Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Port Security Improvement Act because our country's ports are vital to our national security, military capability, and economy. Our economy depends on moving goods via our ports and rail. Our security depends on ports that are safe and protected from attacks. We must pass this bill to keep our ports and America safe. Since 9/11, we have a new world order. We are fighting a global war on terror. Ports are now a high-threat target for terrorism. We need to keep our ports safe from those with predatory intent. Approximately 11 million containers come into the United States each year and 19,000 containers daily. Shippers declare what is inside, but who really knows what is in there. It could be weapons or explosives. We need to improve our port infrastructure. This means providing personnel training and installing better gates and security cameras. We must also upgrade our technology. We need tamper-proof latches on containers to prevent terrorists from slipping bombs or weapons into a container. Yet Federal aid for port security is Spartan and skimpy. The President provided no funding for port security grants in his budget. The Port of Baltimore just celebrated its 300th anniversary. The port is a part of me. My great-grandmother came to American through the port of Baltimore. Growing up, the port was part of my life. The longshoremen, truckdrivers and Merchant Marines who worked at the port were my neighbors. They were hard working, patriotic Americans. They shopped at my father's grocery store. I knew the history of the port because it was the history of my community. The Port of Baltimore is an economic engine for Maryland and America. It creates jobs, including 42,000 maritime-related jobs in Maryland and almost 20,000 direct jobs. The port generates nearly $6 billion a year in salaries and revenues. I have been fighting to upgrade and protect our Port of Baltimore for more than 20 years. In the beginning, it was fixing the twists and turns in our channels that were a safety risk. Today, it is threats that were unthinkable years ago. Keeping our port and our people safe from terrorism is one of my top priorities. I have fought for more port security funding in Baltimore to upgrade entry gates and perimeter fencing, install new surveillance equipment, and purchase new patrol boats. The Coast Guard estimates that $8 billion is needed to address port security nationwide. Congress needs to listen to the Coast Guard and provide the needed funding to protect our ports. This bill is good for the Port of Baltimore and America. It would provide $400 million in port security grants when President Bush provided no funds for these grants. Last year, the Port of Baltimore received $1 million in port security grants, but they need $7 million. It needs these funds for surveillance and explosive detection equipment, perimeter security, and computer equipment to collect cargo information. This bill would also install radiation detection equipment at the 22 largest ports in the United States, including Baltimore. It is the 14th largest port for foreign cargo. This equipment is vital to detect dirty bombs and to protect the people of Maryland and the country. We need to make sure the Port of Baltimore and all ports across America are safe, secure, and growing. The Port of Baltimore is vital to Maryland's future because an investment in the port is an investment in the State's economy. I am proud that this is the 300th anniversary of the port, but we need to make sure that the next generation celebrates the 400th anniversary. Mr. President, it is time to make port security a priority in the Federal law books and the Federal checkbook. I urge passage of this critical and long overdue legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, next week we will be commemorating an event that none of us can forget and none of us wants to relive. We mark September 11, 2001, as a day of national tragedy. But out of the ashes rose a determination to bring the sponsors of this terrorism to justice and to reform the intelligence system that that we depend on to prevent such predatory attacks in the future. In those first weeks and months after the attacks, we were united as a nation and enjoyed the sympathy and support of the world. We went after Osama bin Ladin and the government that hosted him, with some of America's best and bravest. We assembled some of our wisest and most experienced leaders to investigate the events leading up to the attack and to recommend a path of reform. Since 2001 when I joined the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have worked to bring about intelligence reform. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was an important milestone on this journey. Important structural changes were made to our intelligence community and barriers removed to information sharing between agencies. But where are we now? The operational failure of 9/11 was followed by an analytical failure in Iraq. The hidden agenda of the White House and the President's lack of interest in objective analysis compounded the consequences of flawed intelligence. The President did not level with the public before the war. He did not keep his eye on hunting down al-Qaida. Instead, he led us into an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq. Instead of providing oversight of the executive branch, congressional leadership has provided a rubberstamp. Instead of providing an independent voice, it has offered an echo chamber. Instead of helping the Senate Intelligence Committee investigate the Iraq intelligence failure, it has helped the White House push roadblocks in our path. And instead of taking care to safeguard liberty as we enhance security, it has closed its eyes on violations of the law and betrayal of our values. In spite of some strong disagreements on specific issues, the Senate Intelligence Committee has come together on a bipartisan basis to implement the reforms already adopted and advance additional reform measures. But last year, the leadership in the Senate did not allow the committee's authorization bill to be debated and voted on by the full Senate. For the first time in 28 years, the committee was blocked from carrying out its most basic function--the authorization of U.S. intelligence programs. This month, we have learned that the majority leader does not intend to bring the fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill to the floor before the Senate's fall recess. Again we face the prospect of the leadership preventing the Intelligence Committee from doing its job. This is irresponsible and unacceptable. The authorizing committee should be the congressional vehicle for intelligence reform. The members of the committee spend the time needed to understand the issues. And we operate under special rules to keep our Nation's most sensitive secrets. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will do my best to make sure the intelligence community is adequately and appropriately funded. But providing direction and guidance for intelligence activities is the job of the Intelligence Committee. Senator Rockefeller, the distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, elaborated from the floor this week about what is at stake. The fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill, passed unanimously by the committee, included provisions: to enhance or clarify the authority of the Director of National Intelligence; to encourage information sharing and access; to establish a statutory inspector general of the intelligence community; to elevate the heads of the technical intelligence agencies by requiring them to be appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent; to improve the timeliness and completeness of information provided to the committee, and; to streamline the security clearance process for National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency employees and contractors. These measures are not trivial. If enacted, they will save lives and they will save money. They will help restore congressional oversight where it is lacking. They will help prevent abuses in intelligence operations, which bring dishonor to our nation. In short, these measures are critical to our national security. They should not be casually discarded. Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly raised his concerns with the lack of congressional oversight of the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. I join him in expressing those concerns from the perspective of a member whose state proudly hosts the headquarters of that invaluable agency. After a long struggle against White House foot-dragging, members of congressional intelligence committees are finally being briefed on this 5-year-old program. But as Senator Rockefeller points out, we have still not received the information necessary to adequately understand and evaluate the program. Nor have we been allowed to use the Intelligence Committee's specialized staff--such as the minority counsel and the NSA monitor-- who are best qualified to help us with this task. Under these conditions, the Senate cannot evaluate the need for the warrantless surveillance program and cannot propose legislative remedies for the alleged deficiencies of the current law. These circumstances must change. Mr. President, intelligence is at the forefront in our fight against terrorism, just as it was in our long Cold War struggle against communism. Congress has a duty under the Constitution to be a critical and coequal partner in this fight. I join Senator Rockefeller in urging the leadership of the Senate to let us get on with it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, wish to speak?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment. It is very straightforward. It eliminates funding for the Army to carry out the A-76 effort that eliminates close to 400 jobs at Walter Reed, primarily little people, such as landscapers. Senator Sarbanes and I objected to this contracting out because the process was flawed, unfair, and does not save the taxpayer any money. Number 1, it started in the year 2000. It went on and cost $7 million to run the process. The Federal employees won it in 2004. The Army changed the bar, reissued the solicitation, making up to 1,500 changes. After the Federal employees won the contract in September 2004, the Army changed the solicitation. Having spent $7 million, it will now spend $5 million to implement it. The Army is about to spend $12 million to save $7 million. Even by Army accounting, that is a bad deal. This process is flawed. It is unfair. It did not go by the rules. It does not save the taxpayers money. We urge the agreement of the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. While we are waiting, my remarks are 5 minutes. May I proceed?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate all the courtesy. Mr. President, this is really a sad day for me. It is a very sad day, as we are coming up on the anniversary of September 11, as I remember the fear that gripped the Capitol and gripped the United States of America. I remember us being outside on the steps of the Capitol on the evening of September 11 when we stood together and sang ``God Bless America'' together, when we were one Nation indivisible and when we were united and we were so determined to fight that global war against terrorism. I joined with all of my colleagues and I voted to give the President the power to use lethal force to pursue the terrorists and pursue the Taliban and take the fight to Afghanistan. And how pleased I was with the victory in Afghanistan and the way, then, that the Afghan people came together in their Loya Jurga to choose Mr. Karzai to be their leader and to lay the groundwork for a democratic Afghanistan. I thought we were going to make Afghanistan the jewel of the Middle East, where the Muslim community could flourish, a democratic community could emerge, and women would be able to exercise their rights. How joyful we were when those little girls were going to school the same way as the little boys. But it was not meant to be. Afghanistan did not get the backing and support it needed, and along the way there was the recommendation to go to war in Iraq. In 2002, 1 year later, we were debating the war in Iraq. Well, on October 10, 2002, I disagreed with the resolution before the Senate, with the request to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq, using a unilateral approach, and to engage in a preemptive war. I did not agree that the world and the United States of America faced a clear, present, immediate danger from weapons of mass destruction. That information was coming from our CIA, and it was coming from our Department of Defense, which had cozied up to a dissident named Achmed Chalabi, the guy who hung around London, being paid $300,000 a week from the CIA, eating Dover sole, with no backing, no information. He sold us a bill of goods. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Rumsfeld was one of the ones who made that argument, along with the CIA. So where am I today? Today, I really do believe we need a fresh approach. One of the ways to get it is through new leadership. Ordinarily, I would not single out a personality. I would agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that this is about policies. But we have gotten nowhere. So I have joined with my colleagues to ask for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. I have been asking for his resignation since 2004 because I watched us go from being at war with Iraq to being at war within Iraq. Well, this dangerous incompetence has been wrong for America and wrong for our troops and wrong for our allies and wrong for the Iraqi people. Rumsfeld was wrong about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and he led us into war on inaccurate evidence. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that Rumsfeld skewed, selected, and exaggerated information about weapons of mass destruction. And our men and women in uniform have been paying for this deception ever since. Rumsfeld was wrong about what it would take to secure Iraq. We sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without armored humvees, and unprotected for the war in Iraq, where they face daily attacks by IEDs and RPGs. It was up to the Congress, and actually the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to add over $1 billion to make sure our troops have the protection they need. Well, now they need to have new leadership, as well as new protection and new weapons. And along the way, when we hear we are going to listen to our generals in the field--what generals in the field? Those generals who said we need more troops or different strategies, who disagreed with Rumsfeld's rosy projections were muzzled. Warnings about lawlessness and looting were ignored. The State Department's reconstruction plan for Iraq was dismissed and laid aside. DOD's own report says now sectarian violence is the dominant trend in Iraq. But the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, refuses to admit what our generals can clearly see: Iraq is slipping into a civil war and sectarian violence. And whose side are we going to be on? We have said this must be a year of transition. And the transition must begin with Mr. Rumsfeld resigning. Now, Mr. Rumsfeld also assured us about the cost of the war. I was in the meetings. I was in the hearings. He said: Don't worry, American taxpayers will not pay for the war. With our shock and awe, and this quick war, we are going to have a mission accomplished, that the war will be over, and the cost of rebuilding will be paid for by Iraqi oil. Well, Iraqi oil--drip, drip, drip. When do we get a chance to see it? There is no Iraqi oil coming to the United States. Why? Because the infrastructure is broken. Because of the corruption. And because we were once again oversold. Finally, we need to hold Rumsfeld responsible for the prisoner abuse scandals. The abuse at Abu Ghraib is deplorable, despicable and dishonorable. It does not reflect the values of the United States, or the code of conduct that most of our Soldiers live by every day. Rumsfeld's leadership created a command atmosphere where terrible abuse of prisoners was not just tolerated, but encouraged. But only junior enlisted and young officers have been held accountable, while high level military and civilian leaders are let off the hook. This is unacceptable. Rumsfeld is completely incapable of speaking the truth--or facing the truth--about Iraq. His dismal performance has undermined U.S. credibility in the world, and undermined the President's credibility with the American people. We face serious threats from terrorism and rogue regimes, and our brave troops are risking their lives every day around the world. We need a Secretary of Defense we can trust. Donald Rumsfeld should resign now.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I think I made my point, and I am willing to yield my time. We need new leadership. We need a new Secretary of Defense. I yield my time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Let's talk about taxpayers, since this is supposed to inherently do something or other, saving money to fight terrorism. This started in 2000, as Senator Sarbanes said. The Army spent $7 million to defeat their own Federal employees. They spent $7 million in 6 years. Boy, how about that? These are the little people, the landscapers. Thank God they had the AFGE behind them. Then, after spending $7 million and changing the rules--and with the last set of specs, they had 1,500 amendments; imagine if we had 1,500 amendments--what we now find is they are going to have to spend another $5 million to implement the savings. So they are going to spend $12 million when the original goal was to save $7 million. Come on. If we are fighting terrorism and saving money, let's leave Walter Reed alone. It is going to be closed in a couple years because of BRAC. Let the landscapers do their job. Let the doctors and nurses do their job. Let's do our job and pass the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I apologize. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the session be extended for 10 additional minutes so that Senator Sarbanes and I may offer an amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the distinguished Senator will yield, I thought there was an agreement for us to offer this amendment and not ask for a vote on this amendment. Had the Senate followed the regular order, we would have been done with the other business, the pending business on cluster bombs.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We will move briskly. This is to fix a terribly botched competition for Federal jobs at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This competition has wasted taxpayer money. It is unfair to Federal employees, and we urge that it stop. We are opposed to this because it has gone on too long, it is unfair, it has broken the rules, and cost taxpayers an incredible amount of money. I do wish at this time, though, to pay tribute to the distinguished Senators, the chair and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. We have had no finer, more hard-working champions for Walter Reed and military medicine than those two men. So in raising this amendment, we understand where they are and why they also don't want to get into individual privatization issues, but this was such an egregious, unfair process, we felt we had to do this. This amendment would privatize 350 jobs at Walter Reed, mostly landscapers and maintenance workers. Why is this A-76 so flawed? Well, the competition has broken the rules. It has gone on and on and on. It is deeply flawed. It is disastrous. It started in June of 2000. It has lasted more than 6 years, beyond a full Senate term and longer than a President's term. OMB says that it should not have gone on more than 12 months, but this competition has gone on for more than 6 years. Federal employees in 2004 September were declared the winner of this competition, only to have the decision reversed 2 years later--not 2 days, not 2 weeks, but 2 years. Then DOD kept putting out new plans. They announced a new plan where they amended it 16 times. Every time the Federal employees won, the Army came up with a new rule. The last amendment included 1,500 changes. This was the 49th month of this solicitation, and once again they said: Let's start over. They keep changing the rules every time the Federal employees win, and then finally they lost it in 2006 after this chaos. Now, does contracting out save money? You bet, sometimes, but not this time. It has already cost the military $7 million to conduct this privatization. It is going to cost another $5 million to implement. When the demands on Walter Reed are so high, when we have a war that has no line item, should we be spending tax dollars to implement a program that will not save it? This will not save the taxpayers' money. Also, I bring to my colleagues' attention that Walter Reed will be closing in just a couple of years. Why privatize now? It is a solution that is wrong. The competition was flawed. It does not save taxpayers' money. Sure, we understand contracting out when it is legal, when it is fair, when it saves taxpayers' money and maintains integrity. This amendment will eliminate the funding to carry this out, and we urge its adoption at the appropriate time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sarbanes be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No, it has not.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am here to join with my colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes, to offer an amendment, which we have at the desk.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope Members take the time to listen to what we are saying here. We are about to make history. We are about to pass legislation that is going to make a difference. We are going to make sure that the lives of over 100 million people will be more secure because of what we have done tonight. We are going to make sure that good-guy businesses will have clear, certain rules so that they can continue to provide pensions. We are going to make sure that government, through heavyhandedness or unintended consequences, won't force these businesses into bankruptcy. We are going to protect the taxpayer to make sure that the pensions of hundreds of thousands of people aren't dumped into the Pension Benefit Guarant Corporation, leaving it to the taxpayer to do what the private sector should. And we succeeded because we worked together. I thank Senator Enzi for his leadership and his collegiality, his inclusion and his civility; Senator Kennedy for the leadership he provided to our side of the aisle and the very competent staff at his disposal; certainly to my colleague Senator DeWine. We chaired the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging and held some of the first hearings out of the box. We tried to go at it with intellectual rigor and with fortitude. We promised we would do no harm to those who relied on a pension, to those who provided a pension, and to the Pension Guaranty. Do you know what? We did it. Then we moved it through the HELP Committee. The Finance Committee had already started their work, and ultimately we merged those two bills. But Senator DeWine and I come from a manufacturing base, those blue-collar workers with dirt under their fingernails and bad backs who wonder what they are going to have at the end of the workday. We stood up for them. There was a concern that the use of credit ratings in determining whether a pension plan was at risk would force manufacturing companies going through difficult economic times into bankruptcy because of their pensions. We held up the Senate. We said we wouldn't let the bill go on. But Senators Grassley and Baucus reached out to us and said: Trust us; we can reach a compromise. Will you work with us? We wanted to know what that compromise was. They said: We will have to work it out. Do you know what we did? We trusted our colleagues on the Finance Committee and before long we had a sensible solution that was actuarially sound, fiscally reliable, and also met the needs of the pensions. Tonight we come before you with something that we truly have done on a bipartisan basis, consulting with experts, working with able staff, trusting and working with each other, long hours, difficult nights, sometimes speed bumps and potholes. But now we have come to the end of the journey. I can't tell you how proud I am to ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. I am proud not only because I believe tonight we truly can make a difference, but also so we can use this as a model of how when we work together, we can do better. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note that the next Democratic speaker after me will be Senator Harkin, and the next Democratic speaker after Senator Harkin will be Senator Schumer. We are now in the final days and hours of this session of Congress. One of the bills that is circling, waiting for a place to land is the pension bill. We now know the pension bill has been passed by the House, and it is waiting to be taken up in the Senate, but we don't know when it is going to be taken up. It all depends on what we do about the estate tax. The pension bill--the bipartisan pension bill--must not become a pawn in the debate over other unrelated issues. This bill needs to pass, and it needs to pass this week. There is only one reason it is being held up: politics, politics, politics. The pension bill is being used as a pawn for reckless tax breaks for a few when the pension bill will help the many. We need to move this pension bill. I urge the Republican leadership to bring up the bill this week and to bring it up before any tax bill. The American people need it. We need to protect the pensions of millions of Americans, we need to provide relief and certainty to good-guy businesses, and we need to protect the taxpayers from having billions of dollars dumped on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Promises made should be promises kept. America's pension system is in crisis. There are companies that are declaring bankruptcy and then dumping their pension plans on the taxpayers. We have the legislative framework to deal with this. We have had terrible problems. Bethlehem Steel didn't honor their books and declared bankruptcy. They dumped the pensions of 100,000 workers and retirees on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. United Airlines declared bankruptcy in 2002 and dumped the pensions of 122,000 workers on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. One might say: What will this bill do? It will help to make sure that history does not repeat itself. I have been fighting alongside my colleagues for a long time to enact comprehensive, bipartisan reform. Senator DeWine and I held hearings over a year ago. The Senate passed its bill 7\1/2\ months ago. There was a HELP Committee bill and a Finance Committee bill. When we were waiting to pass the bill, Senator DeWine and I had a hold on it because we were concerned that it would place at risk certain come-back companies that were working their way out of bankruptcy and would force their pensions into junk bond status. We had the assurances of our colleagues, Senators Grassley and Baucus from the Finance Committee, saying: Lift your hold. We need to pass the pension bill. We will work with you. So Senator DeWine and I trusted Senators Baucus and Grassley, and we did work it out. We were able to agree within the Senate on a bipartisan framework. Then we took it to the House conferees. It was a rocking-and-rolling conference but, again, we were able to get it done. Now, why can't we get the bill done in the Senate? We worked it out in conference, and it passed the House. Why can't it pass the Senate? It needs to pass the Senate by Thursday or Friday. Now is the time to pass the bill. The Republican leadership has decided that protecting a few zillionaires' estates after they die is more important than protecting pensions for retirees while they are still alive. Let's get our priorities straight. We are not only talking about the retirees who depend on us, we have workers right now in airlines who are wondering what is going to happen to them. What do you say to somebody who is working for an airline who might lose his pension? Think about that mechanic. Think about what he is concerned about. What about the stewardesses, the brave people we saluted on flight 93? The last thing we can do is honor their memory and have a pension bill for those who fly every single day. What about the people who are working right now who are concerned that the rules of the game will be shifted on them? Our pension bill-- our bipartisan pension bill--will protect them. We really have to pass this bill. I urge the Republican leader to bring up the pension bill after we dispose of this coastal drilling issue. As I said, the time for delay is over, the time for politics is over, and it is time for us to take up and pass the pension bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2005. To compete in this global economy, we need to make sure our students have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. Vocational and technical education is an extremely important part of this effort. The Perkins Act, which provides $1.3 billion to help train more than 10 million Americans across the country, is a vital investment in our Nation's high schools, community colleges, and our students. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical program gives a boost to America's workforce development system by providing funds to schools that teach technical skills ranging from auto shop to computer programming. The Perkins Act also supports practical career programs and links between secondary and postsecondary education, helping students to move up the opportunity ladder and prepare them for high- skill, high-wage jobs. Students who have completed Perkins-supported programs are better prepared not only for higher education but for the workplace. The President has proposed eliminating funding for all vocational and technical education programs. This is the wrong way to go. If Perkins was eliminated, high schools, technical schools, and community colleges in every State would suffer. In Maryland, our schools would lose almost $19 million. Last year, we had more than 150,000 students enrolled in career and technical programs in Maryland. In the United States, 97 percent of high school students take at least one career and technical education course. One-third of college students are involved in career and technical programs. And almost 40 million adults attend short-term occupational training. If these schools had to close their doors or shut down their vocational programs, where would these students go to learn the skills they need to get good paying jobs? Vocational and technical education provides students across the country with opportunities to develop academic and technical skills that are critical for economic and workforce development. It is our job in the senate to make sure these opportunities are there for the people who need them and to invest in our human capital to create a world class workforce. That is why I strongly support this bipartisan bill and I oppose any cuts to the Perkins Career and Technical Education programs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. I oppose this bill for three reasons. The first is that it does nothing to promote the health and safety of our children. The second is that I do not believe it can pass constitutional muster. The third reason I oppose this bill because it is just another example of the continual assault on women's reproductive freedom. I strongly believe that minors should involve their parents in all important decisions. This includes the decision to have an abortion. Research shows that most women voluntarily involve their parents when making this decision. However, I recognize that there are some young women who cannot talk to their parents about this issue. Some young women may not live with either of their parents, and instead live with a grandparent, aunt, or another adult relative. Some young women may be growing up in households where they experience physical and sexual abuse and may be threatened with further abuse should their parents be aware of a pregnancy. Yet young women facing pregnancy crisis need help and support. There are no exceptions in this bill which address the realities of women's lives. The reality is that some young women come from abusive homes. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes young women are raped by their fathers, and this results in a pregnancy. And, the reality is that a young woman may need a trusted adult whether it be a grandparent, older sibling, priest or rabbi, to accompany them if they choose to get an abortion. This bill does not help these young women. In fact, this bill says to women who cannot involve their parents that they have to go it alone. That is why I voted for the Feinstein amendment which would have allowed other trusted adults like grandparents or clergy members to be allowed to step in when a young woman could not go to her parents for help. This amendment was a step in the right direction. It acknowledged that unfortunately some young women cannot talk to their parents about this very important decision. That is why I also voted for the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment. This amendment addresses the causes of teen pregnancy. The amendment takes positive steps to prevent teenage girls from getting pregnant in the first place. It funds teen pregnancy prevention programs in schools and community settings. The amendment provides funding to keep teens out of trouble and on the road to success. It restores budget cuts to after school programs and physical education classes. I also oppose this bill because it does not pass constitutional muster. Not only does it totally ignore cases where a young woman's health is threatened. That clearly undermines the major holding in Stenberg v. Carhart which requires any law regulating abortion must contain an exception for a woman's health. Let's be clear: because this bill does not contain an exception to protect the health of young women it will be ruled unconstitutional. Finally, I oppose this bill because it is yet another assault on women's reproductive freedom. I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage for contraceptives, or requiring Federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health. Today, I will oppose S. 403 because it forces young women who are dealing with a crisis pregnancy to go it alone and deprives them of the advice and assistance of a trusted adult. It assumes that every family is safe, stable, and supportive. The bill ignores that some minors cannot go to mom and dad for help. It does not make our children any safer. I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 403.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to give my strong support of the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this important and needed legislation. In 2006, there are still places in America where voters are intimidated and turned away from the polls. Americans are being denied the most basic and fundamental right as an American the right to vote. That is why this bill is needed more than ever. I am proud to be here to speak as the Senator from Maryland. From the dark days of slavery to the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way to end discrimination. The brilliant Frederick Douglass, who was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery; the courageous Harriet Tubman, who delivered 300 slaves to freedom on her Underground Railroad; and the great Thurgood Marshall, from arguing Brown v. Board of Education to serving as a Supreme Court Justice--all were Marylanders. Not just Marylanders but civil rights leaders and activists from all over this country fought hard to get the right to vote. Over 600 people marched from Selma to Montgomery they were stopped, beaten, but not defeated. These brave men and women continued to march, continued to fight until they got the right to vote. They had to challenge the establishment and to say ``now'' when others told them to ``wait.'' Holding dear to their hearts the words of Frederick Douglass: If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation are men who don't want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did, and it never will. Their fight, their struggle resulted in the Voting Rights Act being passed. This legislation guarantees one of the most important civil rights that every citizen may vote. It is the very foundation of our democracy. It has eliminated discriminatory practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests. It has made it possible for African Americans to vote and hold elective office. We have come a long way since the original Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Yet we have a long way to go. As recent as 2004, we have seen voters disenfranchised, broken election machines, and problems with people casting their ballots on election day. We saw this in the 2000 Presidential elections, too. In 2000, we all learned that many ballots, many peoples' votes, were thrown out, lost, misplaced or miscounted. We saw election officials who did not know the rules and some who appeared to ignore the rules. And where did much of this happen? In minority neighborhoods, in cities, economically distressed areas across the Nation. I ask myself, is this just a coincidence? Those communities don't think so. It is critical that we let them know we take their concerns seriously. This legislation recognizes that election reform is still needed. Voters are scared to come forward and cast their vote in some parts of this country. There are places where voters are not getting assistance at the polls whether it is language access or access to accurate information. This is unacceptable. It is un-American. Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act will help guarantee the right to vote for all Americans. The bill does four important things. First, it requires States with a history of racial discrimination to have their voting laws precleared by the Department of Justice. This extra layer of oversight is still necessary to protect minority voters. Second, it prohibits all States from imposing any requirements that would deny a U.S. citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or language ability. Third, it requires language assistance at the polls if a U.S. citizen has difficulty speaking or reading English. Finally, it authorizes the Federal Government to send Federal election monitors to minority voter districts to prevent voter intimidation. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Ensuring that every registered voter who wants to vote can vote is not a partisan issue. It is what America stands for. We must stand up for what America stands for: opportunity, equality, and empowerment. We must make sure there is no discrimination of any kind, anywhere in America whether it is the old-fashioned kind or the new-fashioned kind. I urge my colleagues to support reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act today.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of this resolution condemning Hezbollah and its state sponsors, and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense. On July 12 Hezbollah militants launched an attack into northern Israel, killing seven Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two soldiers to hold hostage in Lebanon. On June 25, despite Israel's evacuation of Gaza almost a year ago, Hamas entered sovereign Israeli territory, attacked an Israeli military base, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped one, who is still being held captive. Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations supported by Syria and Iran. The Senate is on the record demanding that Syria and Iran abandon their sponsorship of terrorism, with legislation including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. Syria, Iran, and the Hezbollah terrorists that these states sponsor are responsible for the current violence in the Middle East. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers from Israeli soil and the exploitation of civilian populations as shields are provocations to which any sovereign nation would be obligated to react. Israel has every right to respond to protect her citizens. These terrorists must be stopped. Terrorists destroy lives. They destroy hope. They destroy the opportunity for peace. The independent militias in Lebanon must be dismantled and withdrawn. The Lebanese government must take steps to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 and disarm the Hezbollah forces operating within its territory. The Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas must be released immediately and unconditionally. I urge President Bush to use all available political and diplomatic means to persuade the governments of Syria and Iran to end their support of Hezbollah and Hamas. We are united in our rejection and condemnation of the heinous acts of Hezbollah and Hamas and the governments of Syria and Iran are supporting them. We are also united, Mr. President, in our steadfast support for Israel and Israel's right to self-defense. Israel is one of our closest allies. As Americans, we share with Israel both strategic interests and moral values. Today I am proud to stand with the people of Israel and support their right to defend themselves.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the Senator from Iowa for his real leadership on this issue. This Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act debate is one of the most important debates the Senate will have in this year and in this decade. I believe this is such a great opportunity to be able to save lives. I believe it is like when we announced the endeavor to map the human genome, like when we announced the national war against cancer. That is how important this issue is. I am a firm, unabashed supporter of stem cell research. It is a cornucopia of opportunity for new breakthroughs for some of the diseases that are the most devastating and costly conditions facing thousands of Americans, including Alzheimer's disease, from which my father died, diabetes, of which our family faces an inherent propensity, spinal cord injuries, which we see through accidents like Christopher Reeve had, and spina bifida, from which little children suffer. Stem cell research has the potential for saving lives, and we need to be able to pursue it. I also would urge that this research be done in the sunshine. One of the reasons we need a national framework is so it will not be done in dark corners of the world without the United States of America participating. We need a national framework to establish bioethical standards based on sound science and ethical principles. I fear that without national standards and national legislation, this could be conducted outside of the public eye, without national and international scrutiny, where dark and ghoulish things could occur. One of the reasons I came to the Senate was to help save lives. In my home State, we are the home to the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Drug Administration, the University of Maryland, and also Johns Hopkins University. I, every day, know that in my own home State they are working on new ideas for new cures. Whether it is to ensure that women have accurate mammograms to diagnose breast cancer, streamlining the drug approval process so that lifesaving drugs can reach patients more quickly, or fighting to double the budget at NIH, we have consistently fought to improve the lives and health of the American people. This is why I am such an advocate of stem cell research. It holds the potential to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, all those autoimmune diseases, such as MS and spinal cord injuries. Just imagine if scientists could find a cure or the cognitive stretchout ability for Alzheimer's. Even giving individuals with a disease a longer mental capacity would be a big breakthrough. Eighty percent of Medicaid costs go to paying for long-term care for seniors. Eighty percent is primarily spent on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Think of just the financial savings we could have, let alone dealing with the tragedy in lives. I, along with Senator Bond, am the lead sponsor of the Ronald Reagan breakthrough legislation to sponsor breakthroughs. We have spoken personally with Nancy Reagan, and she has endorsed this legislation, just as Senator Lautenberg has talked about. We need this opportunity to pursue the opportunity. If we do not have national legislation, we are going to do it one State at a time. California has done it. My own home State of Maryland has done it. But do you know what. There is $30 million here and $30 million there, but we do not have national standards, which means, can we replicate the research? Can we have international cooperation? For too long, this Federal health research has been operating with one hand tied behind its back. Scientists have been prohibited from doing embryonic stem cell research. Five years ago, President Bush restricted Federal funding for embryonic stem cells. He said: Oh, we have these little lines, these little stem cell lines. Those little stem cell lines did not turn out very well. The result is, federally funded research was almost halted. Stem cell research is conducted by private entities, and there are no national Federal bioethical standards. I want bioethical standards. I want to ban human cloning. I want to make sure the ghoulish is not done in laboratories. I support the other legislation. We should not turn this into financial opportunity. We should sign it into pure opportunity. What I like about this legislation is that it removes the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, but it does provide for an ethical and medical framework and allows for sound science and sound ethics to be able to proceed. This ensures transparency and public accountability. But most of all, it ensures opportunity. When my father was in that nursing home and he could no longer recognize me or the woman to whom he had been married for 50 years, it did not matter that I was a Senator. There was no cure for Alzheimer's. It did not matter that I could get five Nobel Prize winners on the phone because they did not have the answer. My father, when he passed away, was a modest man. He would not have wanted big, lavish testimonials. What he would have liked to have had was the fact that I cared enough to look out that no family would go through what we went through. And whether you were the First Lady of the United States, like Nancy Reagan, and the first caregiver, or my mother, who was by my father's bed when he passed away, we watched what that disease did. And now I will not stand patiently by and watch the opportunity to find a cure pass by. So let's remember President Reagan. Let's remember the little guys like Mr. Willy, who ran a grocery store in Highlandtown, and who looked out for his neighbors and for his girls, as he called his daughters. Let's look out for the American people and pass stem cell research. Mr. President, I yield the floor.