Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet. They have the approval of the leaders. I ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and printed in the Record.

Mr. President, right on top of the 10 requests is the unanimous consent request that the Armed Services Committee be authorized to meet during the session.

For the information of our colleagues, there had been an objection earlier today. I talked to the appropriate Members and that was readily agreed to. So the Armed Services Committee will be able to meet accordingly any time today.

Again, for the information of our colleagues, I ask the chairman of that committee to indicate what time they will resume the meeting.

Yes.

Mr. President, one cold May morning earlier this year, a Border Patrol agent found the body of a 3-year-old boy in a blue windbreaker, his arms crossed. He had died trying to cross our southern border, the youngest victim our borders have claimed this year.

The boy's mother's name is Edith Rodriguez. She is 25 years old. She attempted to cross the border illegally, in hopes that she might escape the desperate poverty of her home state of Veracruz, Mexico. Edith hired a human smuggler--a coyote.

The coyote gave his charges an illegal drug, ephedrine, to help them keep awake and moving. But Edith and her son still could not keep up with the group. So the coyote, in a cruel and heartless act, abandoned them in the desert. Alone. With no food and little water, with a dangerous drug coursing through his system, exposed to the elements-- Edith Rodriguez's little boy died.

Edith Rodriguez violated the laws of the United States when she crossed the border illegally. She was wrong to violate our border. But all should agree that her son did not deserve to die.

Here are the facts: Every 18\1/2\ hours, someone dies trying to cross the border between the United States and Mexico. About a year ago, I asked the Government Accountability Office to study the deaths that take place along America's borders.

Today, my office released that study. The results are sobering, shocking, and, I strongly believe, a cause for action. Since 1995, deaths along our borders have doubled. Despite the heroic rescue efforts of the men and women of Customs and Border Protection, things have gotten worse. In 1995, 266 people

died trying to cross our borders. Last year, 427 perished.

The increases, it appears, stem largely from an increase in deaths from exposure to the elements in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona. Illegal entries, however, have not increased. Quite frankly, it is getting more dangerous to cross our border.

Until recently, CBP did not even keep a systematic count of those who died crossing our borders. We still do not have a unified national strategy for reducing the deaths. We still do not know how well our safety efforts work--if they are saving lives or not. We need to do more.

The founding document of our Nation, the Declaration of Independence, lists ``life'' first on the list of Government's responsibilities. The overwhelming majority of the people who cross our border do so in search of a better life. They take enormous risks and make enormous investments in hopes of helping their families.

Illegal immigration needs to stop. We must defend our borders. We must construct physical barriers, add detention beds, hire personnel, and equip them with better technology. But we have a higher moral obligation to protect the life of every person--every man, woman, and child--who sets foot on American soil. We must do everything in our power to preserve life.

That is why I propose the Border Death Reduction Act. I urge my colleagues to support it.

The law will implement the GAO's recommendations. It will require CBP to create a strategy for reducing border deaths. It will mandate a full count of deaths along the border. It will impose tough, new penalties on coyotes who abandon their charges, and it will expand the network of rescue beacons that people in trouble can use to call for help.

These beacons, I believe, are an absolutely vital link in our border security system. Let me explain. Rescue beacons are devices at prominent locations that individuals can activate when they need help. They are tall polls with lights at the top and radio transmitters inside. People in trouble can activate a beacon to let CBP know that they need help. We know that beacons work: CBP has already saved dozens of people based entirely on beacon alerts.

But individuals who activate beacons do not get a free pass. They will, of course, receive necessary medical treatment. But rescued individuals will still be detained and deported like anyone else who violates our borders.

Deploying more beacons in the desert will save lives in the desert and simultaneously improve the security of our frontiers.

We cannot delay. We should not rest. We must protect the lives of all those who set foot upon our soil. I urge my colleagues to support the Border Death Reduction Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for decades, healthcare analysts and industry experts have wondered whether healthcare should consume 16 percent of our Nation's economic output, as it currently does.

By virtually any measure, we spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world.

Consider the facts. According to the World Health Organization; we spend twice as much per person on healthcare as Britain and Japan; and we spend nearly 30 percent more than second-ranking Monaco.

In the past 5 years alone, the cost of health insurance to companies has nearly doubled--from $4,200 to $8,100 per family.

But experts also concur that rising healthcare costs does not mean the quality of healthcare is improving. Just this summer, the Institute of Medicine released the most extensive report ever on medication errors.

The results? At least 1.5 million Americans are sickened, injured, or killed each year by errors in prescribing, dispensing, and taking medications.

Errors are widespread--on average, a hospital patient is subjected to 1 error each day he or she occupies a hospital bed--and they are costly, at an estimated expense of $3.5 billion per year.

We have good reason to question the cost and quality of our healthcare services. That is why, in August, President Bush issued an executive order requiring all Federal agencies with a health insurance program to increase price transparency and provide options promoting quality and efficiency of care.

The Executive Order builds on the Federal Govermment's efforts to release Medicare payment information for individual healthcare providers.

While this is an important step toward transparency, more can be done. We need a way to analyze that data and make the results of the analysis consumer friendly, so that patients have real information they can use to make better informed healthcare decisions.

The bill before us today--of which I am a proud cosponsor--picks up where current Federal efforts leave off. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act establishes quality transparency in the Medicare Program.

It doesn't require anything extra of providers. In fact, CMS is already collecting the data we need--because any provider that accepts Medicare patients must report quality data to CMS.

Instead, the bill requires CMS to establish public-private partnerships with Medicare quality reporting organizations, or MQROs. CMS will provide MQROs with data CMS already collects--Medicare enrollment, claims, and survey and assessment data. The MQROs will then perform the analysis.

Any entity or provider will be able to make report requests of MQROs, the results of which will be made public. The methodology an MQRO uses to analyze the data will also be made public. And providers can additionally instruct MQROs to use a certain methodology when making a report request.

I know many providers are concerned about CMS's capacity and capability to analyze healthcare quality data.

In part, that is why this bill requires CMS to contract with MQROs. The Secretary must determine that each MQRO has the research capability to conduct and complete reports as a condition for entering into the contract. MQROs must also demonstrate that they have the experience and expertise to analyze quality data.

As an additional contract requirement, each MQRO must comply with Federal privacy regulations to ensure beneficiary confidentiality. Additionally, MQROs must disclose financial interests as a condition to contract.

As a transplant surgeon, I understand the concerns and fears providers have. Many providers are worried that we aren't far enough along in terms of quality data collection to be able to analyze it.

But we must push the envelope in this area. It is my hope that provider groups will take the lead and request reports using a methodology and standards of quality that represent the best care in each of their fields.

Quality transparency is absolutely essential to improving healthcare. Without it, beneficiaries cannot make informed decisions about their healthcare.

Consumers already enjoy transparency in other industries. When we buy a new car, we can open an Internet browser and in a matter of moments can make objective side-by-side comparisons of different models--and then we can take them for a test drive.

When we need groceries, we pull out the Sunday supermarket ads to see what is on sale and where.

And when we furnish our homes, we shop around--comparing style, price, color, quality, warranty, and service.

But right now, we can't do that in healthcare. Whether it is a routine checkup or a heart transplant, we have no way of assessing how much bang we are getting for a buck.

Only when we institute quality transparency do we empower beneficiaries to make informed decisions about their healthcare.

This bill is a great step toward the goal of complete quality transparency. It is a formidable goal; that is why we are starting with something we know--Medicare.

Senator Gregg has worked long hours to bring this bill to fruition, and I thank him for his efforts. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this important measure.

Mr. President, one cold May morning earlier this year, a Border Patrol agent found the body of a 3-year-old boy in a blue windbreaker, his arms crossed. He had died trying to cross our southern border, the youngest victim our borders have claimed this year.

The boy's mother's name is Edith Rodriguez. She is 25 years old. She attempted to cross the border illegally, in hopes that she might escape the desperate poverty of her home state of Veracruz, Mexico. Edith hired a human smuggler--a coyote.

The coyote gave his charges an illegal drug, ephedrine, to help them keep awake and moving. But Edith and her son still could not keep up with the group. So the coyote, in a cruel and heartless act, abandoned them in the desert. Alone. With no food and little water, with a dangerous drug coursing through his system, exposed to the elements-- Edith Rodriguez's little boy died.

Edith Rodriguez violated the laws of the United States when she crossed the border illegally. She was wrong to violate our border. But all should agree that her son did not deserve to die.

Here are the facts: Every 18\1/2\ hours, someone dies trying to cross the border between the United States and Mexico. About a year ago, I asked the Government Accountability Office to study the deaths that take place along America's borders.

Today, my office released that study. The results are sobering, shocking, and, I strongly believe, a cause for action. Since 1995, deaths along our borders have doubled. Despite the heroic rescue efforts of the men and women of Customs and Border Protection, things have gotten worse. In 1995, 266 people

died trying to cross our borders. Last year, 427 perished.

The increases, it appears, stem largely from an increase in deaths from exposure to the elements in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona. Illegal entries, however, have not increased. Quite frankly, it is getting more dangerous to cross our border.

Until recently, CBP did not even keep a systematic count of those who died crossing our borders. We still do not have a unified national strategy for reducing the deaths. We still do not know how well our safety efforts work--if they are saving lives or not. We need to do more.

The founding document of our Nation, the Declaration of Independence, lists ``life'' first on the list of Government's responsibilities. The overwhelming majority of the people who cross our border do so in search of a better life. They take enormous risks and make enormous investments in hopes of helping their families.

Illegal immigration needs to stop. We must defend our borders. We must construct physical barriers, add detention beds, hire personnel, and equip them with better technology. But we have a higher moral obligation to protect the life of every person--every man, woman, and child--who sets foot on American soil. We must do everything in our power to preserve life.

That is why I propose the Border Death Reduction Act. I urge my colleagues to support it.

The law will implement the GAO's recommendations. It will require CBP to create a strategy for reducing border deaths. It will mandate a full count of deaths along the border. It will impose tough, new penalties on coyotes who abandon their charges, and it will expand the network of rescue beacons that people in trouble can use to call for help.

These beacons, I believe, are an absolutely vital link in our border security system. Let me explain. Rescue beacons are devices at prominent locations that individuals can activate when they need help. They are tall polls with lights at the top and radio transmitters inside. People in trouble can activate a beacon to let CBP know that they need help. We know that beacons work: CBP has already saved dozens of people based entirely on beacon alerts.

But individuals who activate beacons do not get a free pass. They will, of course, receive necessary medical treatment. But rescued individuals will still be detained and deported like anyone else who violates our borders.

Deploying more beacons in the desert will save lives in the desert and simultaneously improve the security of our frontiers.

We cannot delay. We should not rest. We must protect the lives of all those who set foot upon our soil. I urge my colleagues to support the Border Death Reduction Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for decades, healthcare analysts and industry experts have wondered whether healthcare should consume 16 percent of our Nation's economic output, as it currently does.

By virtually any measure, we spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world.

Consider the facts. According to the World Health Organization; we spend twice as much per person on healthcare as Britain and Japan; and we spend nearly 30 percent more than second-ranking Monaco.

In the past 5 years alone, the cost of health insurance to companies has nearly doubled--from $4,200 to $8,100 per family.

But experts also concur that rising healthcare costs does not mean the quality of healthcare is improving. Just this summer, the Institute of Medicine released the most extensive report ever on medication errors.

The results? At least 1.5 million Americans are sickened, injured, or killed each year by errors in prescribing, dispensing, and taking medications.

Errors are widespread--on average, a hospital patient is subjected to 1 error each day he or she occupies a hospital bed--and they are costly, at an estimated expense of $3.5 billion per year.

We have good reason to question the cost and quality of our healthcare services. That is why, in August, President Bush issued an executive order requiring all Federal agencies with a health insurance program to increase price transparency and provide options promoting quality and efficiency of care.

The Executive Order builds on the Federal Govermment's efforts to release Medicare payment information for individual healthcare providers.

While this is an important step toward transparency, more can be done. We need a way to analyze that data and make the results of the analysis consumer friendly, so that patients have real information they can use to make better informed healthcare decisions.

The bill before us today--of which I am a proud cosponsor--picks up where current Federal efforts leave off. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act establishes quality transparency in the Medicare Program.

It doesn't require anything extra of providers. In fact, CMS is already collecting the data we need--because any provider that accepts Medicare patients must report quality data to CMS.

Instead, the bill requires CMS to establish public-private partnerships with Medicare quality reporting organizations, or MQROs. CMS will provide MQROs with data CMS already collects--Medicare enrollment, claims, and survey and assessment data. The MQROs will then perform the analysis.

Any entity or provider will be able to make report requests of MQROs, the results of which will be made public. The methodology an MQRO uses to analyze the data will also be made public. And providers can additionally instruct MQROs to use a certain methodology when making a report request.

I know many providers are concerned about CMS's capacity and capability to analyze healthcare quality data.

In part, that is why this bill requires CMS to contract with MQROs. The Secretary must determine that each MQRO has the research capability to conduct and complete reports as a condition for entering into the contract. MQROs must also demonstrate that they have the experience and expertise to analyze quality data.

As an additional contract requirement, each MQRO must comply with Federal privacy regulations to ensure beneficiary confidentiality. Additionally, MQROs must disclose financial interests as a condition to contract.

As a transplant surgeon, I understand the concerns and fears providers have. Many providers are worried that we aren't far enough along in terms of quality data collection to be able to analyze it.

But we must push the envelope in this area. It is my hope that provider groups will take the lead and request reports using a methodology and standards of quality that represent the best care in each of their fields.

Quality transparency is absolutely essential to improving healthcare. Without it, beneficiaries cannot make informed decisions about their healthcare.

Consumers already enjoy transparency in other industries. When we buy a new car, we can open an Internet browser and in a matter of moments can make objective side-by-side comparisons of different models--and then we can take them for a test drive.

When we need groceries, we pull out the Sunday supermarket ads to see what is on sale and where.

And when we furnish our homes, we shop around--comparing style, price, color, quality, warranty, and service.

But right now, we can't do that in healthcare. Whether it is a routine checkup or a heart transplant, we have no way of assessing how much bang we are getting for a buck.

Only when we institute quality transparency do we empower beneficiaries to make informed decisions about their healthcare.

This bill is a great step toward the goal of complete quality transparency. It is a formidable goal; that is why we are starting with something we know--Medicare.

Senator Gregg has worked long hours to bring this bill to fruition, and I thank him for his efforts. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this important measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``A Review of the Department of Defense's Report on Predatory Lending Practices Directed at Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of C. Stephen Allred, of Idaho, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Vice Rebecca W. Watson, resigned; and Robert W. Johnson, of Nevada, to be Commissioner of Reclamation, Vice John W. Keys, III, resigned.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Carl J. Artman to be Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, to be followed immediately by a business meeting to approve the nomination of Carl J. Artman.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Terrence W. Boyle, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; William James Haynes II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Peter D. Keisler, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; William Gerry Myers III, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Valerie L. Baker, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Francisco Augusto Besosa, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Philip S. Gutierrez, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Marcia Morales Howard, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida; John Alfred Jarvey, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa; and Sara Elizabeth Lioi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio.

II. Bills

S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, Lugar, Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley; S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter; S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, Ensign, Kyl; S. 394, OPEN Government Act of 2005, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold; and S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006, Feinstein, Graham, Biden.

III. Other Matters

Changes to 18 U.S.C. 2441, War Crimes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, September 14, 2006 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to hold a hearing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, September 14, 2006 to discuss rural air service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on the NRC's responsibility and capability for long- and short-term spent fuel storage programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Part Two: Federal Agencies and Conference Spending''.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the month-long celebration beginning today honoring the heritage of Hispanic Americans.

Every year, we set aside a month to pay special regard to the contributions of Hispanic Americans.

The tradition began nearly 40 years ago, when Congress authorized President Lyndon Johnson to proclaim National Hispanic Heritage Week. Two decades later, President Ronald Reagan expanded the celebration to 4 weeks--today's National Hispanic Heritage Month.

While the celebration has begun only recently, Hispanics have always defined America.

The history of Europeans in what is now the United States, in fact, begins with the voyage of a Spanish explorer named Ponce de Leon who landed on Florida's west coast in 1521.

Since then, Hispanic Americans have infuenced every aspect of our history and culture. Let me discuss just a few:

David Glasgow Farragut, a proud Tennessean of Spanish descent, proved the North's most able naval commander during the Civil War. He becamd the first admiral of the U.S. Navy.

Severo Ochoa, a Nobel Prize recipient, revolutionized modern medical science when he discovered RNA, ribonucleic acid, one of the chemical building blocks of life.

Celia Cruz, a singer, introduced salsa music to the United States through her recordings and performances.

Louis and Walter Alverez, both research scientists, originated the once-controversial theory that asteroid impacts can explain the periodic mass extinctions that have shaped the history of life on Earth.

Roberto Goizueta, Oscar Hijuelos, Benjamin Cardozo, Alberto Gonzalez, Rita Hayworth, Roberto Clemente--entrepreneurs, artists, public servants, athletes, scientists, scholars--these names stand out, but many others move America forward every day. We cannot name all of the countless heroes who have fought in wars, treated the sick, taught our children, and devoted themselves to public service.

Through continuing migration to our shores, Hispanic Americans continue to strengthen American culture. Foods, music, and artistic forms considered unalterably ``foreign'' just a few short years ago have now become firm parts of the American identity.

Today, as we begin a month-long celebration of Hispanic hereitage, I join with all Americans in recognizing the invaluable role of Hispanic Americans in shaping and enriching these United States.

Mr. President, this morning we will resume debate on the port security bill immediately following the 30-minute period of morning business. We have an agreement for a vote in relation to Senator Reid's amendment to occur at 12:15 today. There is a point of order against that amendment, and therefore the vote is likely to be on a motion to waive the budget relative to that amendment.

The managers have done good work on the bill thus far, but we have not had an agreement yet as to when we can finish this security legislation. Therefore, last night I filed a cloture motion on the bill so that we will conclude the bill this week. I have indicated we are willing to vitiate that vote if an agreement is reached that will bring the Senate to a reasonable conclusion on this port security measure. In the meantime, we will continue to work on amendments, with rollcall votes each day. I also remind Senators that under the rule, Senators have until 1 p.m. today in order to file timely first-degree amendments.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the issue before us is an issue we have addressed on the floor of the Senate. Republicans felt very strongly that these tax extenders need to be extended and brought them to the floor prior to our recess. Yes, they were coupled with two other issues, one of which was a permanent solution to the death tax, which is a fair thing to do, overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the people, and an increase in the minimum wage by 40 percent, something that I feel strongly that we are in a position to do.

We took those issues to the floor. The bill was defeated by the other side

of the aisle. Again, it was very unfortunate. It was referred to as the so-called trifecta bill. I did switch my vote at that time, and it may well be that over the next couple of weeks, if we can continue to build support for these issues, we can bring that bill back to the floor.

Thus, at this juncture, instead of breaking those bills up, we are going to keep those bills together, and thus I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my distinguished colleague. Time is very short, I understand. That is why my colleague brings it to the floor now, because it is very important that we extend these tax provisions--sales tax, college tuition, and the R&D tax credit. It is very important. That is really the reason I took a bill I know my colleague supports, and that is a permanent solution to the death tax--maybe not exactly the way it is now, but he is somebody who supported that cause. Indeed, it has the majority support of the United States of America. It is the right thing to do. The minimum wage, again, I think is something that is broadly supported by the American people. And then the tax extenders. All three are broadly supported.

The benefit is, if we can build that support and have it reflected on this floor--that is really on the Senator's side of the aisle--that would be the law of the land because it has already passed the House of Representatives. If we were to vote on these today, it would be signed by the President 3 days from now. That means people's minimum wage would go up 40 percent, the tax extenders would be done because it wouldn't have to go back to the House and it would be done 3 days from now, and we would have a permanent solution to the death tax, which is a fair and right thing to do.

I am going to preserve that option for now. I appreciate my colleague's support because I think he probably does individually support each of those three issues.

Mr. President, may I have the attention of the Senate. On rollcall vote No. 244, the distinguished Senator from Montana and the current ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, cast his 10,000th vote in this Chamber.

Senator Baucus now joins a very historic and select club of U.S. Senators who can claim this distinction. Only 26 other Senators have achieved this milestone.

From his post on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus has worked on a bipartisan basis on many issues important to Montanans, from tax policy to health care reform. Legislating is the art of compromise, and in his 28 years of service Senator Baucus has mastered it.

A recent example that comes to mind is the Medicare prescription drug bill, which I sponsored. Without Senator Baucus's hard work and support, 31 million seniors wouldn't have the drug benefits they now enjoy.

Back home in Montana, Senator Baucus is affectionately known for his ``Work Days''--days he spends working a full day alongside Montanans at a local business.

Senator Baucus, I know I speak for all your fellow Senators, when I say congratulations on this achievement, but more importantly, thank you for your service to Montana, to your country, and importantly, to the United States Senate.

Mr. President, today, following 30 minutes set aside for morning business, we return to the port security legislation. Yesterday we were able to adopt the McCain rail security amendment, as amended, and today we have scheduled a vote, to begin at noon, on Senator DeMint's amendment on a national alert system. The vote at noon will be the first vote of the day. Following that vote, the Senate will recess for the weekly policy meetings to occur. For the remainder of the afternoon and evening, we will make further progress on the bill, with additional rollcall votes expected. It is my hope Senators will continue to work with the managers on their amendments, and that will allow us to schedule votes as necessary.

I do want to thank all Senators for participating in yesterday's east front observance of the anniversary of September 11. It was an emotional day across this country, and I was proud to stand with my Senate and House colleagues during that important tribute.

Mr. President, I will be happy to turn to the Democratic leader for any announcements, but I do have a short statement to make.

Mr. President, I do want to briefly comment on a very short trip I took on Sunday, when I visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, along with Senator McConnell and Senator Specter.

It was my first visit to the detainee facility there. We received extensive briefings over the course of the day from Admiral Harris and other base administrators. We took that opportunity to tour five of the detainee camps, as well as visit the medical facilities and visit with the health personnel there.

Bottom line, I left there very impressed with the care and the respect our military affords the detainees kept at Guantanamo. As most of my colleagues know who have visited there--and I am glad to report that many have visited there over the last several years--each detainee receives a copy of the Koran. Arrows in each of the detainees' cells point to Mecca. You see arrows throughout the prison grounds. That makes it easier, and it is a reminder that these individuals have that opportunity to practice their faith, with prayer time occurring five times every day, where everything stops, and that time is set aside so that prayer can be offered.

It was interesting from a health standpoint. The meals themselves are nutritious meals. And I looked at a lot of the charts, aggregate charts, and, indeed, detainees gain weight from these meals. They get regular exercise. It might be as much as 2 hours a day--but 1 to 2 hours a day. They receive mail from their families. They visit privately with their lawyers. They have medical care, which again was amazing to me, which is 24/7, acute care as well as preventive care literally 24 hours a day.

When the camp first opened, much of the medical care was centered around

the treatment of acute care or injuries that may have occurred in the battlefield or the like. Prosthetics were made. I think they said 22 prosthetics had been made for the detainees who have been at the facility.

The nature of health care has shifted a bit. There is still acute care 24 hours a day, in which surgical procedures, everything, can be performed right there in the detainee camps, but as those wounds healed and as the detainees got further and further away from acute injuries, there has been increasing emphasis on preventative care. Indeed, the immunization rate there is higher than in the United States of America.

I think the report is they have had fewer than 500 detainees, but all have been immunized appropriately. Things such as screening for cancer have taken place there. Colonoscopies--a procedure which, as we all know, is used commonly in this country to screen for colon cancer--are performed there on a routine basis.

The health personnel-to-detainee ratio is 1 to 4--remarkably high. That is all health personnel who are there. And I guess, as I left this briefing and the opportunity to talk to the doctors and the nurses and the psychologists and the psychiatrists, I left with an impression that health care there is clearly better than they received at home and as good as many people receive in the United States of America.

Also, I have to comment on the courageous men and women who are our military personnel there, working every day, 24 hours a day. They are doing a tremendous job. I commend them for it. As you walk through the cells, it is clear they are at least verbally abused in just walking through those cells. I know they are under a great deal of stress in carrying out their activities every day.

Our men and women, in spite of that sort of verbal abuse--and clearly at risk of physical assault--remain focused on their mission to provide the detainees there safe and humane treatment but, at the same time, simultaneously protecting Americans from the deadly plots that have been hatched by many of those detainees who are there.

As we all know from the President's comments and speeches over the last week or so, on that island today are some of the world's most hardened enemy combatants, terrorists. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is there, the man the 9/11 Commission described as the ``principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.'' The fact that we have the presence of them--we did not see them, we did not even ask to go to their facility--but the fact that they are there is a vivid reminder that the detainees at Guantanamo do remain locked up for a critical purpose: to protect Americans. We were reminded of that again and again as we listened to the stories about the backgrounds of the types of people who are there. I left there with no question in my mind that many would return to what they were doing before they were captured; that is, plotting new ways to attack us. We know some who have been released have, indeed, returned to the battlefield. And that has been well documented.

There has been a lot of debate recently on how we should prosecute these terrorists, these enemy combatants. Soon we will be addressing that issue once again on the floor of the Senate, as we should. But I think we should all be very clear in our own thinking that these men are dangerous terrorists who remain a threat to the safety and well- being of every American. They are militant extremists whose goal in life is to kill Americans, is to destroy our freedom and security.

Mr. President, as we were reminded through remembrances and through the ceremonies of yesterday and through the discussions yesterday, 9/11 shattered our longstanding illusions of safety and security in this country. As we learned then and have since learned--on no less than 11 occasions--safety and security are not static states, but they are dynamic, they are constantly changing, in constant flux. That means we cannot just enact a bill and then move on and say that is sufficient. We have to continuously, in this body, take stock of where we are, assess and reassess and implement changes when necessary.

We have done just that over the last 5 years. As of August, we passed 71 laws and other bills related to the war on terror. The next step is the bill we are debating today; that is, the Port Security Improvement Act. It provides additional authorities and tools critical to improving our port security and our maritime security--and to foil plots to injure us or to destroy our ports, to the detriment of hard-working Americans and to the detriment of our economy.

Very soon we will take up legislation that strengthens and modernizes our foreign intelligence surveillance laws, as well as legislation that authorizes military commissions to prosecute terrorists for war crimes, such as those who are currently detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Without these tools, we simply cannot guarantee the safety and security of the American people. That is why they are being addressed on the floor right now. That is what hangs in the balance: the safety and security of the American people. On this floor, we are not going to always agree on the approach, but it is a goal I believe every one of my colleagues shares.

As we move forward in this body over the next couple weeks, I hope we do remain focused on that goal, ensuring the safety and security of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we began consideration of the very important port security bill on Thursday of last week, and earlier in the week we addressed the Department of Defense appropriations bill. We generally agreed as a body that we would address the security issues first and foremost over the course of these 3 to 4 weeks, and this is the second step in that process. We made reasonable progress on the bill, but at this point it is not certain when we will finish the bill, and the fact is, we have really a little over 2\1/2\ weeks left. We have a lot to do, and therefore we need to keep business moving along.

We have been talking about a filing deadline and an amendment list, but we have been unable to reach agreement on either of those.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I will file a cloture motion tonight to ensure that we do get a vote this week. We will continue to consult with the managers on both sides, and if we can reach a reasonable agreement to bring the bill to a finish on Thursday, then I believe we should vitiate this particular vote. But since it is still uncertain and we do have a lot of business to do, at this time I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 567, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 568 submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.