is what this funding is helping to achieve.

Right now, we have this single fence constructed of steel. It is excess or surplus landing mat steel that the military has no more use for but used to be the equipment they would lay down on a field in order to be able to land planes on an emergency basis. This is surplus steel. They put that on end, welded together, and it constructs a fence. It is somewhat effective in the urban areas, but much of it is deteriorating in the areas where it has been constructed for a long time, and it is also not as effective because the Border Patrol cannot see through it and therefore it does not as easily know what is happening on the other side of the fence--whether people are congregating there. They would prefer to replace that deteriorating landing mat fencing with other kinds of fencing.

What the amendment from Senator Sessions does is ensure the National Guard will have the funds necessary to put the landing mat fencing up that they are currently constructing in those areas where that is appropriate but also that there will be adequate funding to convert to the other kind of fencing we are familiar with in the form of a very heavy gauge chain link kind of fencing with barbed wire, and so forth, to prevent entry.

The vehicle barriers we speak of are a real necessity now because the Border Patrol is gradually gaining control of the border, and their control is being contested by the cartels and the coyotes who in the past have had significant control of that territory. They are responding with violence, and they are using pretty high-caliber weapons.

What the Border Patrol says is that every time they see a vehicle coming across the border, they know they have a problem because it is big enough to carry weapons. It is also big enough to carry contraband, usually drugs, which is protected by weapons. So unlike the

situation with illegal immigrants crossing the border, they know that the coyotes and the cartels, the gangs that are in control, are going to use weapons to protect their turf, protect their territory, and enable that contraband to get across the border. So vehicles present a special threat to the Border Patrol.

The vehicle barriers they will construct and they are constructing will prevent, in the flat areas, beyond the urban areas, these vehicles from coming across. They are constructed in such a way that animals or people could get through them, but vehicles cannot. In some of the more mountainous areas, obviously it is not possible to put up either fencing or vehicle barriers. But the combination of those two items, plus cameras that can view large areas of the border at a time, plus lights that enable the Border Patrol to see at night and sensors in the more remote areas, in addition to the unmanned aerial vehicles, fixed- wing and helicopters that patrol the border, provides a mechanism that supports the vehicular patrols of the Border Patrol and the combination of which provides the mosaic for securing the border.

All this is a part of the Border Patrol's recommendations--the Department of Homeland Security recommendations--and is authorized by legislation we have adopted. But the funding is not adequate to complete all of this work. That is what the amendment Senator Sessions has offered would do. It would in effect put our money where our mouth is. It would provide the funding that is needed to achieve the goals we have all agreed we need to achieve.

Just a final point. When the previous appropriations bill was before us, and Senator Sessions referred to this, we had amendments--for example, one that I offered that was accepted which applied more funding to achieve the authorization we had previously passed to fund more detention spaces to end the catch-and-release program. Right after that or very shortly after that amendment was adopted, the amendment of Senator Sessions was laid down. Through no fault of his, there was a problem in funding--that is, it would have provided a potential across- the-board funding reduction of everything else--so some of us were caught in a catch-22. We very much wanted to support what Senator Sessions was doing--he is absolutely right, we needed to secure more money for the construction of fencing--yet in my case it could have been taken out of funding I had just succeeded in adding to the bill. So it was an impossible vote for us.

One of the reasons this amendment is before us is to correct that and ensure that all of the things we need to fund will be funded: the detention spaces that I was able to add, more border patrol that we have added, as well as the fencing that has to be added. So in effect this is the last block in the foundation for the effort we have of securing the border. We need to put it in place.

We have authorized the work. Everybody agrees it needs to go forward. There has simply been a difference between the funding appropriated and the funding required. This amendment will provide that funding and will do so in a way that will do harm to no other account and will help us to achieve the goal of securing the border.

I am very happy to support the amendment. The second-degree amendment that I laid down, as I said, is technical; it simply adds $100,000 to ensure there is enough money to provide for the vehicular barrier construction as well.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, I appreciate that. We had testimony before the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair and on which Senator Feinstein is the ranking member, about what the results of that fencing in San Diego have meant--on both sides of the border. The testimony was that it has reduced crime on both sides of the border. The people in Mexico are very pleased because the gangs and the coyotes that used to gather together before they would try to bring their load of illegal immigrants across the boarder--preying on them, stealing from them, robbing them, beating them, and committing other crimes against them--that whole milieu has ended because the fencing has made it impossible to cross, so the coyotes have gone to other places to try to take their loads across the border. They are no longer congregating and hanging out in that area in Tijuana and south of the San Diego area, and as a result, on both sides of the border, crime has gone down dramatically. The environment has improved dramatically because you don't have these thousands and thousands of people crossing, cutting all these trails, leaving their garbage behind.

In fact, I am told nobody has actually gotten across the fencing in that entire sector. I don't have the statistics off the top of my head here, but the testimony before our subcommittee was dramatic in terms of the number of apprehensions before the fencing and the number of apprehensions afterward. I am proud that I was a sponsor, along with Senator Feinstein, of the fencing in that area which has made such a dramatic difference there.

As I said in the Judiciary Committee, when I got the authority to add fencing in Arizona, a lot of those folks who were crossing in California are now trying to do it in Arizona. Wherever that traffic is now attempting to cross the border, we need to provide the Border Patrol with all the tools it needs to get the job done, and that includes a substantial amount of fencing.

Let me illustrate with a couple of examples. There are so many things one could talk about. For example, the violence at the border has increased 108 percent, according to the U.S. attorney in Arizona, Paul Charlton, in testimony before our subcommittee. The number of crimes and number of criminals crossing is up dramatically. Over 10 percent of all of the people apprehended now at the border have criminal records--and these are serious crimes. This is murder and rape and kidnapping and drug crimes and the like. So it is not just people coming across the border to find work here. There is a substantial number of criminals, and they are not just from our neighbor to the south, Mexico; they are from countries all over the world.

When you see the apprehensions of people from Russia and Vietnam or China or Iran or Iraq or other countries, you also wonder how many people we are not apprehending who are criminals or who can be terrorists. So there is that element.

I spoke to the matter of vehicle barriers. One of the areas they are adding barriers right now and want to add more is in the area of the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range. This is known to the people in the military as the finest area of training for our pilots in the world. There are wide-open spaces. There is nothing to prevent the kind of activity that occurs, which includes dropping bombs. From all over the country, our pilots come to train there. There is one problem. With illegal immigration, the Marine Corps now has to go out on patrol to make sure there are not any illegal immigrants in the

area where the bombing or strafing will occur. Obviously you don't want to hurt anyone.

They do that at great cost. They come back and report the area is clear, our planes are gassed, ready, loaded with the bombs and so on, maybe take off, and then they get a report that more immigrants are streaming into the area.

They have had to call off their missions. Over the past couple of years there have been hundreds of missions that had to be canceled. Thousands of flying hours have been lost as a result.

My point is this: There are costs for not having secured the border that I think many in America aren't even aware of. There are huge environmental costs. Tons of garbage are left behind rotting, a danger that leads to the people as well as to the livestock, the way the ranchers' operations are disrupted when the fences are torn down, the water lines are broken, and all the other things that occur.

The bottom line is that we have to secure the border, and adding fencing helps to do that.

That is why the amendment is so important. We have to make up the difference between what we have authorized and what the Border Patrol says they need, with what we have already provided in funding in the amendment to make up the difference to ensure that we have full funding for what we have to do at the border.

Madam President, I wish to compliment our colleague. I know the

Senator from Georgia wishes to speak so I will simply say this: Senator Cornyn and I proposed something rather radical here and that is that we actually put our money where our mouth is. That is to say, all the things we authorized, all the things the President requested to make sure we can secure the border, we actually fund so we can get the job done. That is what this amendment does. It basically takes the difference between what we said we want to do and what we fund and closes the gap so we fund it all. It is an important amendment to ensure that we can secure the border first as part of a comprehensive immigration reform.

I appreciate the work my colleague Senator Cornyn has done. I am proud to cosponsor it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment does. We will have a unanimous consent request later today to deal with this amendment in the most expeditious way. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator Domenici in helping to work out how we deal with this particular amendment.

This amendment deals with some unfinished business before the Senate. As we will recall, yesterday the Senate overwhelming passed S. 3711, which is the Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006. This bill would open new areas off the gulf to oil and gas exploration and development. S. 3711, which I voted for, is an important first step in providing our energy independence and reducing energy prices for American consumers. Once again, it raises a matter of concern: a history of lapses and mistakes in royalty collection and payments for oil and gas production under deepwater leases. It also underscores the prospect that future payments will go uncollected due to royalty provisions that are still on the books.

We must step up and deal with this unfinished business of royalty reform. That is why Senator Wyden and I are offering this amendment today. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden who has been working with me on a bipartisan basis on this issue, along with Senator DeWine, who is an original cosponsor of this royalty reform legislation, S. 3760, and Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Cantwell, and Salazar.

There are three important aspects of the royalty program that need fixing.

First, we need to deal with the mistakes that were committed by the Clinton administration in 1998 and 1999. In those years, the Department of the Interior, through the Mineral Management Service, issued leases that did not include price thresholds. That is a big deal. Energy prices have skyrocketed, and without price thresholds to trigger payment for royalties, the U.S. Government and the American people will not see a dime from these leases. The GAO estimated that this mistake could cost the taxpayers at least $7 billion in lost revenues to the U.S. Treasury.

Second, we need to deal with leases that were issued in 1996, 1997, and 2000 that included price thresholds in the lease terms but which are being challenged. A few of the oil and gas companies who signed leases in those years

have refused to pay royalties on production even though the thresholds have been exceeded. One of the companies has sued the Department of the Interior, arguing that Interior does not have the authority to establish price thresholds or any leases issued between 1996 and 2000. If the lawsuit is successful, this could have significant implications for royalties already collected. The Federal Government would likely be required to refund approximately $525 million in royalties paid by the industry and be precluded from collecting between $18 billion and $28 billion over the next 5 years.

Third, we need to deal with new leases that have royalty relief in the lease terms. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress reinstitutes royalty relief on production in the deep waters but did not require the Department of Interior to put price thresholds in new leases that include royalty relief. The 1998 and 1999 leases demonstrate that the Interior Department can't be trusted to do this on its own, and we cannot afford another $7 billion mistake.

Let me explain how the amendment fixes these three problems. Let's take the 1998 and 1999 leases first, since they are the most controversial. In the context of the fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill, there have been efforts to address this problem by Senator Gregg, Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein. This amendment today builds on those efforts.

In our approach, we try to get companies to do the right thing by giving them a choice: Keep your existing leases royalty free but be barred from bidding on new leases or renegotiate in good faith with the Federal Government and retain your eligibility to bid on new leases in the future. The major difference in our amendment is that we provide time to renegotiate.

Every company that wants to come to the table has a full year from the date of enactment of this Act to reach agreement. One year is more than enough time to address any concerns that need to be explored and worked out. I am told many of the companies holding leases from 1998 and 1999 are already renegotiating those leases. I applaud the efforts of those companies. However, Congress cannot stand by and watch consumers pay record prices at the pump knowing that American taxpayers are not getting fairly compensated for the oil and gas extracted from public land. We need to deal with this problem.

Incidentally, I note that Senator Domenici has inserted in a separate appropriations bill an amendment that deals with this problem, hopefully, over the course of the next year. What Senator Wyden and I are saying is let the process that Senator Domenici has begun have an opportunity to work. We hope it does work. But in the event that it does not work after a year, our amendment kicks in to, in effect, force a solution.

The other two fixes are less controversial and probably in the future actually even more important. Let's turn to the leases first issued between 1996 and 2000 and the Secretary's authority to impose price thresholds limiting royalty relief when oil and gas prices are high. The amendment we are offering simply reaffirms that Congress intended the Secretary to have the authority to vary the suspension of royalties based on the price of production in all leases subject to the deepwater royalty relief action. The language is exactly the same as Senator Domenici offered on another bill. After all, the whole point of royalty relief was to provide companies that undertook high-risk investments in deep water specific volumes of royalty-free production to help cover a portion of their capital costs before starting to pay royalties. It was not to pad the pocketbooks of the oil and gas companies at the expense of the American taxpayer. Price thresholds are the mechanism that ensures the companies do not benefit from both high market prices and royalty-free volumes.

Finally, Congress needs to require that new oil and gas deepwater leases that the Federal Government issues include price thresholds. This seems like a no-brainer, but right now there is no requirement that price thresholds be included in leases that have royalty relief. The language says ``may,'' not ``shall.'' Our amendment will say ``shall.'' It is a one-word change that directs the Secretary of Interior to include price thresholds in all new leases. This is an important action to ensure that the Interior Department collects royalties on the American people's energy resources at times when oil and gas prices warrant it.

I am hoping that as we debate this important Defense bill we can do the right thing and fix this problem. We are talking about a program that accounts for 30 percent of the oil and 23 percent of the natural gas produced domestically and is a major source of revenue for the Federal Government.

According to the Mineral Management Service, Federal revenues from offshore leases are estimated at $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Of the $6.3 billion in revenue for fiscal year $2005, $5.5 billion was from royalties. Securing royalty receipts is important.

I recognize this amendment may be deemed legislating on an appropriations bill, but my colleagues and I have tried to go the traditional route up to this point to no avail. This problem is too important to ignore. We are running out of time. We are willing to submit this amendment to a 60-vote threshold. I look forward to working with Senator Domenici to work an agreement to that effect soon.

As President Bush and the oil and gas companies have said, we don't need these additional incentives to explore and develop oil and gas at current prices. Let's give the American taxpayer fair compensation for the oil and gas that is extracted from public lands.

I hope my colleagues will agree to our amendment. I note, in passing, that the score of this, according to CBO, is a $9 billion revenue gain to the Treasury. This is one of those few times when we are actually going to be able to help the Treasury rather than take some money from it.

I conclude by thanking my colleague from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon and I have worked in a bipartisan way now for several weeks. We have come to a good resolution of the issue that our colleagues should be able to support.

Senator Wyden is seeking recognition, and I will let him comment at this point.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senator from North Dakota gave a speech on the Senate floor on what he calls the wall of debt. My colleague said, ``We have cut revenue, cut revenue, cut revenue.'' Clearly, he misunderstands both the rationale and the economic effect of the tax cuts. I would like to take a few moments today to clear up several misconceptions.

My colleagues know full well that the Senator's wall of debt is built of increased spending and runaway entitlement costs. Twenty years ago, entitlements accounted for 45 percent of the budget; soon, they will exceed 60 percent. Medicare alone is growing by almost 10 percent a year. In 30 years, the three big entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--if left unchanged, will consume the entire Federal budget, leaving no money for border security or education or any other necessary program.

Our problem is not that Americans are undertaxed; our problem is that entitlement spending has run amok.

In characterizing the tax relief provided in recent years, we do better to call it a ``Foundation for Economic Growth.''

When Congress cuts tax rates, it leaves money in the private economy, where it can be used more efficiently. Being taxed at lower rates, Americans have more incentive to work, save, and invest, which fosters economic growth. Tax rate cuts implemented by Republicans have kept America competitive by leaving $1.1 trillion in the American economy, where it has given us more than 4 years of uninterrupted economic growth.

To illustrate the effects that low tax rates can have on the economy, I recommend to my colleagues a study conducted by Dr. Edward Prescott, a Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at Arizona State University. Dr. Prescott's study reveals an interesting fact. Based on labor marker statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Americans aged 15 to 64 worked 50 percent more than their European counterparts in France, Germany, and Italy. Fifty percent more. But this difference in output has not always been so. Two decades ago, France's labor supply, as measured by hours worked per employee, exceeded the American labor supply, as did several other European nations.

Why is this? According to Dr. Prescott, this discrepancy in the labor market is attributable to taxes. When you lower the rates on individuals, people work harder and greater productivity results. As the United States lowered its marginal tax rates, Americans had a greater incentive to work hard, work longer, and be more productive, relative to the European nations, which kept higher tax rates.

The results of Dr. Prescott's study are telling. Ultimately, a country must establish an efficient tax system with low tax rates to achieve maximum economic productivity. This is exactly what this Republican Congress has tried to accomplish: a tax system that keeps as much money as possible in the private economy, with individuals and businesses. In contrast, Democrats seem to want to keep as much taxpayer money in Washington as possible.

If my colleague from North Dakota doesn't believe that our tax and economic policies are working, let me quote some figures from the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, released on July 11. These figures demonstrate that our tax and economic policies are fostering economic growth in the private economy and that all of this new economic growth is helping to bring down the budget deficit.

From 2005 to 2006, Federal receipts are projected to grow by 11 percent, $246 billion, more than twice as fast as the economy itself. Since the tax relief was fully implemented in 2003, tax receipts have increased by 34.6 percent. The economy has grown for 18 consecutive quarters. The economy has created over 5.4 million jobs since August 2003. This is more than Japan and the 25 nations of Europe combined. That is combined. The unemployment rate of 4.6 percent is lower than the average of the last four decades. There have been 34 months of consecutive job growth. Progrowth policies and tax receipts will allow the deficit to be cut in half by 2008, a year ahead of the President's schedule. The projected budget deficit for 2006 has fallen from 3.2 percent of gross domestic product to 2.3 percent of GDP--and measuring our deficit in relation to the size of the American economy gives the most accurate assessment of how big or small the deficit is relative to other times in our history. The projected deficit of 2.3 percent of GDP registers at the 40-year average and is lower than the deficits in 17 of the last 25 years.

Although our economy has made many steps in the right direction, we ought not be content to stop here. My colleagues and I will continue to work to reduce Government spending and to make the tax cuts permanent.

The issue that prompted this debate over the deficit, to be clear about it, is not how to reform entitlements. It is legislation the Senate will consider later this week to reform the estate tax. On this, as well, my colleagues labor under some misconceptions.

I want to take a moment to explain to them how many people will actually benefit from this legislation and to debunk some of the myths we are hearing about the cost.

If Congress fails to reform the estate tax, the exemption amount will revert to $1 million and the rate will be 55 percent in 2011. According to an analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of Senator Baucus, in that year, 127,000 estates would be subject to the death tax--meaning that 127,000 estates would have a value of $1 million or more in 2011.

But if Congress approves estate tax reform, at least 115,000 estates each and every year that would otherwise be subject to the tax--estates that are valued over $1 million, but less than $5 million--will be spared from this tax on productivity, once the reform proposal is fully effective in the year 2015. Under the proposal the Senate will consider later this week, we will be left with about 11,500 estates each and every year that will still be subject to the death tax.

The official Joint Committee on Taxation estimate for the cost of death tax reform is $267.6 billion over 10 years. Some of my colleagues have used incorrect information generated by liberal interest groups to argue that this underestimates the cost of the proposal, since it does not begin until 2010 and is not fully phased in until 2015. Thus, they claim that the cost of the death tax reform would be $808 billion over the 2012 to 2021 timeframe. They claim that it would cost $1 trillion over the same period ``when the associated increases in interest payments on the debt are included.''

There are several reasons this logic is faulty. First, Joint Tax has estimated that the proposal will cost $39.186 billion in 2012--the first year of the bogus 10-year $808 billion estimate. So if you assume that it will cost that amount, plus an increase for economic growth, each year thereafter, it could not possibly add up to $808 billion for that 10-year period.

Using actual Joint Tax estimates--the estimates we are required to use around here--you can see that once the proposal is phased in, the annual cost will increase by roughly $5 billion as a result of economic growth. Thus, using actual JCT estimates through 2016 and then assuming that the cost will increase by $5 billion each year, the total cost between 2012 and 2021 would be around $627 billion, not $808 billion.

Second, JCT does not produce estimates further ahead than 10 years because anything beyond that range is thought to be too speculative to be even close to accurate. We simply cannot predict how much revenue the proposed changes will bring into the Government's coffers that far down the road. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax have had enough trouble accurately estimating revenue collections one year out, let alone 10. For example, reducing the long-term capital gains tax in 2003, as estimated by the budgeteers at the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, would cost $27 billion in 2004. It actually brought in $26 billion that year. If official estimators have difficulty producing accurate revenue estimates in the short-term, we should heed their warnings about not betting the farm on estimates that go beyond 10 years.

Finally, as I said, Joint Tax is the official revenue-estimating body of Congress. Whether we like their estimates or not, at the end of the day we all know that is the estimate we all must rely on.

I hope these facts will bring a little perspective to the debate we are having over the deficit, the effect tax cuts have on the economy and, more to the point this week, the debate over what is really a moderate and responsible proposal to reform the death tax--a proposal that deserves broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. President, in response to my friend from North Dakota, I would note that the difference between the position he articulates--and it is a position a lot of people in Washington hold--and the position that a lot of the rest of us hold is between those who worry a lot about how much money the Government has versus those of us who think it is a better idea to let people keep more of what they earn, that they are probably in a better position to make good judgments about how that money should be spent, and especially when it comes to their death and their loved ones who have to face the difficult choice of deciding how to pay the death tax that, unless something is done, is going to go up to effectively 60 percent. Can anybody imagine a 60-percent tax rate? It is actually on the books at 55 percent, but because of the way the Code works, it can be as much as 60 percent. Can you imagine a 55- percent or 60-percent tax rate? You cannot pay it unless you sell the farm or sell the business. I know people to whom that has applied. So it is a difference between those who worry how much money Washington has and those of us who are concerned about people keeping more of what they earn.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order of speakers be as follows: Senators Kyl, Murkowski, Talent, and Alexander, with the understanding that Democrats will be accommodated if they come to the floor.

Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to talk briefly about S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, which will open new federally controlled areas in the gulf to oil and gas leasing. I support the purpose of this bill as a necessary step in securing American oil and natural gas for America's energy consumers. It will start to address the root cause of high energy prices which is, of course, demand outpacing supply.

However, there is one aspect of our Federal oil and gas leasing program that needs fixing. That program is the Royalty Relief Program. I am hoping we will have the opportunity to offer some modest reforms to this part of the program.

Let me first explain how it works. Royalties are collected by the Department of Interior from leases as a fixed percentage of the net value of oil or gas produced from the leased area. The terms of the lease specify the royalty rate that applies to future production from that area, on average, about 15 percent, as well as the conditions under which the lessee may qualify for a royalty holiday, a waiver of royalty payments commonly called royalty relief.

Mandatory royalty relief was provided pursuant to the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 as an incentive to companies to undertake investment in the deep waters. The incentive was intended to provide companies that undertook these investments specific volumes of royalty- free production to help recover a portion of their capital costs before starting to pay royalties. The act also gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to limit royalty relief based on market price. These limits are called price thresholds. Price thresholds act to set a gross revenue ceiling so that companies do not benefit from both high market prices and royalty-free volumes.

These incentives were offered at a time when oil and gas prices were low and interest in deep water exploration and development was lacking. Since the passage of the 1995 act, natural gas production is up 407 percent and oil 386 percent based on figures provided by the American Petroleum Institute.

Despite the program's successes, recent news reports and the administration's own statements suggest that the Government may be unable to collect billions in royalties from leases issued under this act. Many have probably heard the reports to the effect that in 1998 and 1999 the Clinton administration issued leases that did not include price thresholds. Why is this a big deal? It is a big deal because energy prices have skyrocketed and without price thresholds to trigger payment of royalties, we will not see a dime from these leases. GAO estimates that the mistake could cost up to $10 billion in lost revenues.

I wish that were the only problem, but it isn't. A few producers who signed leases in 1997, 1998, and 2000 that did include price thresholds have refused to pay royalty on production even though the thresholds have been exceeded. One of the companies has sued the Department of the Interior, arguing that Interior does not have the authority to establish price thresholds for leases issued between 1995 and 2000. This could have significant implications for royalties already collected. GAO estimates the potential return revenue to be almost $60 billion.

Despite these concerns, the Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act which, again, made royalty relief mandatory in deep water leases but did not require that royalty relief be conditioned upon price thresholds.

This brings me back to the bill under consideration and the modest reforms to the royalty program that I seek to offer to improve the program going forward. First, Congress must require that the Secretary of Interior impose price thresholds in all new leases that include royalty relief. Directing the Secretary to include price thresholds in all leases is an important near-term action that will ensure that the American taxpayer gets a fair return for the oil and gas produced from Federal land. The 1998 and 1999 leases demonstrate that the Interior Department cannot be trusted to do this on its own, and we cannot afford another $10 billion mistake.

Second, Congress must reaffirm the Secretary's authority under the 1995 act to put price thresholds in leases. Congress intended that royalties be paid when prices were high. We must ensure this is the case.

This bill is a natural place to make these fixes to the Royalty Relief Program. After all, any royalty payments made or not made will directly affect the revenues that can be shared under this bill.

I urge my colleagues to work with me on these important reforms. I hope we can all agree that including these reforms in this bill will improve and not hinder the bill.

I conclude by saying that I have spoken with Senator Domenici, the author of the bill, and that Senator Wyden and I have urged some form of this relief be included in the bill. I appreciate very much Senator Domenici's leadership on this issue overall and hope that we can reach some kind of agreement.

In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a

Legislative Notice produced by the Republican Policy Committee on S. 3711.

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

Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act, I am pleased to see that this legislation is finally being considered and hopeful that it will be passed quickly.

S. 403 makes subject to fines or imprisonment up to 1 year anyone who ``knowingly transports a minor across a State line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the State where the minor resides.''

The provision I cite is an admirably clear piece of legislative language. It not only makes a salutary change in existing law; it provides an convincing explanation as to why it is needed.

Notwithstanding the abortion debate's notoriously divisive character, parental involvement statutes constitute an area of near-consensus around which pro-life and pro-choice Americans can come together.

Forty-five States--including my own--have enacted statutes aimed at ensuring that parents of minor girls are not deprived of the opportunity involved in this most sensitive decision, one with profound implications for their daughters' physical and mental health.

Public opinion polls demonstrate overwhelming support for the proposition that in all but the most extraordinary circumstances--in which instances, the State statutes in question

provide for a judicial bypass--parents must be involved in decisions affecting the health of their minor children.

Unfortunately, the public record now provides ample evidence suggesting that these laws are frequently circumvented--often by individuals who by facilitating an abortion may be covering up evidence of a crime: statutory rape.

When abortionists buy advertisements in the yellow pages directories serving communities in neighboring States with parental involvement statutes, and when they adorn the ads with helpful reminders that their services can be obtained without parental consent, both the authority of State lawmakers and the sanctity of the parent-child bond are mocked.

As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital that the Senate today draw a line against this egregious manifestation of the abortion culture. Colleagues who support a liberal abortion regime but claim that they want the practice to be rare should welcome this opportunity to support a unifying commonsense measure that helps give effect to public policies embraced by legislators of both parties in the States.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Cornyn and Hatch from the Judiciary Committee--Senator Hatch having chaired the committee for several years--and the assistant majority leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell, to speak on the legislation renewing the Voting Rights Act.

Let me begin by saying I support the Voting Rights Act extension. This law was critical to ending over 90 years of voting discrimination against African Americans in the South. Prior to this law, many States enforced discriminatory policies that were designed to and that did prevent African Americans from voting. Since that law was enacted, many of the same States where African Americans first voted in far lower numbers than Whites now have higher percentage of African Americans voting than other races.

The Voting Rights Act is a historic achievement that has corrected one of the glaring injustices of our Nation's past. It has been an important step in our Nation's continuing progress toward our founding ideal that all men are created equal.

Mr. President, I wish to address some questions that have been raised about this reauthorization and ask my colleagues if they concur in my interpretation.

The bill amends section 5 by legislatively abrogating two Supreme Court cases interpreting the act: Reno v. Bossier Parish and Georgia v. Ashcroft. These changes are related to one another. They are designed to operate together to achieve a common objective: the protection of naturally occurring legislative districts with a majority of minority voters.

The two changes to section 5 accomplish this goal by enhancing and refocusing the operation of section 5. These changes simultaneously bar redistricters from denying a large, compact group of minority voters a majority-minority district that it would receive in the absence of discrimination, and also to bar redistricters from breaking up a compact majority-minority district that has been created in the past.

Some have raised the specter that Federal bureaucrats will abuse the authority we are giving them under this provision, that they will characterize all manner of practices as having a ``discriminatory purpose.'' In particular, there has been some suggestion that the new language will be abused by the Justice Department to require creation of the maximum number of Black majority districts possible or the maximum number of so-called coalition or influence districts, in which minority voters are combined with enough White voters of similar partisan leanings to elect a candidate.

I don't think this is what the bill does, or that it can be reasonably read to do this. To say something has a discriminatory purpose is a term of art. It is the language of the jurisprudence of the 14th amendment, of cases such as Washington v. Davis, which define when particular action constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Constitution.

There is a well-defined body of case law defining when racial discrimination violates the U.S. Constitution. That case law provides clear borders to the limits of the Executive discretion being granted in this bill.

One traditional and important standard for identifying unconstitutional racial discrimination is to ask whether the challenged court action departs from normal rules of decision. In the case of redistricting, courts and the Justice Department would ask: Was the decision not to create a Black majority district a departure from ordinary districting rules? If a State has a large minority population concentrated in a particular area, ordinarily rules of districting-- following political and geographic borders and keeping districts as compact as possible--would recommend that these voters be given a majority-minority district. If the redistricters went out of their way to avoid creating such a majority minority--one that would be created under ordinary rules--that is unconstitutional racial discrimination, and it is banned by this bill. But this bill does not require the creation of a majority-minority district that would not be created under default districting rules. Nor does the bill require the creation of coalition or influence districts. It bars discrimination against racial minorities, not against electoral advantages sought by either Republicans or Democrats. Moreover, no group is entitled to always be included in a district where the candidate of its party will prevail.

This section's abrogation of Bossier Parish does not permit a finding of discriminatory purpose that is based, in whole or in part, on a failure to adopt the optimal or maximum number of compact minority opportunity districts or on a determination that the plan seeks partisan advantage or protects incumbents. With the language of this bill, we are importing the constitutional test in section 5, and nothing else. With this understanding, I support this improvement to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. President, I think the point the distinguished assistant majority leader made is very important, and I am glad there is agreement on this important matter.

I also wish to discuss one other of the bill's changes to section 5. That is the provision abrogating the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft. That Supreme Court case held that, when conducting a retrogression analysis of section 5 under the act, a court or the Justice Department should gauge whether a new electoral map has diminished a minority group's opportunities to participate in the political process by looking, in part, to whether the new plan creates coalition districts, or influences districts--that is the term they use--whether it protects positions in legislative leadership for minority representatives, and whether minority representatives support the new plan.

Many people objected to this aspect of the Ashcroft decision because of its perceived potential to put a partisan thumb on the scale, so to speak, in the redistricting process. Their concern was if the fact that a coalition or influence district elects a candidate that minority voters largely voted for, then even if that candidate was not the minority group's preferred candidate of choice, any plan that does not preserve that district would be considered retrogressive under the Voting Rights Act.

Similarly, there was concern that under Ashcroft, if a new voting map were to give advantage to legislative races to one party, and minority representatives--including committee chairmen and legislative leaders-- overwhelmingly were members of the opposite party, then that plan, too, would be deemed retrogressive for that reason.

Personally, I do not think the Ashcroft decision should be read that way. I think it is clear the court intended to give States the option of using influence or coalition districts, but it did not intend to require the use of such districts, or to prevent them from later changing such districts.

Mr. President, let me just say one final thing. I very much agree with Senator Hatch that the bill limits section 5, protecting those naturally occurring, compact majority-minority districts with which section 5 was originally concerned, and that nothing in this section of the act should be interpreted to require that the competitive position of the political party favored by minority voters be maintained or enhanced in any district. This change made by the bill is not intended to preserve or ensure the electability of candidates of any political party, even if that party's candidates are supported by members of minority groups.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. This legislation will create a national sex offender registry that will make it possible for law enforcement and concerned citizens to track sexual predators. The bill also includes tough penalties that will ensure that these individuals will actually register. There currently are over 100,000 sex offenders in this country who are required to register but are ``off the system.'' They are not registered. The penalties in this bill should be adequate to ensure that these individuals register. In addition to allowing up to 10 years in prison for an offender who fails to register, the bill also imposes a mandatory 5 years in prison for an offender who has neglected his obligation to register and commits a crime of violence.

I would like to focus my remarks on legislation that I have introduced that has been incorporated in this final bill. I am particularly pleased to see that the bill maintains the ChildHelp National Registry of Cases of Child Abuse and Neglect. Section 663 of the bill instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to create a national registry of persons who have been found to have abused or neglected a child. The information will be gathered from State databases of child abuse or neglect. It will be made available to State child-protective-services and law-enforcement agencies ``for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities under the law to protect children from abuse and neglect.'' The national database will allow States to track the past history of parents and guardians who are suspected of abusing their children. When child-abusing parents come to the attention of authorities--when teachers begin to ask about bruises, for example--these parents often will move to a different jurisdiction. A national database would allow the State to which these parents move to know the parents' history. It will let a child-protective-services worker know, for example, whether he should prioritize investigation of a particular case because the parent has been found to have committed substantiated cases of abuse in the past in other States. Such a database also would allow a State that is evaluating a prospective foster parent or adoptive parent to learn about past incidents of child abuse that the person has committed in other States.

I am also proud to see that the Internet SAFETY Act, which I introduced with several colleagues earlier this year, has been incorporated as title VII of this bill. This title includes the following important provisions:

Section 701 makes it a criminal offense to operate a child exploitation enterprise, which is defined as four or more persons who act in concern to commit at least three separate violations of Federal child pornography, sex trafficking, or sexual abuse laws against multiple child victims. This offense is punished by imprisonment for 20 years up to life.

Section 702 provides that if an individual who is required to register as a sex offender under Federal or State law commits specified Federal offenses involving child pornography, sex trafficking, or sexual abuse against a minor victim, the offender shall be imprisoned for 10 years in addition to any penalty imposed for the current offense.

Section 703 makes it a criminal offense to embed words or digital images into the source code of a Web site in order to deceive people into viewing obscenity on the Internet. Offenses targeting adults are subject to up to 10 years imprisonment; offenses targeted at child victims are subject to up to 20 years imprisonment.

Section 704 authorizes appropriations for the U.S. Attorney General to hire 200 additional Assistant United States Attorneys across the country to prosecute child pornography, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse offenses targeted at children.

Section 705 authorizes appropriations for the hiring of 30 additional computer forensic examiners within the Justice Department's Regional Computer Forensic Laboratories, and 15 additional computer forensic examiners within the Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Crimes Center. The additional computer forensic examiners will be dedicated to investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children and related offenses.

Section 706 authorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to create 10 additional Internet Crimes Against Children, ICAC, Task Forces.

Finally, section 707 of the Internet SAFETY title expands the civil remedies for sexual offenses by allowing the parents of a minor victim to seek damages, and by allowing a minor victim to seek damages as an adult.

Title II of today's bill also includes a number of penalty increases and other improvements to Federal criminal sex offenses. Many of these provisions appeared in the Internet SAFETY Act, as well as in the Jetseta Gage Act, which was introduced by Senator Grassley in 2005 and of which I was an original cosponsor. Section 211 suspends the statute of limitations for all Federal felony offenses of sexual abuse, sex trafficking, or child pornography. Other provisions of title II increase penalties for coercion and enticement by sex offenders, conduct relating to child prostitution, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, and sex trafficking of children. Title II also makes sexual abuse offenses resulting in death eligible for the capital punishment, and expands the predicate offenses justifying mandatory repeat-offender penalties for offenses involving child pornography and depictions of the sexual exploitation of children. Finally, title II adds sex trafficking of children to the set of repeat offenses that are subject to mandatory life imprisonment.

Another provision that I have pursued during this Congress and that is included in this final bill is section 212, which extends several of the guarantees of the 2004 Crime Victims' Rights Act to Federal habeas corpus review of State criminal convictions. Because such cases involve Federal courts but State prosecutors, this extension is limited to those provisions of CVRA that are enforced by a court--Congress cannot compel State prosecutors to enforce a Federal statute. The victims' rights extended by section 212 to Federal habeas proceedings are the right to be present at proceedings, the right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole, the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.

The bill also makes some technical improvements to the DNA Fingerprint Act, which Senator Cornyn and I introduced last year and which was enacted into law as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act at the beginning of this year. Section 155 of today's bill modifies the authority granted to the Federal Government by the DNA Fingerprint Act to collect DNA samples from Federal arrestees. Under current law, the Federal Government may collect a DNA sample from any person arrested for a Federal offense, but the authority to collect DNA from persons convicted of a Federal offense is limited to felonies and certain misdemeanors. Section 155 corrects this anomaly by including convictions in the Federal sample- collection regulatory authority, thus allowing the Federal Government to collect DNA from all persons convicted of a Federal crime. The 2006 Act also allows DNA to be collected from all arrestees, but in the case of persons detained under Federal authority this authority is limited to non-U.S. persons--i.e., foreign visitors who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. Problems might arise in the case of U.S. persons who are detained and facing Federal criminal charges, but who were not arrested by Federal authorities. Examples include persons who are being prosecuted federally but were arrested by the State officers participating in a joint Federal-State task force, and persons who turn themselves in to Federal authorities without being formally arrested. Arguably, the 2006 act's arrest authority should extend to such individuals--they are constructively arrested. Section 155 eliminates any ambiguity and possibility of litigation over these matters by expressly granting the Federal Government the authority to collect DNA samples from individuals facing Federal charges.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to recognize all of the staff who worked so hard to see this bill through to completion. Please allow me to

thank Ken Valentine and Tom Jipping of Senator Hatch's staff, Dave Turk of Senator Biden's staff, Julie Katzman and Noah Bookbinder of Senator Leahy's staff, Nicole Gustafson of Senator Grassley's staff, as well as Chad Groover, who has since left Senator Grassley's office but who played a critical role in developing many of the penalty enhancements included in title II, Christine Leonard of Senator Kennedy's staff, Lara Flint of Senator Feingold's staff, Nate Jones of Senator Kohl's staff, Sharon Beth Kristal of Senator DeWine's staff, Reed O'Connor of Senator Cornyn's staff, Jane Treat of Senator Coburn's staff, Greg Smith of Senator Feinstein's staff, Marianne Upton of Senator Durbin's staff, Bradley Hayes of Senator Sessions's staff, Bradley Schreiber of Mr. Foley's staff, and last but not least in this group, Brooke Bacak of my Republican Policy Committee staff.

I would especially like to thank Allen Hicks and Brandi White of Senator Frist's staff, who were very helpful in securing the inclusion of the Child-Abuse Registry in this bill, Matt Miner of Senator Specter's staff, who played a critical role in negotiating the final bill, and Mike Volkov, Sean McLaughlin, and Phil Kiko of Mr. Sensenbrenner's staff. The bill that we have today would not exist were it not for the professionalism, expertise, and dedication of the Sensenbrenner staff. Often it is easy in Congress simply to pass any bill dealing with a subject so that we can say that we have addressed the problem. This is not such a bill. This is a strong, tough bill that will make a difference in the safety and security of our Nation's children. It is a bill of which we can all be proud, and Mr. Sensenbrenner's staff deserves recognition for their contribution to that result.