Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield back our time. Cloture Motion

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a great American who passed away last week-- Casimir Lenard. Cas Lenard was an American patriot, who also made a tremendous contribution to strengthening the friendship between the United States and Poland. He served bravely in three U.S. wars. He was a leader in the Polish American Community. He was also a beloved husband to the late Myra Lenard, his partner in life and his partner in his work on behalf of the Polish American community. Cas Lenard was born in Chicago to a family of Polish immigrants. Like so many children of immigrants, Cas Lenard embraced his country while never forgetting his homeland. After hearing that the Nazis had invaded Poland in 1939, Cas joined the Chicago Black Horse Troop, 106th Cavalry, Illinois National Guard. Two years later, he requested and was assigned to the 1st U.S. Infantry Division--the first U.S. Army unit to go overseas. From 1942-1945, Cas was engaged in overseas combat duty, participating in the Operation Torch landing at Oran, North Africa, the invasion of Sicily, and in the D-Day amphibious landing at Omaha Beach, Normandy. After his discharge from the Army in 1945, Cas married his beloved wife, Myra, and began working in the family restaurant business in Chicago. Again heeding the call to service, Cas volunteered for active duty and served for 6 years during the Korean War. In 1962, he was selected for a 5-year tour of active duty with the General Staff at the Pentagon, where he became Chief of the Army Intelligence Reserve Office. Cas then went on to serve in Vietnam and at the U.S. Army Institute of Land Combat at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. After 30 years of distinguished service, Cas retired from the military and was awarded many citations, including the Silver Star Medal with Cluster, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal with ``V'' for Valor, the French Croix de Guerre with Palm, seven overseas campaign ribbons, and the Normandy Medal of the Jubilee of Liberty. I got to know Cas and Myra Lenard because of their work with the Polish American Congress--where Cas served as its first executive director in Washington. Cas and Myra worked tirelessly to support the Solidarity movement in Poland. And when the wall came down, Cas and Myra Lenard were strong advocates for Poland's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The Lenards were there every step of the way-- organizing the Polish American community to educate their Senators about how Poland's membership in NATO would strengthen America's security. For all of his efforts on behalf of Polish Americans and for improving Poland's position in the world, Cas received many awards, including the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, the Founders Award by the Polish American Congress, and the Polish American Congress Medal of Freedom. Cas Lenard's life was a triumph. His legacy is a deep friendship and alliance between the United States and a free, democratic Poland. His children and grandchildren are in my thoughts and prayers.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, wouldn't you like to find a cure or wouldn't you like to be part of an effort to find a cure for Alzheimer's? Wouldn't you like to be part of a Congress that helps save lives, helps people and families struggling with Alzheimer's so perhaps there could be medicines for cognitive stretch- out for those who are facing some form of dementia? Wouldn't you like to give help to those practicing self-help, providing relief to hard-working caregivers? I know you do, and I also know a bipartisan group of my colleagues want to do that. That is why I introduced the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2007. I started this work a couple years ago, working with my colleague, Senator Bond, who then was chair of the Subcommittee on Aging. Now I am working with Senator Burr. We passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in July critical legislation, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. It is pending on the calendar. We need unanimous consent to bring it up. I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to give consent to move this bill forward. This bill has two components: one is an authorizing component and the other a tax credit component. In the spirit of comity, I would be willing to actually divide the two because I know tax policy needs to be very sensitive in terms of the consequences. Let me tell my colleagues what this breakthrough legislation does. It doubles the funding for Alzheimer's research at NIH. It goes from $640 million to $1.3 billion, giving researchers the resources to make breakthroughs. It funds a national summit on Alzheimer's so the best scientists in the country can come together and identify the most promising breakthroughs. We are not talking about long-time, longitudinal studies. We are talking about studies that are at a point of significant breakthrough, that need help, and need a boost. Also in our bill is the family caregivers support tax credit. It would create a $3,000 tax credit for caregivers with the extraordinary expenses of caring for someone who has a chronic condition, such as Alzheimer's. Why is this needed? Alzheimer's disease is the tsunami on the horizon we cannot ignore. Today there are 5 million Americans living with Alzheimer's disease. It is expected to triple in the next couple decades. We know a lot about Alzheimer's disease. It has been 100 years since it was first diagnosed, and though we know a lot, we do not have a cure, and maybe we will not have a cure, but we certainly can have the breakthroughs for what we call cognitive stretch-out. For those people who are gripped by this terrible disease or another form of dementia and those who are in social work and medicine, they have watched people say the long goodbye. We watched a gallant President and an incredible First Lady by the name of Reagan, in which the President had his long goodbye and the First Lady, Nancy Reagan stuck with him every minute, every hour of every day until his final resting. We salute them. We know that when the President does not have the resources to deal with this disease, we have so much work to do for the little people. Knowing that President, he would want help for the little people. We need a sense of urgency about Alzheimer's. If we find a cure to delay the onset of the disease, we could save a tremendous amount in Medicaid and Medicare. It is estimated that for every year we can have that cognitive stretch-out that enables people not to have to turn to institutional long-term care, we can save over $500 billion in both Medicaid and Medicare. Should we even put a price tag on finding a cure, better and earlier diagnosis, faster creation of new drugs for people? Can we afford not to invest in this disease? I don't think so. Alzheimer's is a terrible disease. I know it because we lived through it in our family. We watched prominent people be gripped by it. We know Alzheimer's is terrible for the person living with it, and we know it is an incredible drain on the caregiver, both emotionally and financially. Our country last year spent over $120 billion in dealing with this disease. I wish to come back to the caregiver. Usually it is a daughter or a spouse who takes care of an aging parent or spouse. Often they need help with durable medical equipment and specialized daycare. It could add up to anywhere from $5,500 to $8,000 a year. Caring for a sick loved one means often you give up work, you reduce your work to part time or certainly take money out of your household. We held a series of hearings on this bill, including Dr. Zerhouni of NIH and Dr. Gerberding of the CDC and some of our most eminent physicians working on this disease. It was amazing because it was so energizing. Often when we think about Alzheimer's, we think there is no hope and no opportunity to crack this disease, but there is. What the scientists told us is there is now an array of medical possibilities for both the prevention of Alzheimer's and also intervention that would enable people to have this cognitive stretchout. I am using the words ``cognitive stretchout.'' Maybe it is a little too fancy. What it means in plain English is you have a memory, you can think, you know night from day. I know for families that are gripped by Alzheimer's, both the person with it and the person living with it experience a 36-hour day, because often with Alzheimer's, the person gripped by it cannot tell the time. If we can stretch out that decline where they still have their memory, still can function with the activities of daily living, still know whether it is 3 o'clock in the afternoon or 3 o'clock in the morning, still be able to recognize their grandchild and still be able to remember how to eat, my God, what do we give them? We give them a year of life, we give a breather for those who love them and are taking care of them, and we also give a break in terms of the Federal budget with the assistance we provide in long-term care. This bill is pending on the calendar. We have asked unanimous consent to go to it. I ask my colleagues, let's have a vote. If they would like to separate out the tax credit aspects from the authorizing legislation, I would be more than willing to cooperate in the closing hours of this session to do that. I know on the floor is my very good colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, who chairs the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. He has been such a strong advocate of NIH, and we thank him for what he has done. But he needs help from those of us in the Senate to come up with these breakthroughs. Mr. President, rather than a parliamentary request asking consent, I know our cloakroom is circulating the request. I look forward to a reply from our colleagues in moving this bill forward, but I ask our colleagues: Join with us and move this bill forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the conference report for the Head Start for School Readiness Act. Since 1965, Head Start has been one of the most successful Federal programs for helping low-income children and their families. This long overdue reauthorization is good news for over a million Americans who rely on Head Start's comprehensive services. Head Start is for the poorest children. About 75 percent of Head Start families are at or below the poverty level. For a family of four, that is just $20,600 per year. These children are often the furthest behind in learning to read and learning the alphabet. Yet Head Start makes a difference. In 1 year, these students see huge improvements in their vocabulary, increasing from the 16th percentile to the 32nd percentile, which is almost the national norm. But Head Start does so much more. It brings children to the doctor to get immunizations and hearing checks. It helps parents get on the right track. Many parents become Head Start teachers and go back to school to get their degrees. It provides nutritious meals for children who might otherwise go hungry. I am a social worker. I have seen first hand children whose lives were changed by a simple hearing aid or a good breakfast. Believe me: it can make all the difference. Head Start is also a smart investment. Research shows that society accrues $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in Head Start children. Head Start graduates are more likely to have increased earnings and employment than non-Head Start participants. Head Start graduates are also less likely to be dependent on welfare or to have been charged with a crime when compared to their siblings who did not participate in the program. Unfortunately, only 60 percent of eligible preschool children are in Head Start, and less than 5 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are in Early Head Start. In Maryland, about 25 percent of eligible children age zero to 5 years are in Head Start and Early Head Start. The Bush administration has underfunded this critical Federal program for the past 7 years. Now is the time to renew the Federal investment in Head Start. That is why I am proud to support this bill that makes low-income children and families a priority in the Federal checkbook. It increases the authorized spending level from $6.9 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008. That is nearly a $450 million increase. This increased investment will allow tens of thousands more children to participate in the program who would be otherwise turned away because of inadequate funding. This bill also expands Head Start by increasing the eligibility income level from $20,600 to $26,800. This means that a family of four who are scrimping and saving on an annual income of only $26,800 will no longer be denied the comprehensive services Head Start provides. The Head Start for School Readiness Act makes a serious investment in our youngest children and their families. The benefits of Head Start to the children, their families and society at large far outweighs the cost. I urge my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report. Our young children deserve nothing less.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, would the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator aware the President's budget actually cut NIH by $310 million? He cut the National Institutes of Health projects by $310 million, wiping out research opportunities for those young scientists with breakthrough ideas, as well as those which were ready for advancements; is the Senator aware of that?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, today I rise to speak about two very important amendments. I will ask for a vote on both of these amendments at an appropriate time. The first amendment requires the U.S. Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal or its progeny. The second amendment would increase food safety because I will ask for three studies on the impact of cloned products in our food supply--the impact on trade, the impact on the economy, and the impact on health. But let me talk about the fundamental problem. See this picture up here? This is Dolly. You remember Dolly, the cloned lamb that burst onto the scene? Dolly is cloned. She has gone from a novelty to a biotech product, to possibly Dolly burger in your food supply. So we have gone from: Hello Dolly, who are you, to being on the verge of having Dolly burgers in our school lunch program, maybe Dolly Braunschweiger in our Meals on Wheels program. Why are we on the verge of doing that? It is because the FDA said it is OK. You remember the FDA. They said OK to Vioxx. They said OK to a lot of things. It seems, in December of 2006, the FDA announced that milk and meat products from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. Now, I have very serious doubts about that, but I am not a scientist, so I want more science and more research. Most Americans agree with me, that scientists should be able to monitor cloned animals as they enter the food supply. To my dismay, FDA has refused to label cloned food. I believe people have a right to know and a right to make their own decisions. The American people find cloned food disturbing. A Gallup poll reports over 60 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals. My bill doesn't deal with morality. My bill deals with: When you eat it, you know where it came from. Consumers have a right to know. They have no way to tell if the food comes from a cloned animal, the cloned animal's progeny, such as Dolly, or if it comes from a cow, a pig, a chicken. I want the public to be informed. I am for consumer choice. If most Americans don't want cloned milk and meat, they should not be required to eat it. I cannot stop the cloning of animals. Maybe that would not be a good idea. I cannot stop the FDA from approving it. I don't believe in meddling at that level. But I can insist on labeling. And if it enters your food supply, whether you buy it at the supermarket or whether you are in a restaurant or whether it is going to be in the child's school lunch program or your elder parents' Meals on Wheels program, you ought to know about it. My amendment would require labeling by the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, to put a label on all food from cloned animals that says this product is from a cloned animal or its progeny. These labels would be at the wholesale level, retail level, or restaurant level, or wherever the U.S. Government acts in calling it nutrition. It would allow the American people to make an informed decision on what they are eating. You would think I am creating Armageddon. The BioTrade Association has been all over me with the functional equivalent of cleats, running editorial boards, and whispering science as they know it into the ears of the ed boards. If they have such confidence that cloned food is OK, why would they care if it were labeled? If they had such confidence that the American people would be indifferent to labeling, why would they oppose it? They say it will cost too much. Guess what. They said it about nutritional labeling. They said that about other forms of labeling on our food. I reject those arguments. I believe you want to know this. I really believe you want to know if you are eating cloned food. Madam President, you know me. You know I am one of the people in the Senate who has stood fairly on the side of science, the technology advancements it brings and the need always for more research. I believe we need more research into what this means. What is the impact and consequence on public health, on individual health, on unborn children, which I know is a great concern to many of our colleagues here? We don't know. Are we going to wake up and, instead of fetal alcohol problems, have the impact of cloned food? I don't know that. My second amendment would require three studies: a health impact study on cloned foods and do more of it; an economic impact to the United States from adding cloned food to our food supply; a foreign trade impact on exporting food made in the United States from cloned animals. My amendment also requires scientific peer review of the FDA's decision to improve scientific rigor. It would eliminate and assure there were no conflicts of interest. Many studies done with cloned food were done with the supporters of cloning, and those who would profit from cloning. The FDA received over 13,000 comments when it released its initial decision that food from cloned animals is safe. Many of these comments said more information is needed. Scientists said there is more information needed. The public said more information is needed. I believe we need to listen to the National Academy of Sciences, which is the premier adviser to the Congress and the people on this. The National Academy of Sciences agrees that cloning is a brand-new science. There may be unknown and unintended consequences. These scientists recommend this technology be monitored and urge postmarket surveillance. You cannot have postmarket surveillance unless it is labeled. If it is mixed in with your food, you won't be able to do this. The FDA tells us that once they determined cloned food is safe, they would allow it to enter the market. The scientists want this labeling. I believe we are going down a difficult path. In Europe, they call this type of food ``Frankenfood.'' Cloned beef is having a hard time in the marketplace. Do we want the EU to ban all American food products because the people are worried about ``Frankenfood'' and are worried that this ``Frankenfood'' has been mingled with the other food? Essentially, they could ban all exports of meat products there. I don't want to hear one more thing coming from the EU that says they don't want to buy our beef or lamb because they are worried that it is ``Frankenfood.'' Again, I am worried about it. How about having an amendment that mandates a study on the trade impacts? I also believe in science and research. I believe, therefore, we need to mandate a study now and follow a scientific program based on sound science. Were they accurate? Were they impartial? Were they free of conflict of interest? What additional research needs to be done? We need to be able to also look at the impact on our economy. Are we running a shortage in beef, lamb, and so on, so that we have to go to cloned animals? I don't think so. It seems to be readily available in the American marketplace. I don't know why we need to do this. People say, well, don't you believe in the FDA? I do. The FDA is in my State. Over a thousand dedicated men and women work there every day. What I also know is that the FDA has been making some pretty big mistakes. They have been making mistakes in their food supply. They cannot stand sentry over spinach and E. coli in our own country. How are they going to monitor Dolly as she makes her way into our food supply? They don't even have enough people to keep an eye on E. coli spreading in spinach in our own country. What about the food coming in from other countries that we don't seem to be able to stand sentry over? The FDA has not had enough resources in the food supply area. Then they say: Don't worry, honey, we will take care of you. We learned that line a long time ago and we know how false it was. The FDA, I believe, needs more help. They need more research. They need more monitoring, and this is why I am for labeling. Labeling would tell us where these foods go. It would give us the ability to have postmarket surveillance to look at the consequences, some of which might be OK and some of which might be quite questionable. So all I am saying is give the public a right to know and let's do more studies. I don't know about Dolly. She looks so sad here in this photo, doesn't she? I don't know if she is happy that she is a clone, and I don't know if she is sad that she is a clone. I know whatever happens to Dolly, and whatever breakthrough comes from cloning--and maybe there are wonderful things that I don't know about. I do know that when I sit down on my heart-smart program and bite into a nice juicy roll, I want to know whether I am eating beef, lamb, or a Dolly burger. So my amendment simply says: Give me the right to know; otherwise, I will take further steps to say bah, bah to Dolly burgers. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments on the farm bill be laid aside and that I be allowed to speak on two important amendments that I will offer at an appropriate time.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, I rise today to notify the Senate that I sponsored an amendment to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that provided $3 million in funding for Teach for America, headquartered in New York, NY, to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I sincerely thank my colleagues from Iowa and Pennsylvania for addressing this issue that touches so many older Americans.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The chairman and ranking member are right. The Community Innovations for Aging in Place program provides community-based services by supporting partnerships between government and health and human services providers in caring for the nation's elderly. The federal government needs to be able to fund programs that work not only through government but through nonprofit organizations. That is why I would like to ask the chairman and ranking member if they support implementation of the Community Innovations for Aging in Place program?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to first thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for doing a wonderful job drafting a spending bill for fiscal year 2008 that makes a true commitment to the priorities of so many Americans across the country, especially our older Americans. Close to 90 percent of all seniors in this country want to or, by necessity, will remain living in their homes, even as they grow frail. That is why I created a new, innovative program in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 called the Community Innovations for Aging in Place. Are the chairman and ranking member aware of this program?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree that such a study would be useful and I thank my colleague for bringing this important matter to our attention.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Republican leader, I rise to oppose the motion to commit this bill to the full committee. This bill is the product of strong bipartisan work. Our bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Some say we spent more than the President asked. Yes, we did. We are proud of the fact that what we spent money on was that we didn't overspend, that the President underfunded. We had three--when I say ``we,'' I am talking about the ranking member, Senator Shelby, and I--priorities: Security, keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime; our second priority was innovation, investments in science and technology that will create jobs that will stay in the United States of America; No. 3, reform. We were soundly on the side of fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We stood sentry over waste, fraud, and abuse. We stood sentry over lavish conferences that spent $4 on a meatball. We reformed the NOAA satellite program. But our first priority was also to make sure local communities are safe. We lifted the hiring freeze on DEA agents so they could fight the heroin and Taliban in Afghanistan as well as keeping our streets clean. We also, at the same time, added money for local law enforcement, particularly dealing with the fact that the COPS program had been eliminated and that the Byrne grants had been cut down to only $32 million. Yes, we added $1.5 billion. We certainly did. People all over America who understand what violent crime is know what this means. I know my other colleagues want to speak. I do appreciate the Republican leadership for wanting fiscal accountability and stewardship. But I believe we also need to fund America's priorities. I believe law enforcement and the fight against terrorism is No. 1. By God, we did it in this bill. And by God, this bill should stand.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3279

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am glad that the subcommittee will include $1.5 million in NOAA funding in the report to address the environmental needs at Suisun Bay and I pledge to carry that funding through conference. juvenile accountability

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for his leadership in this area and look forward to working with him on securing funding that is necessary to fight violent crime across the country. I know from our conversations of your concern for your home State of Pennsylvania and your particular concern about the recent rise in violent crime in Philadelphia.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to review the efforts of the Transportation Security Administration, to meet the requirements in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and other plans the agency has to strengthen transportation security in the U.S.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Absolutely.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at noon today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 3289 and that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote and that the time until then be equally divided between Senator DeMint, Senator Shelby, and myself, Senator Mikulski.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know I rise in support of the DeMint amendment. I think it is a very commonsense amendment. I believe that when we are regulating how Government employees travel, I do believe they follow the rules. I do not believe they travel in a lavish lifestyle. I wish to acknowledge the fact of two things: One, our colleague from South Carolina has a GAO report that indicates reform is needed; reform and clarity are needed on what our Government employees, traveling on official business, can do. We have heard all kinds of stories about some going on business class, some going on first class, some where it is even short trips, and so on. We acknowledge, of course, as always, the validity of the GAO report. What I also want to say is this subcommittee, chaired by myself and my ranking member, Senator Shelby, is on the side of reform. Our three themes this year were security for our country, innovation to keep us competitive, and, at the same time, accountability. We have done a major set of reviews on things such as cost overruns in the NOAA satellite program. We have also taken on things where we offered an amendment together dealing with discipline in the funding of conferences. We stopped the lavish conferences, the so-called $4 Swedish meatball amendment. We believe the DeMint amendment is also in that same spirit of reform Senator Shelby and I brought to this subcommittee and we now bring with our bill to the floor. We are deep down reformers. We want to make sure we accomplish the mission of the agencies for which we are the guardians of the purse. But at the same time, we want to make sure taxpayers are getting value for their dollar. Where there is excess, poor judgment, or poor management, we are going to hold agencies to the fire. We are going to hold agencies accountable. Therefore, when this vote is taken, I urge, in the spirit of reform, the spirit of accountability, that we join, once again, on a bipartisan basis and pass this amendment. We so appreciate the work of the GAO, a wonderful independent watchdog that Congress can turn to where it is not the Senator from South Carolina's opinion or the opinion of the Senator from Maryland about what is going on or the need for reform, but we work on clearheaded analysis, intellectual rigor, let the facts speak for themselves. When you look at this GAO report, the facts do point to the fact that we do need reform in this area. I am a supporter, but I also want to acknowledge, though we need reform, I want to clearly state that most civil servants follow the rules when they book their tickets on Government travel. It ensures that these employees follow current regulations that will limit the purchase of first-class tickets. In the spirit of accountability, reform, and responsibility for the taxpayers, again, I thank Senator Shelby for his work. We have made a lot of progress on the spirit of reform. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from Nevada, both on process as well as content. I believe, with the concurrence of Senator Shelby, that there is one of the amendments we might be able to take, and then the other, of course, would be a vote in which we would move to table the amendment after lunch. But if I could respond to the Senator from Nevada in terms of content, where he wishes to increase funding for the Marshals Service for the full funding of the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, we acknowledge the validity of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada in this regard. The Senator and I have been involved in a group where we are trying to put our values into action. The Senator might recall my own background is that of a social worker. I was a child abuse worker. I find that there is nothing more despicable than a child predator. I believe it is so dastardly, so despicable, so repugnant that every time I think about the work Adam Walsh did, the work that comes out of our excellent bill with our funding, we know we always want to do more when our children are stalked in neighborhoods or playgrounds. We know they are being stalked on the Internet. Without going into putting even more vile things out there in conversation, the Senator from Nevada is well aware of some of the most awful things that are going on on the Internet. We want to acknowledge the validity of what he wants to do. I know the Senator from Alabama wishes to speak on it, but we believe we could take this amendment. I know the Senator will want to speak about it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 p.m. today, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Ensign amendment No. 3294, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume amendment No. 3295, another Ensign amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to that amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that no amendments be in order to either amendment in this agreement prior to the vote; and that the debate time be equally divided and controlled between Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby or their designees.