Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4990 and ask for its consideration.

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

President, I rise today to offer an amendment that I believe offers us an opportunity to secure our borders now. My bill takes a first-things-first approach and recognizes that it is imperative that we secure our borders now. This first step cannot--and should not have to--wait for a ``comprehensive'' solution. Once we secure our borders, we can look at all of the other illegal immigration related issues that remain. There is a bipartisan consensus on what needs to be done on border security and the provisions that make up this consensus. We should not hold our border security hostage to a broader initiative.

My amendment will significantly increase the assets available for controlling our borders. It provides more inspectors, more marshals, and more border patrol agents on both the northern and southern borders. It provides new aerial vehicles and virtual fencing--camera, sensors, satellite and radar coverage, etc. It increases our surveillance assets and their deployment and provides for new checkpoints and ports of entry. It includes Senator Sessions' amendment for greater fencing along our southern border, including 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. It also provides for the acquisition of more helicopters, powerboats, motor vehicles, portable computers, radio communications, hand-held global positioning devices, night vision equipment, body armor, weapons, and detention space.

While we know these resources will be critical improvements, it does not just throw resources at the problem. My amendment requires a comprehensive national strategy for border security, surveillance, ports of entry, information exchange between agencies, increasing the capacity to train border patrol agents and combating human smuggling. It enhances initiatives on biometric data, secure communications for border patrol agents, and document fraud detection. It includes Senator Ensign's language to temporarily deploy the National Guard to support the border patrol in securing our southern land border. Additionally, it increases punishment for the construction, of border tunnels or passages.

When our borders are not secure, it is our cities and counties that are on the front lines, particularly those closest to the borders. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of illegal immigration are not limited to our border towns. Recently I worked with communities in southeastern Pennsylvania--Allentown, Easton, Bethlehem, Reading and Lancaster--as well as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan, to get one of the six recent Anti-Gang Initiative grants given by the Department of Justice. This area, called the Route 222 Corridor, was the only nonmetropolitan area to receive one of the $2.5 million grants to combat growing criminal activity in part because of illegal immigrants. However, I raise this issue here because U.S. Attorney Meehan's letter explains this issue very succinctly. He stated ``[e]ach city is seeing extensive Latino relocation to its poorer neighborhoods and housing projects. Once largely Puerto Rican, the minority populations are increasingly from Central America. Simultaneously, Mexican workers migrate to the agricultural areas around Lancaster, creating a southern link to criminal networks. The urban core is therefore transient, poor, non- English speaking and often undocumented . . . In this fertile environment, the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA, and lately, MS-13, are recruiting or fighting with local gangs for control of the drug markets. Violence is a daily by-product.''

My amendment provides relief for cities, counties, and States dealing

with increased costs because of illegal immigration--specifically those caused by the criminal acts of illegal immigrants. There are four programs included in my amendment to address these issues. First, there are grants to law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican borders or such agencies where there is a lack of security and a rise in criminal activity because of the lack of border security, including a preference for communities with less than 50,000 people. Second, local governments can be reimbursed for costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens such as indigent defense, criminal prosecution, translators, and court costs. Third, State and local law enforcement agencies can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the detention and transportation of an illegal alien to Federal custody. Finally, reimbursements are available for costs incurred in prosecuting criminal cases that were federally initiated but where the Federal entity declined to prosecute. In addition, my bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide sufficient transportation and officers to take illegal aliens apprehended by State and local law enforcement officers into custody for processing at a detention facility operated by the Department, and that the Secretary designate at least one Federal, State, or local facility in each State as the central facility to transfer custody to the Department of Homeland Security.

This amendment also expedites the removal of criminal aliens from correctional facilities and expands border security programs through the Department of Commerce such as the Carrier Initiative, the Americas Counter Smuggling Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and the Free and Secure Trade Initiative.

Throughout this debate, I have consistently stated that the first thing we must do is secure our Nation's borders. While the House and Senate are working to come to an agreement on the broader issues in an immigration bill, I am here to offer the Senate an opportunity to secure our borders now by adopting my Border Security First Amendment. Our borders must be secured now--not later. In the post 9/11 world we live in, our national security depends on our border security. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are from, and what they are doing here. We must put first things first--we must secure our Nation's borders. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me in recognizing the urgency of this amendment.

Again, I offer this amendment because I wish to make a point. The point is, we are talking about port security, and that is very important. But what I hear when I go home is not about port security, I hear about border security over and over again. If there is one issue people come up to me and talk to me about without fail, no matter what part of the State I am in, it is: What are you folks going to do about securing our borders?

We passed a bill in the Senate that is not going anywhere in the House of Representatives. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere in conference right now. What we should do and what the people in America would like us to do is to secure the borders first.

This amendment does just that. It is all the provisions in the Senate-passed bill that deal just with border security. If you want to talk about securing this country--and that is what this bill is about-- border security is a national security issue, it is an economic security issue, and it also has to do with who we are as a country and our ability to sustain our culture.

This is an important amendment. I know this is not going to be germane postcloture, and we are going to have a cloture vote tomorrow morning. So I will not pursue it further because I am told I cannot get a vote on it. I bring this up because this is what we need to do between now and the end of this month before we recess. We need to pass a bill that secures our borders and tells the American people that we get it in Washington as to what the priorities are. There are other things we need to do, I understand that, but this is what we need to do and do first.

Amendment No. 4990, Withdrawn

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor in sadness. The President of the United States gives an address about the condition of our country 5 years after the events of 9/11. He gives an address and lays out the scope of the problem we are confronting. There are people all across this world who subscribe to a radical, perverted form of Islam and want to destroy everything we believe in. That is the enemy we are confronting. We are in an active war with our military against them in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is the reality.

The minority leader just referred to it as sectarian violence. What is that word? Religious? Religious violence. Radical Islam violence-- some Sunni, some Shia, but both are radical in their nature, and they are fighting us. That is the reality of the enemy today. The very people who planned the attacks are the people who are in Iraq. Al-Qaida is in Iraq causing that sectarian violence. Should we ignore that? I ask the Senator from Nevada, should we just ignore that, pretend they are not there, not talk about that last night, pretend al-Qaida is not in Iraq? Is this not part of the mission we are trying to accomplish?

It is sad. We are at war against an enemy that I happen to believe is the most dangerous enemy ever to confront this country, and we play petty politics constantly here on the floor of the Senate--even after a solemn day of remembrance for the valued people who died on September 11. It is chilling. We just cannot get past the politics around here, just cannot get past the partisan advantage around here. We cannot face the reality that we have a dangerous enemy out there who wants to destroy everything we hold dear, an enemy who is very clear about what they want to accomplish. How clear? They say it--not to Mike Wallace on ``60 Minutes,'' I might add. No, when you are spinning in English in America, you put on the nice face, you put on the happy face that we want peace and want to live together in brotherhood and all this wonderful stuff.

But that is a lie. When they go back and speak in Arabic and Farsi, they give a very different story. It is a consistent story, I might add. It is the destruction of the State of Israel, and it is the submission of the infidels to what they believe in. That is the enemy we confront. It is real. We can play politics about it and say it is not real. We can say it is a trumped-up war. They are at war with us. We may not want to be at war with them, but they are at war with us-- not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, not just in southern Lebanon, not just in Great Britain, but here. They want to defeat us. Their intent is to defeat us. They are motivating people in the Middle East and around the world to join their ranks and attack us.

One of the things I learned from my days in Little League, and in everything else I have ever engaged in, is that one of the ways to lose anything you are engaged in with an opponent is not to take your opponent seriously, not to look at what they are really about, and not look at their capability. I remember early that in this war many were calling the terrorists cowards, as if these people were weak and they had no real resolve. These people are not weak. They are misguided-- horribly misguided--but they are not weak. They are a dangerous enemy. They are a dangerous enemy that has an ideology that is motivating people, and they have a tactic that is uniquely effective against us.

As Osama bin Laden says, ``We will defeat you because you love life; we love death.'' And we do love life in this country because we have a lot to live for. We have great freedom, great material wealth. We have a wonderful culture. They, on the other hand, for the most part have none of those. They love death because they see death as better than life. They are willing to die. In fact, they want to die. We have never fought an enemy like this. We have never fought an enemy who wanted to die as part of the victory for them. We always fought enemies who saw death as a tragic consequence of war, and their objective was an earthly kingdom. Not this enemy. This enemy says death is part of the war--a desire for those entering into this battle--and their kingdom is not one they want to build here but one they want to achieve after death. This is an enemy who wants a nuclear weapon in Iran, not because they want to stave off attacks, no, but because they want to use it to pursue their messianic vision of the return of the 12th Imam, or Hidden Imam.

I give speeches all across Pennsylvania and lay out for the people of my State this vision of President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad and the rulers of Iran, the vision of the 12th, or Hidden, Imam, who is to return at the end of time. That is what the Shias believe. But President Ahmadi-Nejad and the rulers of Iran believe different than most Shias, thank God. They believe it is their obligation to bring about the end of time by the destruction of the State of Israel and by world chaos in which Islam is suppressing the infidels, and only at that time will this Hidden Imam return and the actualization of their religion come to pass.

This is a serious enemy, an enemy with resources. This is an enemy with growing technology, and this is an enemy with fervent disciples who are willing to go around and kill themselves in pursuit of this objective. This is not something to be played politics with. This is not something to ignore and pass off as sectarian violence that we brought about because we happen to be there. These people have been at war with us for 20 years, and we have chosen to ignore them. We paid a very high price.

So what is our lesson? If you listen to the Democratic leader, it is: Let's continue to ignore them. Let's continue to play politics. Let's put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country.

That is his message--that this is not real, this is trumped up, and if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Oh, really? Do you really believe that? If we leave these people alone, do you believe that somehow we would be safe here? We can just garrison America, make all public buildings like we have here at the Capitol--put Jersey barriers around everything and have police on every corner. We can protect ourselves from these people. Is that the America in which we want to live? Not me.

We are at war--the most serious war this country has ever faced against an opponent like none we have ever faced. Yet we play politics. We ignore the reality. We can pretend they are just not there--at least until November, at least until we can get control. Then maybe we will come to our senses and recognize the grave threat that confronts our country.

No, the President did not give a political speech last night. He spoke of

the reality of the conflict that is before us. It is not popular to do so, I know. It is not popular to stand up and support a conflict that is difficult to deal with every day. But understand that is exactly what they have in mind.

Did you ever wonder why they don't kill 3,000 people in 1 day? They have the capability of doing so. You just send out, instead of 1 every day or 2 every day, you send out 200 in 1 day. Why not? Why don't they just have one mass, huge offensive? It is because that is not what they are all about. That is not a terrorist tactic.

The terrorist tactic is to cause death every single day. It doesn't matter who but just cause death. So why? To defeat the military? No, their objective isn't to defeat the military or drive back the lines of our troops or to control more area. No, those deaths are not aimed at our military, they are aimed at us. Every day they want to make it harder for you and you and you and you to open the paper, to turn on the television, to see more death.

This is the steady drumbeat of the psychological war of terror being inflicted on the American public. They will keep up the drumbeat every single day--not in big conflagrations but every day--to make it painful, to make it hard.

They want one thing out of us. They know our military, and I am going to submit for the Record an assessment from a serviceman who wrote me who provided his experience in Iraq of success, I might add.

Our military knows they must win this war, and they are succeeding at some level. They are not attacking our military. They are attacking us psychologically every single day until finally they get us to say one word--enough. Enough. We have had enough. We can't take this anymore. It is just too hard.

They believe we will say ``enough'' because they believe we are weak. They believe we and the modern world just don't have the stomach to fight and die for what we believe in anymore. We like our ``things'' too much, and so we will just leave them alone until they get stronger and stronger and in a position to do more and more damage to our children and grandchildren.

The President is right. This is our hour. We can play politics with the hour, we can seek political advantage to win the next election with this hour, or we can confront the reality of this hour and do something about it.

On my watch, even though I am facing what many consider to be a difficult time back in Pennsylvania, I am going to confront the reality of the threat to me, to this country, and to our children and grandchildren. It is too important to walk away and play politics to get reelected. It is too important to the future of this country to minimize the threat that we are engaged in and play politics with it.

It may win or lose elections. Matters not to me. It matters not to me. What matters is defending our country when it needs to be defended, not putting personal politics above what is in the best interest of the national security of this country.

I believe the President, given all the mistakes that this administration has made in the conduct of this war--and they certainly are numerous--the President has it right. This is the greatest threat for our generation, and I pray we have the courage to confront it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the assessment from 1LT Jeremy Burke in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the course of attending a funeral today, I missed two votes. On the Conrad amendment No. 4907, I ask that the record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.'' And on the motion to table the Menendez amendment No. 4909 I ask that the record reflect that I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Department of Defense funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown,

Mr. President, today in sadness I acknowledge the passing of a fine man, a great Pennsylvanian, a life-long Pittsburgher, Robert E. O'Connor, Jr, mayor of Pittsburgh.

Bob O'Connor loved Pittsburgh. He was born in Pittsburgh, graduated from the city's Taylor Allderdice High School in 1962, and lived, with his wife Judy, in Squirrel Hill for 41 years. Like so many Pittsburgh sons, Bob began his working life in the steel mills, where he worked for 5 years before moving on, entering the family restaurant business. After 29 years in the private sector, Bob decided to enter the public square, and was elected to Pittsburgh's City Council in 1991.

In a testament to both his effectiveness as a city legislator and the professional manner in which he always conducted himself, Bob became City Council President 7 years after he first joined the Council. For 5 years, he served Pittsburgh as its highest ranking legislative official, resigning only when Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell tapped Bob to serve, as the face of his administration in the southwestern Pennsylvania. Two years later, in November of 2005, Bob was elected the 58th mayor of Pittsburgh.

There was much he sought to do as mayor, much he had planned for our proud city. Tragically, he never got the chance. Merely 7 months after he took office, Bob O'Connor was diagnosed with brain cancer. He immediately began to undergo aggressive treatment, working to get healthy enough to return to serving his city. Sadly, his illness progressed, and on September 1, Mayor O'Connor passed away.

Today, September 7, Mayor Bob O'Connor was laid to rest in Pittsburgh, the city he served for 15 years, the city he loved his whole life. I joined his family, his friends, and many others at his funeral service, paying our last respects to a man taken from us far too soon.

Robert E. O'Connor, Jr., survived by his wife, Judy, and three children, will be sorely missed. May God bless the entire O'Connor family during this difficult time.

Mr. President, I am happy to see that we are scheduled to confirm today the nomination of Kimberly Ann Moore, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit. It is about time that we get back to confirming judges, and I am glad to see that our leader is putting this issue back on the Senate's agenda.

It is of utmost importance that the Senate continue to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. Just last month, we saw what can happen when an ideologically driven activist judge attempts to create national security policy. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a Federal district judge in Michigan appointed by President Carter in 1979, ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional. This program, administered by the National Security Agency, has been a critical component in ensuring the safety of millions of Americans. Despite that, Judge Diggs Taylor ruled that the program, which the Government only uses to intercept international telephone and internet communications, violates the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Separation of Powers doctrine, in other words the veritable legal kitchen sink.

While some on the other side of the aisle have rejoiced in this decision, this opinion has been attacked from both ends of the political spectrum. The Washington Post, in an editorial on August 18, noted that the decision is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is

hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work--that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program--her opinion will not be helpful.

Legal scholars have also criticized Judge Diggs Taylor's opinion. Let me give you just a few of these criticisms. David B. Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in Reagan's and George H.W. Bush's administrations, noted in a New York Times op-ed on August 18 that ``[i]t is an appallingly bad opinion, both from a philosophical and technical perspective, manifesting strong bias.''

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe has written ``[i]t's altogether too easy to make disparaging remarks about the quality of the Taylor opinion, which seems almost to have been written more to poke a finger in the President's eye than to please the legal commentariat or even, alas, to impress an appellate panel . . . .''

Howard Bashman, an appellate attorney and editor of the How Appealing legal blog, wrote in the New York Times on August 19 that ``[i]t does appear that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.''

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh wrote on his widely read blog: ``the judge's opinion . . . seems not just ill-reasoned, but rhetorically ill-conceived. . . . [B]y writing an opinion that was too much feeling and too little careful argument, the judge in this case made it less likely that the legal approach she feels so strongly about will ultimately become law.''

In contrast to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, both of President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court, Justices Roberts and Alito, understand that it is not the role of the judicial branch to make policy. During his confirmation hearings last year, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said, ``I don't think you want judges who will decide cases before them under the law on what they think is good, simply good policy for America.'' He also noted, ``[T]he Court has to appreciate that the reason they have that authority is because they're interpreting the law, they're not making policy, and to the extent they go beyond their confined limits and make policy or execute the law, they lose their legitimacy, and I think that calls into question the authority they will need when it's necessary to act in the face of unconstitutional action.''

Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito remarked during his confirmation hearing that ``results-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policy makers and we shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preferences that we have.''

Yes, Justices Roberts and Alito have it right. It is not the role of a judge to seek to replace the legislature, or the President, State legislatures, and the Governors, township supervisors, county councils with his or her own views. It is the role of a judge to apply the law and to do justice based on the facts in solving the dispute that has been presented.

A court is not a place for zealous advocates to impose their will upon the American public. It is not a place for people who believe their views as judges are superior to the views of the democratically elected officials in this country--better put, that their views are better than the people's views because we are, in fact, accountable to the people we represent. It is and should continue to be a place for those public servants who seek to do justice under the law and facts of each case and a place to interpret the law, rather than make law.

Mr. President, I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee regarding innovative research being used to treat our soldiers.

Tissue engineers in the U.S. are applying principles of biology and engineering to grow human replacement tissue for virtually every part of the human body--tissues that will replace those damaged by disease or injury. Recently, enormous national attention was focused on the creation of fully functioning tissue-engineered bladders--bladders grown in the laboratory and implanted in children with spina bifida. One day, tissue engineering may eliminate the need for organ transplantation. In the near term, this exciting field of biomedicine has developed several products for immediate use, some of which have important implications for wounded military personnel.

Novel biological scaffolds for wound treatment are being developed to eliminate the need for skin grafts. The work is based upon extensive preliminary research that shows biologic scaffolds from extracellular matrix--a component of virtually every tissue--can promote tissue growth that very closely resembles tissue regeneration. The scaffolds, called urinary bladder matrix, or UMB, have two ``layers'': a membrane surface upon which skin cells may grow and differentiate quite readily and a lower surface that may integrate well into the underlying wound bed. This UBM scaffold represents new hope for soldiers who have a need for skin grafts.

A significant amount of this work is being done at the Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Initiative's Soldier Treatment and Regeneration Consortium, STRaC. The potential benefits of this research are boundless, and I am proud to have consistently supported STRaC and its mission. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his past support of this research.

As part of this initiative, scientists are working to develop a tissue-engineered ear utilizing a patient's own cells to grow a replacement ear for one severely damaged in combat in Iraq. In the first phase of this 12-month project a small biopsy of healthy tissue will be taken and, using known techniques, scientists will isolate cells and from them millions of additional cells will be grown in the lab. A specially modified scaffold prepared from an FDA-approved implant will be ``seeded'' with these cells. After biocompatibility and long-term durability of this implant are established in an animal model, a biopsy will be taken from a soldier currently awaiting treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. Cartilage and skin cells will be used to create a patient-specific ear replacement. These techniques are expected to be useful in replacement therapies for numerous other body parts for our soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record from COL John Holcomb, Commander of the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston, TX, that expresses his views on this line of research. Colonel Holcomb's facility is the primary receiving site for all significantly burned casualties from the war in Iraq. He stipulates that integrating the opportunities currently underway in regenerative medicine are important for both short- and long-term advances for military medical research and clinical care.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to comment on the research that I have described and which the Army has been using to the benefit of our men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, thank you. I thank the leader for yielding.

This body is criticized a lot because we stand here and yell at each other and don't get a lot done. We block and we blame, we obstruct, we don't do the people's business.

The bill that we are about to vote on, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, would have been hailed by all as a compromise out of the great compromises that we have seen in the Senate over the centuries, truly a compromise.

The No. 1 highest priority of the Senate Democrats, included in this bill--their highest priority. We have voted on minimum wage more in this Chamber than probably any other issue. The No. 1 priority in this bill, their highest priority with respect to taxes, the R&D tax credit, the extenders provision, and a variety of different provisions, tax provisions, that were key provisions for many Senate Democrats, included in this bill.

In addition to that, we have the abandoned mine lands bill that Senator Rockefeller and I have worked on for months and months. This is the only opportunity for the abandoned mine lands issue to be voted on in the Senate. There may be attempts to throw this in and attach it to other bills and all sorts of pounding the chest of how we are not letting it happen.

This is a compromise. This is giving things that I can tell you many on this side of the aisle don't want to give--whether it is minimum wage, whether it is AMT, whether it is many of the provisions in this bill, there are a lot of folks on this side of the aisle who do not like any of this, and, in fact, have never voted for any of these things.

In exchange for that, what most of the Members on this side of the aisle would like to see done is to do something about the onerous death tax which is scheduled to expire in 2010, and then revive itself from the dead the next year--horrible tax policy.

But that is where we are. We are trying to fix this. We are trying to get the priorities of both sides together in a bill to move this country forward in a way that both sides can walk away and say: We didn't get everything we wanted, but we made progress; I got something that was really important to me.

Both sides can say that. Both sides can say: I didn't get everything I wanted or I have to vote for something I don't like in this bill; This isn't exactly the way I would do it. This problem is bigger than all the other good things.

You know what? One thing I have always learned in my time in government is you can always find a reason to vote no. You can always find a reason to vote no. It takes a bigger step to compromise, to meet someone halfway down that middle aisle, to compromise and get something that is important for both sides. This bill does that.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I understand the paper is in the process of being delivered to the desk on S. 843, so while that is happening, let me just make some remarks about the legislation.

The legislation that I am calling up on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd and the two leaders who have been outstanding in helping us bring this bill to the floor tonight is the Combating Autism Act. I know Senator Enzi was just speaking, but I want to thank Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy also and the entire HELP Committee. If you want to talk about a team effort, this has been a tremendous team effort, starting initially with Senator Dodd and myself and our staffs who have just done an outstanding job.

I thank particularly on my staff Jen Vessey, who has just put in--I won't say hours of time but days of time, in working together along with Senator Dodd's staff and then subsequently the entire committee staff; in particular, Senators Enzi and Kennedy's staff, as well as, as we brought this to the process, Senator Frist and Senator Reid.

This team was committed to getting this bill done and passed before the August break. We had many bumps along the way, but tonight, with a minor change in the bill, we are going to see this piece of legislation pass and pass by unanimous consent.

I am very excited about all of the work that has been put in by the entire autism community. I think, as Senator Dodd will attest, there are very many arms of the autistic community, a lot of groups who have a very wide variety of people with respect to how to deal with Federal legislation regarding autism. But we were able to sit down and work together over months of time.

I thank some people in particular who have worked outside of the Congress, outside of the Halls of Congress: Bob and Suzanne Wright deserve special recognition as grandparents of an autistic child for their tremendous effort in pulling together these outside groups, along with Deirdre Imus, who, again, devoted an extraordinary amount of time and energy in bringing all of these disparate groups in the autism community across the country together to work toward a common goal, and that is to authorize an autism coordinator, authorize work and research to be done at NIH that looks into all of the issues regarding autism, including the causes of autism, how to best screen for autism, how to best diagnose autism, and how to best treat autism.

It is one of the few disorders that I am aware of that is so prevalent in America, and we have very few good answers on any one of those issues. It creates enormous amounts of frustration for parents and relatives and friends of children with autism that we just seem to have no answers, and we see an ever-increasing population of autistic children with fewer and fewer answers on how to diagnose, screen, test, and treat these young children.

So tonight is a real landmark. It is a step forward for a community that has been seeking someone to listen to them in Washington. It has been a real honor to work with Senator Dodd. He has just been terrific, including tonight, when we ran into a bump and he was able to smooth that bump. We had one on our side. After lots of discussion, and thanks to the leader and his work here, we were able to deal with that, and now we are in a situation where we can move forward and pass this important piece of legislation. I believe the paper work is now ready.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 578, S. 843.

Mr. President, before I offer the amendment, if Senator Dodd would like to take a few minutes to speak.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi for just the tremendous commitment that he and Senator Kennedy made to being patient and working through the months of time it took to bring this bill together.

I know his intention was to move a comprehensive reform of the NIH, and he made an exception for this piece of legislation. Senator Dodd and I thank both Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for breaking ranks, making sure we could move this as a separate piece of legislation, apart from the overall reauthorization of NIH.

I want to say to the leader, as Senator Enzi said, we wouldn't be here if it were not for your commitment to get this bill done. I know Senator Reid, with whom I spoke just a few minutes ago, said: This is a very important bill to me; this is something I want to see done. We worked through the bumps here right at the end to get that done thanks to you, our two leaders.

Up until the very end this has been a difficult process, but we are here. Having worked on a lot of bills, I have been very blessed in the time that I have been here. I have had my share of legislative successes and bills I have worked on and worked hard on to make a difference. I can't think of any piece of legislation that I will feel better about as I reflect back on what I have accomplished here than what we have done tonight.

People who are dealing with children with autism are a special group of people. Senator Dodd laid that out very eloquently. They are a special group of people who are, in many cases, just more determined to be able to solve this enigma that is in their family, this disorder about which they just can't seem to get the answers they need.

I always say when I meet with a group of autistic kids and their parents, the commonality in every one of those meetings is tears. In most cases, we are talking to parents who are very, very stressed out and really sort of at their wits end as to how to grapple with this problem. Tonight, hopefully, we will begin the process of drying those tears and creating hope for a whole group of Americans and their

families who deserve better answers than what we are getting from the medical community today.

One final note. I want to say that Senator Dodd, I think, referred to Deirdre Imus as the flame that just burned. I say, then her husband is the torch that is burning many places--many parts of our body at times, in getting this legislation through. Don Imus deserves, certainly, his credit for taking this issue on in a very public way and, because of what he does on the radio, increasing public awareness about this disorder and making a contribution to this effort that we are seeing successful tonight. But also the effort improving awareness of this order.

I am happy to yield to Senator Dodd.

Mr. President, I earlier thanked my staff member, Jen Vesey, and I want to reiterate that. I really cannot tell you how much credit she deserves for this legislation and the enormous amount of time she spent in pulling this altogether. As Senator Dodd mentioned staff again, I thought it was important for everyone who is working out there in the autism community to understand what a champion you have in Jen Vesey, who is on my staff.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chambliss and Senator Thune be added as cosponsors to the legislation.

Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment at the desk. Let me explain what this amendment does before I ask consent it be adopted and the bill be passed, because I know people are going to hear that this bill passed and passed with an amendment and they are going to wonder what the amendment is and whether this does anything to change the bill.

The amendment is as a result of one of the bumps that we ran into tonight, trying to get this bill passed unanimously. It is not easy to get the Senate to do anything unanimously, particularly anything complex, and this is a very lengthy piece of legislation that has a lot of complexity to it.

We had one issue brought up by a Member with respect to the increase in the amount of authorization for research. That Member thought that number was excessive and was going to object to the consideration of the bill tonight unless we were able to do something about that authorization number. In order to get the legislation adopted--because, again, there would have been objection tonight and that objection would have carried into the fall, and with a very short timeframe the likelihood of that bill being able to pass this fall and be considered by the House and then passed and sent to the President would have been highly unlikely--so I was able to negotiate with this Senator to reduce the level of authorization, the increase, from $100 million in the area of research in the NIH to $200 million--which is what the bill calls for--from $100 million to $150 million. Instead of the research going up $20 million a year for 5 years up to $200 million in the final year, it will go up at $10 million a year to $150 million in the final year. Again, still a sizable increase.

It is a 50 percent increase in funding over 5 years in the authorization. If you look at what we are doing here in the Senate these days, we are not increasing funding for many programs at 50 percent. So it is not all we had hoped, not all we had wanted, but it is better than nothing. Unfortunately, with the late hour of this bill being brought up, nothing was a real alternative and not a pleasant one.

As a result, that is the amendment we will be considering here in a moment. After the amendment is adopted, then the bill will be passed. We will send the bill over to the House and hope that when the House returns in September and is willing to bring up this legislation, pass it as it is, and send it on to the President so we can get moving on finding a cure for the autism spectrum disorder.

Mr. President, first let me express my sincere gratitude to Chairman Enzi and your staff for investing so much time and thoughtful effort in this important legislation, as well as thank Senators Dodd and Kennedy, and their staffs. Few things are more important than the health and happiness of our Nation's children, and the Combating Autism Act will go a long way to helping those diagnosed with autism live up to their full potential. We have a tremendous opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of children with autism and their families. This Federal investment will lead to better understanding of autism, increase awareness, diagnosis and intervention--all things that will make a profound impact on families struggling for answers and hope.

Autism raises complex and emotional issues. All of us who worked so hard on

this legislation sought to keep the primary focus of the bill on autism research and awareness. However, in addressing the key issues within S. 843, some have raised concerns regarding a potential link between vaccines, vaccine components, such as thimerosal, and autism. Can the Chairman clarify his position on this issue?

I agree with the comments of the chairman. I thank him for clarifying, and again for all of his hard work on this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

For the information of those who might be listening, the bill is now passed and we are off to the House with great hope that this fall will bring us successful passage there and final action by the President sometime in September.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Pryor and Senator Dole to address an important issue that is all too often hidden from public view--the practice of modern day slavery.

One of my political heroes is the 18th century British statesman, William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was one of the leaders of the moral crusade to rid the British empire of slavery. He devoted 20 years to abolishing the British slave trade and another 26 years to abolishing slavery altogether. He and his fellow abolitionists had a profound affect on the American abolitionist movement, and their dedication fueled some of our greatest leaders, including John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, and John Jay. His influence reached William Wells Brown, Paul Cuffe, Benjamin Hughes, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln, and he helped pave the way for abolitionists like Thaddeus Stevens and Richard Allen.

These great men opened the eyes of the United Kingdom and the United States to see the injustice that marked our countries. Thankfully, their work helped end the U.S. and U.K. slave trade. Later, our country constitutionally abolished slavery and took a significant step to effectuate the vision of the Declaration of Independence, that all people are created equal.

We, as a country, often rush to divorce ourselves from our historic malfeasance. We want to forget the stories of human beings--women and children--suffocating on slave ships, tied to whipping posts and bound with bruising fetters. We want to forget the blatant oppression, our country's inhumane drive for profit and obvious disregard for the value, worth and freedom inherent in every life. The slavery of our past offends every modern sensibility we have; yet, we cannot bury these stories as just part of the distant past.

Slavery exists today. Despite the heroic work of liberators centuries before us, and despite the fact that almost every country in this world has constitutionally outlawed slavery, as many as 27 million people are in bondage according to the 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report. This slavery, although in many ways different from the slavery in centuries past, is equally horrifying and brutal. Among other practices, it includes sexual exploitation, bonded labor, forced labor, forced marriage, chattel slavery and child labor.

An estimated 800,000 persons are trafficked across international borders each year, and an estimated 18,000 to 20,000 victims are trafficked into the United States each year. Approximately 80 percent of the victims are female and an estimated 40 to 50 percent are children. Unfortunately, unlike the slavery of our past, modern-day slavery takes on myriad, subtler forms, making it more difficult to identify and eradicate. Within countries where the trade originates, a seemingly endless supply of victims remains available for exploitation, and within the destination countries there seems to be an endless demand for the ``services'' of victims. Organized criminal networks-- some large and some small--have taken control of this economic supply and demand situation, establishing an appalling, but often invisible trade of humans in the 21 century.

This modern-day slavery is notable for the variety and complexity of the trafficking networks that operate and sustain it. The forms of slavery, such as sex-trafficking, are incredibly adaptive: these networks extend to every region and virtually every country in the world--representing a truly global industry. Slavery of all forms is extremely profitable for the exploiters, and they capitalize on the weak and vulnerable, the desperate and unstable. They are most successful in areas of conflict and postconflict, transitioning states, sudden political change, economic collapse, widespread poverty, and natural disasters. Weak legal infrastructure, corrupt law enforcement officials, globalization and the lack of equal employment opportunity have fed this iniquitous multibillion-dollar criminal industry.

Women are often lured by promises of employment as shopkeepers, maids, seamstresses, nannies, or waitresses but then find themselves forced into prostitution upon arrival to their destination. Their traffickers seize travel documents, create enormous and unsubstantiated debt demands, and subject the women to brutal beatings if their earnings are unsatisfactory.

Girls, as young as five, are often kidnapped or even sold by trusted relatives into the transatlantic sex trade. They are often raped, beaten, and forced to sleep with 10 to 15 men per night. These young children are manipulated, coerced, and held in bondage. Victims are often isolated, unable to speak the language of the land they are transported to, and are often unfamiliar with the culture. Without the support network of their family and friends, they are incredibly vulnerable to their oppressors' demands.

The victims of modern-day slavery often face torture, violence, poor nutrition, and drug and alcohol addiction. They contract HIV/AIDS, suffer from severe trauma and depression, and are stripped of dignity and hope for their future. As I have continued to work on legislation that reaches the populations most deeply affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, violence against women, and child exploitation, I am offended by the complete disrespect for life that binds these horrors together.

We, as a nation, cannot stand idle. As William Wilberforce said, ``it is we who are now truly on trial before the moral sense of [this world], and if we shrink from it, deeply shall we hereafter repent our conduct.'' As a Congress, we have come together to call our country and others to action in the fight against human trafficking; I commend the work of this administration, the NGOs, and the freedom-fighters throughout the world who have been working to address this nefarious issue.

Yet despite our hard work, we have an obligation to do more. Today I am submitting a resolution and introducing a bill that call for a deeper commitment to the cause of abolishing

modern-day slavery. The resolution calls us to make modern-day slavery a priority in our foreign and domestic policy. This resolution resolves that the abolition of modern-day slavery should be prioritized at the 2007 G8 Summit and calls for the trade policy of the United States to reflect our commitment to freedom for all people.

I am also introducing a bill for the formation of a bipartisan congressional commission that will conduct a thorough and thoughtful study of all matters relating to modern-day slavery, working alongside the programs we have implemented so far. This commission will make recommendations for our country and for abolitionists worldwide including identifying the countries which provide the greatest opportunity for abolition of modern-day slavery specific to U.S. involvement. Currently, many of the very qualified groups that work to free slaves are scattered. Some of these groups are better at extraction, while others are better at rehabilitation; the commission will make recommendations that seek to bring these incredible groups together to provide the most sustainable options for rescued victims.

The commission will examine the economic impact on communities and countries that have demonstrated measured success in fighting modern- day slavery. I recently learned of a small village in South Asia where over 70 emancipated slaves have now been elected to positions of leadership in their community. They have built their first well to serve the community and are representing others who are vulnerable to oppression.

Additionally, this commission will make recommendations which work to increase education and awareness about modern-day slavery throughout the United States with the purpose of fighting modern-day slavery.

The potential exists for real and systemic change. Together, this commission and this resolution will work to support a full and rich circle demonstrating the power of emancipation. We have a tremendous opportunity to reaffirm our commitment as a nation to spreading freedom for all people by eradicating the horrendous scourge of modern-day slavery. I look forward to following the example of the abolitionists before us to end this worldwide evil.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Pryor and Senator Dole to address an important issue that is all too often hidden from public view--the practice of modern day slavery.

One of my political heroes is the 18th century British statesman, William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was one of the leaders of the moral crusade to rid the British empire of slavery. He devoted 20 years to abolishing the British slave trade and another 26 years to abolishing slavery altogether. He and his fellow abolitionists had a profound affect on the American abolitionist movement, and their dedication fueled some of our greatest leaders, including John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, and John Jay. His influence reached William Wells Brown, Paul Cuffe, Benjamin Hughes, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln, and he helped pave the way for abolitionists like Thaddeus Stevens and Richard Allen.

These great men opened the eyes of the United Kingdom and the United States to see the injustice that marked our countries. Thankfully, their work helped end the U.S. and U.K. slave trade. Later, our country constitutionally abolished slavery and took a significant step to effectuate the vision of the Declaration of Independence, that all people are created equal.

We, as a country, often rush to divorce ourselves from our historic malfeasance. We want to forget the stories of human beings--women and children--suffocating on slave ships, tied to whipping posts and bound with bruising fetters. We want to forget the blatant oppression, our country's inhumane drive for profit and obvious disregard for the value, worth and freedom inherent in every life. The slavery of our past offends every modern sensibility we have; yet, we cannot bury these stories as just part of the distant past.

Slavery exists today. Despite the heroic work of liberators centuries before us, and despite the fact that almost every country in this world has constitutionally outlawed slavery, as many as 27 million people are in bondage according to the 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report. This slavery, although in many ways different from the slavery in centuries past, is equally horrifying and brutal. Among other practices, it includes sexual exploitation, bonded labor, forced labor, forced marriage, chattel slavery and child labor.

An estimated 800,000 persons are trafficked across international borders each year, and an estimated 18,000 to 20,000 victims are trafficked into the United States each year. Approximately 80 percent of the victims are female and an estimated 40 to 50 percent are children. Unfortunately, unlike the slavery of our past, modern-day slavery takes on myriad, subtler forms, making it more difficult to identify and eradicate. Within countries where the trade originates, a seemingly endless supply of victims remains available for exploitation, and within the destination countries there seems to be an endless demand for the ``services'' of victims. Organized criminal networks-- some large and some small--have taken control of this economic supply and demand situation, establishing an appalling, but often invisible trade of humans in the 21 century.

This modern-day slavery is notable for the variety and complexity of the trafficking networks that operate and sustain it. The forms of slavery, such as sex-trafficking, are incredibly adaptive: these networks extend to every region and virtually every country in the world--representing a truly global industry. Slavery of all forms is extremely profitable for the exploiters, and they capitalize on the weak and vulnerable, the desperate and unstable. They are most successful in areas of conflict and postconflict, transitioning states, sudden political change, economic collapse, widespread poverty, and natural disasters. Weak legal infrastructure, corrupt law enforcement officials, globalization and the lack of equal employment opportunity have fed this iniquitous multibillion-dollar criminal industry.

Women are often lured by promises of employment as shopkeepers, maids, seamstresses, nannies, or waitresses but then find themselves forced into prostitution upon arrival to their destination. Their traffickers seize travel documents, create enormous and unsubstantiated debt demands, and subject the women to brutal beatings if their earnings are unsatisfactory.

Girls, as young as five, are often kidnapped or even sold by trusted relatives into the transatlantic sex trade. They are often raped, beaten, and forced to sleep with 10 to 15 men per night. These young children are manipulated, coerced, and held in bondage. Victims are often isolated, unable to speak the language of the land they are transported to, and are often unfamiliar with the culture. Without the support network of their family and friends, they are incredibly vulnerable to their oppressors' demands.

The victims of modern-day slavery often face torture, violence, poor nutrition, and drug and alcohol addiction. They contract HIV/AIDS, suffer from severe trauma and depression, and are stripped of dignity and hope for their future. As I have continued to work on legislation that reaches the populations most deeply affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, violence against women, and child exploitation, I am offended by the complete disrespect for life that binds these horrors together.

We, as a nation, cannot stand idle. As William Wilberforce said, ``it is we who are now truly on trial before the moral sense of [this world], and if we shrink from it, deeply shall we hereafter repent our conduct.'' As a Congress, we have come together to call our country and others to action in the fight against human trafficking; I commend the work of this administration, the NGOs, and the freedom-fighters throughout the world who have been working to address this nefarious issue.

Yet despite our hard work, we have an obligation to do more. Today I am submitting a resolution and introducing a bill that call for a deeper commitment to the cause of abolishing

modern-day slavery. The resolution calls us to make modern-day slavery a priority in our foreign and domestic policy. This resolution resolves that the abolition of modern-day slavery should be prioritized at the 2007 G8 Summit and calls for the trade policy of the United States to reflect our commitment to freedom for all people.

I am also introducing a bill for the formation of a bipartisan congressional commission that will conduct a thorough and thoughtful study of all matters relating to modern-day slavery, working alongside the programs we have implemented so far. This commission will make recommendations for our country and for abolitionists worldwide including identifying the countries which provide the greatest opportunity for abolition of modern-day slavery specific to U.S. involvement. Currently, many of the very qualified groups that work to free slaves are scattered. Some of these groups are better at extraction, while others are better at rehabilitation; the commission will make recommendations that seek to bring these incredible groups together to provide the most sustainable options for rescued victims.

The commission will examine the economic impact on communities and countries that have demonstrated measured success in fighting modern- day slavery. I recently learned of a small village in South Asia where over 70 emancipated slaves have now been elected to positions of leadership in their community. They have built their first well to serve the community and are representing others who are vulnerable to oppression.

Additionally, this commission will make recommendations which work to increase education and awareness about modern-day slavery throughout the United States with the purpose of fighting modern-day slavery.

The potential exists for real and systemic change. Together, this commission and this resolution will work to support a full and rich circle demonstrating the power of emancipation. We have a tremendous opportunity to reaffirm our commitment as a nation to spreading freedom for all people by eradicating the horrendous scourge of modern-day slavery. I look forward to following the example of the abolitionists before us to end this worldwide evil.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have introduced the Railroad Retirement Technical Improvement Act that would ensure that the Department of the Treasury continues to distribute retirement benefits rather than a nongovernmental disbursing agent. This legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Don Young of Alaska. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will continue to allow our Nation's retired railroad employees to securely receive the benefits for which they have worked so hard.

The Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001 calls for a nongovernmental financial institution to replace the Treasury Department as the disbursing agent of retirement benefits. While I have consistently supported greater efficiency in government by allowing the private sector a greater role in providing some services, I believe that further analysis of this issue has shown that the Treasury Department is the most efficient and secure conduit to distribute these important benefits.

While the Treasury Department has a long track record of disbursing checks on a massive scale, very few private disbursing agents would have the ability to handle this load at the same costs incurred by the Treasury. It has been estimated that the average cost of using a nongovernmental benefit disbursing agent would total $2.9 million each year. In contrast, having the Treasury maintain its role as disbursing agent would only cost $800,000 annually, a $2.1 million annual savings.

In addition to the fiscal concerns that have arisen regarding transferring disbursing responsibilities for benefits, identity theft is a looming threat because of the need to transfer personal information of private individuals from the Treasury Department to the private sector. The specter of this threat is growing, and I do not believe our Nation's retirees should be concerned with who may have access to their personal information.

A benefit in addition to cost savings and security is that unlike a private vendor, the Treasury Department has the ability to use debt collection tools such as withholding tax refunds that are not available to the private sector. The Treasury Department's ability to make collections on overpaid benefits is easier, cheaper, and more efficient than having a private sector agent make the same collections.

The advantages of securing benefits for our retired railroad workers and saving taxpayer dollars are obvious. The maintenance of these benefits under the realm of the Treasury Department is a cost-efficient and secure means of distributing benefits, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 3549, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2006, because it makes great strides in modernizing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, process. I firmly believe that national security is paramount, and confidence must be restored in the CFIUS screening process. CFIUS creates a careful balance between national security and the economic benefits of foreign investment. As such, we must protect our national security while not inadvertently and unnecessarily hurting this job-creating investment.

Over 5 million Americans work for insourcing companies with a payroll of nearly $318 billion. In my State of Pennsylvania, 227,700 people owe their jobs to a foreign-based company. Pennsylvania is a State that has worked hard to attract international companies like Mack Trucks Inc., SAP America, and Sony. That effort has yielded positive results.

With regard to S. 3549, there are a few unresolved issues that were raised in the Banking Committee process that could raise barriers to beneficial foreign investment. While the bill passed the committee unanimously, with my support, it was understood that a couple of outstanding concerns would be addressed before the bill would be signed into law. At this time, these concerns remain.

Two provisions in particular that could have a negative impact on positive foreign direct investment that creates jobs, fosters innovation and sustains U.S. manufacturing are: (1) the extension of the initial 30-day review period to allow an additional 30-day review and (2) the creation of a congressional reporting requirement for individual regulatory filings for each stage of the review process.

Mr. President, I hope that these concerns will be addressed in conference. While I support CFIUS reform, I believe there are issues that need to be addressed prior to passing a final bill to ensure that Congress takes a reasonable approach to reforming this process. I look forward to working with Chairman Shelby to resolve these issues.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate an incredible feat of physical and mental endurance, a feat that was completed on Sunday, July 23. Floyd Landis, a native

of Lancaster County, PA, completed the 20th stage of the 2006 Tour de France with an overall time of 89 hours, 39 minutes and 30 seconds, winning the race by 57 seconds in the closest three-way finish in the long history of the tour.

In winning the 93rd Tour de France, Floyd Landis became just the third American cyclist to win this most prestigious of races, joining previous American victors Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong. He, like them before him, has become the face of American cycling, and, frankly, we could not ask for a better spokesman.

The Tour de France, with this year's race totaling over 2,200 miles, is known around the globe as one of the toughest physical challenges in the sporting world. It is an incredible feat for anyone to finish this grueling, 20-stage race. But that Floyd Landis finished--and that he won--is even more astounding. Landis suffers from osteoporosis of the hip, an ailment so severe he will require hip replacement surgery in the very near future. Yet, in a staggering display of determination and mental toughness, Landis put aside the pain that was, in his words, ``bad, it's grinding, it's bone rubbing on bone,'' to win the race in convincing fashion.

Landis and his Phonak Hearing Systems team also demonstrated that cycling is a mental challenge as much as a physical one. In spite of the temptation to stay as the frontrunner and in the face of various pundits questioning their strategy, Phonak purposely relinquished the overall lead of the race in the 13th stage, conserving their energy for the late push that ultimately resulted in victory.

In the course of the race, Floyd Landis also proved the wisdom of the oft-quoted adage, ``Never give up.'' After struggling through the 16th stage, a stage which saw him lose 10 minutes and fall from first to eleventh place, Landis stunned the field and the pundits with what former champion Lemond aptly described as ``the best day I've seen in cycling in years . . . maybe ever,'' winning the 17th stage by more than 6 minutes and putting himself in prime position to win the race. Landis followed up his epic ride with a strong showing in the final individual time trial, outpacing his closest rival by nearly a minute and a half and regaining the overall lead, a lead he held for the remainder of the race.

Floyd Landis grew up in Farmersville, PA, a small town located about 50 miles to the southeast of Harrisburg. The Landis family was and is a tight-knit, modest group that instilled in Floyd a belief in the merit of working hard. As the story goes, Floyd was often so inundated with chores that the only time he could ride was in the middle of the night--which, of course, he did. Surely, as with so many of us, Floyd Landis's family played an integral role in shaping him into the man he is today and in the successes that he has enjoyed.

Floyd Landis, whom I am proud to call a fellow Pennsylvanian, has proven that with determination and an immense strength of spirit, even the most extreme obstacles can be overcome and success can be attained. He has inspired countless Americans across our Nation, and many more around the world, and I congratulate him on his remarkable achievement.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Child Custody Protection Act. I congratulate the majority leader for scheduling time for this important piece of legislation, as well as Senator Ensign for the terrific work he is doing in managing the legislation as the author of the bill.

This is very important legislation. It has been described many times so I won't go into detail. What we are trying to do is protect children from being taken across State lines to avoid parental involvement laws. As a father of six children, two daughters, I believe parents should be involved in the health care decisions of minor children. I am not alone in that regard. The vast majority of Americans believe in parental consent laws when it comes to having abortion procedures done on minors, that parents should be involved in that decision.

The Senator from Illinois described situations that are certainly the exception rather than the rule. When those exceptions arise, in all of the States there is a judicial bypass. The Senator from Illinois described some pretty horrific circumstances of incest or rape. Here you have a situation where if we don't have this law, the rapist or the person who committed the incest against this minor child could take that child across State lines, never report it to the police, have the abortion done, and the parents never know about it. Nobody knows about it, and the child is back in the home and potentially in the same threatening environment the child was in in the first place. At least under our parental consent laws and with this statute, if we are successful, the court can get involved. We can remove that child from the dangerous situation.

I don't know why allowing someone surreptitiously to avoid state parental consent laws is a benefit to the child. If anything, it is the opposite. That is not a rational reason for objecting to this statute.

Again, I suggest the American public overwhelmingly feels the same way. Parents deserve and should have the ability to be consulted and notified or give consent, depending on the State, to a medical procedure as severe and serious as an abortion.

If you look at the poll question, do you agree or disagree that a person should be able to take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge--this isn't consent, it is just knowledge--15 percent agree, 15 percent agree with that statement that she should be able to be transported across State lines; 82 percent disagree. They said people should not be able to take a child across State lines without the knowledge of their parents. Seventy-five percent strongly disagree with the current state of the law which is you can transport children across State lines in order to circumvent state parental involvement laws.

In Pennsylvania, all of the surrounding states but the State of Ohio have weaker laws on parental involvement than the State of Pennsylvania. So a child in the northwestern part of our State can go up to New York or, in the eastern part of the State, New Jersey or Delaware or, in the southern part of our State, Maryland, West Virginia, all of which have laws that are not as favorable to parents and children as Pennsylvania with respect to consent.

This is, unfortunately, not a hypothetical for those of us in Pennsylvania. There are cases, unfortunate cases of children being taken by a boyfriend or his family members across State lines and the horrible consequences that result.

We also have abortion clinics from other States that advertise in Pennsylvania. There are a couple of ads I will put up on the board. This is northeastern Pennsylvania. Scranton is there, up near the New York border. Here in the Scranton Yellow Pages is the All Women's Health and Medical Services in White Plains, NY, a toll free number; ``We are here if you need us.'' This is, again, advertising in White Plains, NY, which is not that close to Scranton. It is at least 50 miles away. And it talks about no consent, no waiting period. There is a parental consent provision in the Pennsylvania statute that was upheld as constitutional back in 1992. There is a 24-hour waiting period. Again, the clinic is advertising no consent, no waiting period, directly aimed at minors in Pennsylvania urging them to come and have abortions at their clinic across the State line.

Here is another one. This is at the other end of the State, the southern part of our State. This is the Yellow Pages in Lancaster. Atlantic Women's Medical Services, Inc., no parental consent, 16 years and older. The Pennsylvania law is 18 years of age. So if you are 16, 17, they require no consent; again, directly targeted at a State, encouraging women and others to bring

young women across the State line for abortions. They advertise abortions to 24 weeks, the abortion pill, low fees, all trying to make sure these young girls know that abortions are available without consent.

This is not a hypothetical. This is direct marketing to minors, direct marketing in the Yellow Pages to minors who are desperate and, in many cases, afraid and feel alone. They are marketing to these vulnerable children to get them to not talk to their parents but to come and get an abortion out of State, against their State laws. This is, again, not just a hypothetical but a real-life situation. And which I will share a case.

We had a case in Lancaster, PA, which began on Christmas Eve, 2004. A 14-year-old told her mother she was pregnant. The parents were prepared to be supportive, to help that child in whatever decision she made and in scheduling appointments with doctors, counselors, and other programs that could help this child get through this very difficult situation. The daughter chose to have the baby and raise it with the love and support of her family.

But the boyfriend's family didn't like the young girl's decision and began to harass and coerce the girl and her family in order to intimidate her into getting an abortion. The mother called the local police for advice and even called an abortion clinic to see how old you needed to be to have an abortion in Pennsylvania because she was afraid that her daughter might be pressured toward an abortion. She was told the daughter needed to be 16 though that was actually incorrect because she needed to be 18 to have an abortion without consent. Therefore, her mother thought she was protected.

That wasn't the case. In mid-February, she sent her daughter off to school, but the daughter never made it there. Her boyfriend's family met her and her boyfriend down the road, put them in a cab and then on a train, and then a subway to New Jersey, where his family met them and took them to an abortion clinic where one of them had made an appointment. The young girl had second thoughts, but she was told they would leave her in New Jersey if she didn't undergo an abortion.

After the abortion, the family of the boyfriend, who may have been attempting to conceal the evidence of his statutory rape, drove her back to Pennsylvania. Again, this left the young woman completely unprotected with the state not being able to go after this young man and his family for taking her across state lines for an abortion. That is what it seems was behind the parents trying to get rid of this child. This is a situation which should not happen. We have State laws that protect children and parents and their rights to be able to nurture and help their children along the way.

This was a difficult circumstance, and as I said before, there are, unfortunately, others. We even have in the State of Pennsylvania organizations outside of these legal clinics that are trying to give advice and help to minor children on evading the parental consent laws. There is an organization called the Women's Law Project. It says here in their publication, ``Is it legal for teen-aged women to cross State lines to get an abortion?'' This is a document which is handed out and given to young women to help them avoid the State laws that are in place for parental consent. It says:

Yes. However, the adult may risk a charge of interfering

with the custody of a minor. Adults who are accompanying

young women under 14 to out-of-State abortion providers

should contact a lawyer for the Women's Law Project.

So if you are over 14 years of age, they assure you that you can go to an abortion clinic out of State. If you are under 14, your accompanying adult may have to call our lawyers to take care of the situation.

This is a real-world situation, a problem we are confronted with in this country. All we are trying to do is let the State laws, the collective wisdom of the people of Pennsylvania, have effect, have efficacy; that the laws which are put in place are there to protect children and the rights of parents. The only one that can stop others from getting around those protections and avoiding State laws is the Federal Government, by stopping the interstate transportation of these children for the purpose of abortion.

So this is a vitally important piece of legislation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is one in which I am hopeful that 75 or 80 percent of the Senate will agree with when it is all said and done because it is vitally important, for the health of our children and for the stability of families, to give families and children this legal protection. That is what we are doing. That is what these States have done--given legal protection from further abuse of minors who find themselves in a situation where they are pregnant and under, obviously, a horrible situation in their lives. They need their parents. Where the parents are the problem or a threat to them, there is a judicial bypass. We have in place safeguards where parents are the problem, which, again, is a minority of situations. We do have protections in place.

Yes.

The Senator from Nevada has an amendment which is going to take care of that situation. I will defer to him, if he would like to answer that question on how the amendment would work to preclude that problem.