Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand there are two other bills at the desk that are due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that they be read for a second time, en bloc.

Mr. President, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, May 20. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; provided further that the time from 9:40 a.m. to 10 a.m. be under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the time from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, provided that at 10:30 a.m. the majority leader or his designee be recognized and floor time then rotate every 30 minutes between the two leaders or their designees until 1 p.m, at which time the Democratic leader or his designee be recognized until 1:45 p.m., to be followed by a Republican Senator until 2 p.m.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume the consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a United States circuit court judge for the Fifth Circuit. We have had another day of substantive debate on the Owen nomination. As announced earlier today, there will be no rollcall votes tomorrow. We will have a busy day of debate, surely, and Senators are encouraged to come to the Senate during the session. As a reminder, the majority leader has announced we will have a vote next Monday at 5:30 p.m. That vote is likely to be a vote on a motion to instruct and to request Members' attendance. More will be said regarding Monday's schedule at the close of business tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Is it true that the pending business before the Senate is the nomination of Priscilla Owen and other judges?

Madam President, in my view there are four pillars that are absolutely essential for a free and just society. The first of those pillars is freedom of religion, where people's rights are not enhanced or diminished on account of their religious beliefs. The second pillar is freedom of expression, where people say what they want without retribution. Third is private ownership of property. And the fourth pillar for a free and just society is the rule of law, where disputes are fairly adjudicated and our God-given rights are protected.

I believe it is absolutely essential that we have judges on the bench at the Federal level and indeed all levels of Government who understand that their role is to adjudicate disputes fairly and honestly, to apply to the facts and the evidence of the case the laws that were made by elected representatives. We are a representative democracy. Judges ought to apply the law, not invent the law, not serve as a superlegislature, not to use their own personal views as to what the law should be. It is absolutely essential for our country, for the rule of law, for the stability one would want for the rule of law, for the credibility and the fair administration of justice, that we have judges who understand this basic principle.

When it comes to the appointment of judges and the election of judges, in some States they are elected, in some they are appointed. At the Federal level, the way it has been since the beginning of the Republic is the President nominates a man or a woman for a particular vacancy. That individual is examined very closely by the Judiciary Committee. They question and try to determine what is their temperament and what will they become once they put on a robe. Especially at the Federal level it is important because they are given lifetime appointments, so there is questioning done as to their scholarship and their judicial philosophy. That is very important.

If that person passes muster in the Judiciary Committee, the procedure, for the past 200 years, was that the nominee get a favorable recommendation. Once in a while they come out of the committee with no recommendation. But ultimately what happens is 100 Senators vote. They vote up or down on these nominations. That is our responsibility. It is my responsibility to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia who elected me to confirm judges or deny confirmation--but ultimately vote.

What has happened in the last three years, though, is an abrogation of this approach and fair consideration of judicial nominees. We have seen unprecedented obstruction and a requirement, in effect, of a 60- vote margin, particularly for circuit court judges.

Wendy Long, the counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, observed a month ago:

It is abundantly clear that the American people are tired

of the partisan, political maneuvering and the unwarranted

character assassinations against qualified candidates for the

Federal bench.

She observed, and I agree:

People see through these aggressive negative attacks waged

by some individuals and groups on the left and they want it

to end. They want Senators to do their jobs and hold a

straight up-or-down vote on nominees based on their

qualifications, not the baseless negative rhetoric of the

left.

I agree. I think the people of America believe these nominees deserve a fair vote based on their qualifications. I think my colleagues should take notice.

Two of the nominees who have suffered at the hands of the opposition are Judges Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. First, in respect to Justice Owen, I listened to the heartfelt views of Senator Hutchison of Texas about Justice Owen. Senator Hutchison knows her better than I do, but I strongly support Justice Owen; not just her nomination but her confirmation. In fact, she is arguably one of the best nominees President Bush has nominated to the appellate court. Even the American Bar Association agrees. They unanimously rated Judge Owen well qualified, their highest rating.

Sadly, Justice Owen was the first unanimously approved well-qualified ABA nominee who was held up a few years ago in the Judiciary Committee.

What are some of the reasons why the Democrats are opposing Justice Owen? The Number one reason I have heard is it was because of her interpretation of Texas' parental notification statute. The Democrats and her opponents have charged Justice Owen is found to be an activist in cases involving the interpretation of the Texas parental notification statute that was enacted in 1999.

If you want to look at that statute, it says as follows. It requires notice to a parent when a minor woman seeks an abortion, but allows exceptions when the trial court judge concludes the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision without notification of a parent; that notification would not be in the best interests of the minor; or that notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.

From reading Justice Owen's opinions with respect to the statute, I found that Justice Owen interpreted the parental notice statute in Texas and its exceptions fairly and neutrally, in accord with the plain legislative language, as well as relying on precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States. She expressly relied on U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing similar laws to interpret the statutory exceptions. In fact, even the Washington Post has opined that:

While some of Justice Owen's opinions--particularly on

matters related to abortion--seem rather aggressive, none

seems to us beyond the range of reasonable judicial

disagreement.

That is the Washington Post and I would hardly call the Washington Post a bastion of conservative philosophy.

Justice Owen's record in these cases is far from that of an activist. In fact, it demonstrates her judicial restraint and her understanding of the proper role of an appellate judge. Under the Texas statute, the Supreme Court of Texas does not review judicial bypass cases unless the bypass has already been rejected at the trial and the intermediate appellate court level. In other words, every time Justice Owen voted to deny a judicial bypass, she was simply upholding the rulings of lower courts. That means she upheld the ruling of the trial judge, the only judge who actually saw and heard the case, a decision with which at least two out of three appellate court judges agreed.

This type of deference is entirely appropriate in cases such as this, where the determination turns largely on the factual findings and the credibility of the witnesses. The trial judge who actually observes and hears the testimony of a plaintiff in a judicial bypass case is best positioned to determine the credibility of that evidence and that witness.

By deferring to the trial court's judgment on factual questions, Justice Owen has appreciated, obviously, the proper role of an appellate judge. However, when a trial judge commits a clear error, Justice Owen has not hesitated to reverse the judgment and order a bypass, or remand for further proceedings, as she has done on three occasions.

My colleagues, I understand this parental notification issue. As Governor of Virginia, I worked for the passage and signed Virginia's requirement to notify parents if their unwed minor daughter, 17 or younger, is planning an abortion. Opponents of this attacked me and said things very similar to what you hear about Justice Owen. They said we were trying to tear down Roe v. Wade. That is quite contrary from my standpoint. I want the record

to note that Justice Owen has repeatedly demonstrated adherence to Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade. In fact, almost 80 percent of the American people believe a parental notification statute for a minor is reasonable.

I asked my staff to look back in my documents to find the speech I gave before I signed the bill on March 22, 1997. Here is the reasoning that motivated me and the people of Virginia to finally pass a parental involvement measure--and I am for parental consents even better, but our statute is similar to Texas. I said on the steps of Mr. Jefferson's capital in Richmond, VA:

Today we are signing legislation affirming the importance

and the necessity of a parent's guidance and counsel if their

young daughter is facing the trauma of an abortion. Ladies

and gentlemen, parents have the right and the responsibility

to be involved with important decisions in their young

children's lives, especially those that affect their physical

and emotional health.

It was hard to get this bill passed. It was 17 years before it actually passed, a true parental notification bill. This was logical law. When one considers that for a minor to get their ears pierced, one needs parental consent, it makes a great deal of sense to me that if a young daughter, unwed, 17 or younger, is going through a trauma of abortion, a parent ought to be involved. That is what the Texas law was about. When daughters are going through this trauma, parents ought to know as opposed to being in the dark.

But I want to stress that the Texas statutes and the Virginia statutes are merely parental notice statutes. Those statutes express the views of the people of the State of Texas, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and indeed the more than 40 States that have some sort of parental involvement statutes on their books. In fact, they reflect the views of this country. In fact, they believe what Justice Owen was doing was correct in applying this statute as she did.

In summation, Justice Owen is a person with outstanding qualifications. She graduated at the top of her class at the Baylor Law School and subsequently earned the highest score in the State on the December 1977 Texas Bar Exam. After graduation she practiced commercial litigation for 17 years and became a partner at one of the most respected law firms in the State of Texas. Finally, in 1994, Justice Owen was elected to the Texas Supreme Court. In 2000, she won reelection by an overwhelming 84 percent of the vote, and was endorsed by every major newspaper in Texas.

Her support is wide and it is bipartisan, ranging from a number of former Democratic judges on the Supreme Court of Texas to a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State Bar of Texas.

It is important that we act on Justice Owen's nomination because the Judicial Conference of the United States has designated the seat Justice Owen is nominated for as a judicial emergency. Justice Owen is well qualified to be a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the longer the opposition keeps holding up this nomination--and this has been going on now for 4 years--the longer average citizens will have to wait to have their cases heard. She deserves a fair up-or-down vote.

With respect to Justice Janice Rogers Brown, she has been nominated by the President to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where currently one-fourth of that court is vacant. Her qualifications are impeccable. In the past years I talked about Miguel Estrada, another outstanding nominee who had unanimous support, the highest recommendation from the American Bar Association, and who was denied, year after year, the fairness of an up-or-down vote. He was a modern- day Horatio Alger story.

Justice Brown is an American success story as well. She reflects the fact that with hard work and determination you can succeed if you put your mind to it. Her rise from the humble beginnings she had in the segregated South to becoming the first African-American woman to serve on the highest court in the largest State in the country is truly an inspiring American success story.

In her 9 years on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has earned the reputation of being a brilliant and fair jurist who is committed to the rule of law. That reputation has returned her to the court when she was supported by 76 percent of California voters, which was the largest margin of any of the four justices up for retention that year. Her reputation has also led the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court to call on Justice Brown to write the majority opinion more times, in 2001 and 2002, than any other justice on the Supreme Court of California. When someone gets 76 percent of the vote and is called on to write the majority opinion more times than any other justice on that court, that means you are well respected and you are doing a good job and that you are clearly within the mainstream, not out of the mainstream as is asserted by those who obstruct her vote.

Justice Brown's opponents would like the American people to think she is a radical, an ideological extremist in her opposition to government. I contend if she was so extreme, why did 76 percent of California voters support her? Sadly, her opponents continually attack her for her opposition to government even though she has stated for the record that she does not hate government. If she hates government, why is she a part of it?

A thorough analysis of her opinions clearly indicate she is capable of dissecting her personally held views of her dislike of expansive government, from her opinions that seek to apply the law as it exists and defer to the legislative judgments on how best to address social and economic problems.

Justice Brown has been extremely cooperative with the Senate Judiciary Committee. She testified for nearly 5 hours at her hearing and answered every charge leveled against her. Justice Brown is clearly qualified for this job, and her colleagues, Republican and Democrats alike, agree.

Twelve of her colleagues wrote the following about her:

We who have worked with her on a daily basis know her to be

extremely intelligent, keenly analytical and very hard

working. We know she is a jurist who applies the law without

favor, without bias and with an even hand.

Now, isn't that what one would want in a judge? This quote best summarizes my faith that many people, including myself, have in Justice Brown. In an October 17, 2003 letter to Senator Hatch, Judge Talmadge R. Jones of the Sacramento Superior Court wrote:

More importantly, the exceptional judicial performance of

Justice Brown as a Circuit Judge will readily be apparent to

everyone, and a worthy tribute to the confidence placed in

her by both the President and the United States Senate.

I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 5 more minutes.

Madam President, I ask Unanimous Consent that I be allowed 1 minute and add 1 minute to the Democrats' side to sum up.

I thank my colleagues.

In summation, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and all of the President's nominees, deserve a fair up-or-down vote.

The people all across this country, whether they are down in Cajun county in Louisiana, whether they are down in Florida, whether they are in the Black Hills of South Dakota, or whether they are in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, expect action on judges. As much as people care about less taxation and energy security for this country and wanting us to be leaders in innovation, they really expect the Senate to act on judges. It is a values issue. It is a good government issue. It is a responsibility-in-governing issue that needs to be addressed.

As I said earlier, there is no reason to filibuster these nominations. As Senators we have a responsibility to vote. These nominees deserve fair consideration, fair scrutiny, but ultimately we have a responsibility to get off our

haunches, show the backbone, show the spine, vote yes or vote no, and be responsible to our constituents.

I thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I am glad we are going to be voting on my amendment around noon. I had thought it was going to be 11:30, but it is now noon.

Let me share with my colleagues the rationale behind amendment No. 611 to the underlying bill.

I first thank my colleague, Senator Ensign of Nevada, for cosponsoring this amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to make sure that safety belt incentive grants are awarded based on a State's seatbelt use rate, not based upon a prescriptive mandate from the Federal Government that would make the States enact a primary seatbelt law to receive their Federal funds.

The way this bill came out of committee, in effect, for the States to get their money, they have to enact a primary enforcement seatbelt law. Seatbelt laws generally, whether you have a law such as 29 States do, which is secondary enforcement, or in some cases not even secondary enforcement laws, or some States have primary enforcement laws, this is an issue under the purview of the people in the States.

This is not an issue for the Federal Government to get involved. This is not an issue of civil rights. It is not an issue of interstate commerce. It is not in the Constitution. There is no way Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would ever envision the Federal Government worrying about such matters. I know they did not have automobiles in those days, but they were not coming up with worries about what kind of saddles they had or making sure folks on horseback laced up their saddles correctly with a buck and strap or whether there were seatbelts on buggies.

The underlying bill clearly tramples on the jurisdiction that has long been held by the people in the States. I don't believe ``nanny'' mandates such as this initiative should come from Government. But if they must, the government should be that of the State legislature and not the Congress. State legislators provide a much closer representation of the views and beliefs of their respective constituencies in our country.

I am a firm believer that the laws of a particular State reflect the philosophy and principles under which the citizens of that State should be governed. The people in the States do not need fancy Federales telling them what to do. Moreover, I doubt a single Senator ran for this office of Senator promising to enact primary seatbelt laws, trampling on the laws of their States.

This chart shows a minority of States, 21 States, the States in red, have primary safety belt laws; 29 States do not, the States in white on the chart, and New Hampshire. I surmise this issue has been considered by every one of the State legislatures in all our 50 States. In 29 of those States, primary enforcement of seatbelt laws was rejected.

Why were they rejected? Each State may have their own reasons. Some may believe it is more important for law enforcement to worry about drunk drivers or impaired drivers rather than craning their necks trying to figure out what is in someone's lap as they are driving otherwise safely down the road. There are others that may have concerns about driving while black, a concern of racial profiling. Regardless of the reasons, 29 States have rejected primary seatbelt laws.

Given that a majority of the States has declined such laws, it seems inappropriate for the Federal Government to devise a grant program that essentially compels the States to enact primary enforcement laws, and if they do not, they lose Federal gas tax dollars the people in these States paid into the Federal highway trust fund.

My amendment revises the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program to grant awards on 85-percent belt use rate--the national average is about 80 percent. Eighty-five percent would, of course, be a significant increase. People are safer wearing seatbelts. It is a good idea to wear seatbelts, but instead of compelling States to enact primary seatbelt laws, the grants should be awarded solely on seatbelt use attainment. The point is to get people to wear seatbelts, not to have prescriptive micromanagement from the Federal Government.

For me, it is difficult to understand the logic of an incentive program that provides Virginia, with its high safety belt use, far less funding than a State with far lower seatbelt use rate but with a primary seatbelt law. Yet that is entirely possible under this bill if the State with a lower seatbelt use rate has enacted a primary seatbelt law.

For example, a State could have 70-percent seatbelt usage and receive Federal funds under this grant program only because it has enacted a primary seatbelt law. However, another State could have 89-percent seatbelt usage rate but not qualify for this grant funding because it does not have a primary seatbelt law. That makes absolutely no sense unless one is an officious meddler who wants to dictate and meddle in the prerogatives of the people in the States.

If the goal is to attain higher safety belt usage rates, incentive grants

should be awarded based on a specific goal. In our amendment, it is 85 percent. This amendment is similar to one already included in the House version of this highway bill legislation. My proposal is a much more equitable way to provide incentives and reward States for increasing seatbelt use rates. It makes the proposed program fair by making requirements the same for all States, but does not compel States to enact primary seatbelt laws.

How do you get people to wear seatbelts if you do not have a law? As if everyone carries the code of their State around in the glove box or, for that matter, carries around the United States Code. There are a variety of ways. In some States with secondary enforcement, with higher usage rates than those with primary enforcement laws, there can be advertising, there can be incentives. There are a variety of programs creative people can devise as well as just common sense.

I wear a seatbelt. My kids wear seatbelts. Everyone ought to. But the point is, Should this Senate be telling the States to pass primary enforcement laws?

I urge all my colleagues to consider the laws of your State. If you are in one of the 29 States that does not have a primary seatbelt law, what in effect Senators are saying is, we do not trust you in South Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Arizona, or Montana to make these laws. I don't agree with this. Moreover, you are telling people from Alaska to Arizona to Florida and South Carolina, Virginia, and on up to New Hampshire and Maine, sure, you all are paying Federal gas tax revenues into the Federal Government highway trust fund from your gasoline purchases, but you are not going to be able to get this approximately $500 million portion back unless you pass a primary enforcement seatbelt law.

The people in the States should determine whether this Federal Government incentive plan should reward States that have high usage rates or whether it should be used to promote a certain meddling nanny philosophy.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to stand up for common sense, principled respect for the will of the people in the States. Stand up for the principle that the law ought to be fair to those across the country. If any of those States can reach 85-percent attainment rate, depending on how it gets calculated in the States, let them have access to these funds and grant them the broad authority, also, to use those funds for roads and adding on to roads, as well. Finally, rather than official Federal nannyism, stand up for trusting free people. They can make these decisions perfectly well, and have heated and vigorous debate in their State legislatures if necessary. We should not trespass on the will, desires, and views of the people of 29 States with this officious nannyism and the federales planting their finite wisdom over the will of the people in the States.

I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Allen amendment.

Amendment No. 761, as Modified

Mr. President, let me know when 1 minute is left, please.

My amendment sets a goal of 85 percent usage of seatbelts, and if a State achieves that, whichever way they may

achieve it, they would get these incentive grants.

Thank you.

The purpose of my amendment is to not have the Federal Government as an officious nanny telling the States how to achieve seatbelt usage rates. Twenty-nine States don't have primary enforcement of seatbelt laws and 21 do. Seven States have 90 percent usage. Fifteen States have over 85 percent. The underlying proposal will actually reward States that have lower seatbelt usage only because they have primary enforcement seatbelt laws, while others that do not have primary enforcement seatbelt laws have a higher use rate.

I don't think the people in the States who have paid into the highway trust fund ought to be dictated to by officious Federal nannies; we should trust the people in the States to make these decisions as opposed to trespassing on those prerogatives.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 611.

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

Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment I have offered, along with Senator Ensign of Nevada, is to make sure safety belt incentive grants are awarded based on a State's seatbelt use rate, not based on a prescriptive mandate from the Federal Government that a State must enact a primary seatbelt law to receive Federal funds.

I have long opposed Federal dictates, whether direct or indirect, on States to enact a primary seatbelt law. This brand of nanny government precludes American adults from making basic decisions for themselves and could hamper law enforcement's ability to effectively patrol the streets and highways for more serious and egregious offenses. It is generally a waste of scarce time and resources for local police officers to pull over an adult and write a ticket to fine someone who was, theoretically, potentially harming himself or herself by not wearing a seatbelt. Our citizens would be better served if a law enforcement officer, rather than writing that ticket, because someone was otherwise driving safely down the road, was actually finding someone who is weaving down that same stretch of road as a drunk driver, clearly a danger to themselves but more importantly to others. Law enforcement resources are not unlimited. I believe police officers have more pressing needs than craning their necks to make sure every licensed driver on the road has a buckled seatbelt.

This is not an issue of interstate commerce. This is not a civil rights issue. This is not in the U.S. Constitution. This is an issue of enforcement of seatbelt laws, and what laws a State might want to have is and has long been under the jurisdiction of the people of the States. I don't believe that nanny mandates such as this initiative should come from government. But if it is going to come from a government, it ought to be coming from a State government, certainly not the U.S. Congress. State legislators provide a much closer representation of the views and beliefs of their respective constituencies in this country. I am a firm believer that the laws of a particular State in matters such as this reflect the principles and philosophies under which the citizens in that State wish to be governed.

One can see from this chart a minority of States have enacted primary seatbelt laws. The ones in red are the 21 States that have primary enforcement of seatbelt laws. Simple math tells you that 29 States do not have a primary enforcement of seatbelt laws. In fact, New Hampshire doesn't even have secondary enforcement of seatbelt laws. I surmise that this issue has been considered by all of the States' legislatures in the past.

In our general assembly in Virginia--the world's oldest legislative body in the Western World, started in 1619--they have debated the benefits of a primary seatbelt statute numerous times and have consistently rejected such a law in our Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact, during the debate in the Virginia House of Delegates, it was strongly argued that primary seatbelt laws can contribute to racial profiling.

In early 2003, Delegate Kenneth Melvin of Portsmouth, VA, voiced his opposition to a primary seatbelt law, stating:

I know what happens when you are stopped by police as a

black man in this country, and in Virginia in particular.

He then explained how his oldest son had been pulled over by police numerous times for no apparent reason.

Incidents like this might not happen in every State and may be specific to certain jurisdictions in Virginia, but it is the fundamental reason for us to leave such decisions to the people in the States. The repercussions of such Federal mandates or pressure can have different effects in each State.

Given that the majority of the States have declined primary safety belt laws, it seems inappropriate for the Federal Government to devise a grant program that essentially compels the States to enact them or lose Federal gas tax dollars that they paid into the Federal highway trust fund.

The underlying bill's Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, I suppose, is well-meaning officiousness, but instead of providing grants based on obtaining a goal to increase use rates, the safety title requires the States to enact a primary seatbelt law to receive these Federal funds which, of course, have come from the people in the States who paid Federal gas taxes.

The proponents of this provision will no doubt argue that the program is not discriminatory, not an effort to coerce States without primary seatbelt laws to enact such laws. However, the 90-percent use rate required in this bill would make it extremely difficult for a vast majority of the States to qualify for grant funding. According to the National Center of Statistics and Analysis, only seven States had a safety belt use rate of 90 percent or higher in 2004.

I understand there are studies that indicate that primary seatbelt laws are most likely to yield increased use rates. However, if States without primary seatbelt laws are able to attain a comparable or higher use rate to those with such laws, it is fundamentally unfair for the Federal Government to withhold grant funding that has been provided by all road-using taxpayers.

My amendment would revise the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program to base grant awards on an 85-percent safety belt use rate. Instead of compelling States to enact primary seatbelt laws, grants would be awarded based solely on seatbelt use attainment. There are a variety of ways that States may encourage people to use seatbelts.

It is difficult for me to understand the logic of an incentive program that would provide Virginia, with its high safety belt use rate, far less funding than a State with a far lower seatbelt use rate and a primary seatbelt law. Yet that is entirely possible under this bill if a State with a lower use rate has enacted a primary seatbelt law. They could have a lower rate than the State that doesn't have such a law and receive funding, while the State with higher usage does not.

If the goal is to attain higher safety belt use rates, incentive grants should be awarded based on a specific goal. In our amendment, it is an 85-percent safety belt use rate. This proposal is similar to the one already included in the House version of this legislation.

My proposal is a much more equitable way to provide incentives and reward States for increasing safety belt use rates. It makes the proposed program fair by making requirements the same for all States but does not compel States to enact primary seatbelt laws. Again, the goal of our amendment is simple and clear: attain higher seatbelt use rates based on achievement, not on an artificial mandate from the Federal Government.

States are looking for the greatest flexibility on how to use Federal transportation dollars that we send back to them. Some may decide that increasing capacity can best serve their citizens by helping alleviate traffic congestion and improving the safety of a particular roadway. My amendment would allow these funds to be used for everything from intersection improvements, pavement and shoulder widening, installation of rumble strips or warning devices, improving skid resistance, improvements to pedestrian or bicyclist safety, railway, highway crossing safety, traffic calming, the elimination of roadside obstacles, improving highway signage, and pavement marking. They can use it for installing priority control systems for emergency vehicles that signal intersections. They could use it for installing traffic control or warning devices at locations with high accident potential, or increasing road or lane capacity.

It has been noted multiple times throughout this debate that our highways are not being maintained and actually require greater funding than the underlying bill provides or authorizes. This amendment would provide the States some additional flexibility to address road and lane capacity needs if they so choose.

We all agree that wearing a seatbelt increases safety for drivers, and the policy should be to try to promote increased safety belt use rates.

My amendment does not change that purpose. However, I do not believe it is the role of the Federal Government to force States to enact such laws that are traditionally considered in the State legislatures. The States may have many ways, such as advertising, to encourage greater seatbelt usage.

My amendment rewards States equally for reaching an 85-percent safety belt use rate, but does not seek to force them into only one solution prescribed by the officious nannies in Washington, which would be a primary enforcement seatbelt law.

I urge my colleagues to consider the laws in their home State. Twenty-one States have such a law, 29 do not. Determine whether you believe this Federal Government incentive plan should reward States that have high usage or whether it should be used to promote a certain meddling nanny philosophy of this body that tells State legislatures and the people in the States what to do.

My amendment would ensure that the occupant protection incentive grant funding is awarded fairly and is done so based on attainment of goals. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize and thank Ambassador Lisa Guillermin Gable of Virginia for her valued leadership as the United States Commissioner General to the 2005 World Exposition in Aichi, Japan.

The World Expo 2005 features national pavilions from 125 participating countries. Under the leadership of Ambassador Gable, the not-for-profit and privately funded organization, Aichi USA 2005, has successfully designed and built the U.S. Pavilion, which will be open to the public in Nagoya, Japan, through September 25, 2005. The showcase at the United States' pavilion honors America's first diplomat and innovator, Benjamin Franklin. The pavilion showcase promotes America's core values of hope, optimism, enterprise and freedom.

Under Ambassador Gable's stewardship, the U.S. Pavilion and related cultural activities were successfully and fully funded with 100 percent non-Federal financing. The hard work of this distinguished resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia will help promote U.S. economic development by fostering business relationships between Japan and the many participating countries and state sponsors.

I express my appreciation and thanks to Ambassador Lisa Guillermin Gable, U.S. Commissioner General to the World Expo, as named by President George W. Bush, for leading the way in making possible the United States' participation in the first world's fair of the 21st Century.

Mr. President, as the clock strikes midnight, an historic event will occur for all of us in the Senate, but obviously an important date in the history of Virginia. In all of our history, we have had 51 Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia, such as John Tyler who became President, and Madison, and many great Senators. A historic achievement is being achieved tonight with my wonderful partner and our colleague, John Warner, which is a testament to his abilities as a leader and the high esteem in which he is held by the people of Virginia.

Tonight, in fact at this very moment, our wonderful colleague John Warner surpasses on the all-time list Senator Carter Glass, who served in this body for over 26 years. Senator Warner's extraordinary term of service is now second to only Harry Byrd in serving in the Senate. He was elected in 1978 and he has spent the last 26 years serving this country.

He is a man who loves his job. He is a man from whom we always learn something new, valuable, insightful, or humorous. He is a unique blend of a military leader, having served in World War II and in Korea.

No, I object. He is a country gentleman, a legal scholar, a historian, a great storyteller, and an esteemed statesman, all with the joy of life of a 12-year-old boy. He loves his job. He loves the Senate. And we love him and congratulate him on this momentous occasion.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize James Monroe, a Virginian patriot, on the 247th anniversary of his birth and honor his service to our Nation as a soldier, a diplomat, a legislator and as the fifth President of the United States of America. As the Nation draws closer to the celebrations being planned to honor President Monroe's 250th birthday, I rise today to honor his undeniable legacy.

James Monroe, born April 28, 1758, in Westmoreland County, was born, raised and educated in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Foregoing his studies at the College of William and Mary, James Monroe joined the Williamsburg Militia in 1775 in defiance of the British King. He served gallantly in the Continental Army on the battlefield at Harlem Heights, White Plains, Trenton, Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth, eventually rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel.

A student of Thomas Jefferson's after serving in the Revolutionary War, James Monroe was an adherent of Mr. Jefferson's principles of individual freedom and restrained representative government, which would guide him through 50 years of public service. Elected to the Virginia General Assembly in 1782, Monroe served in the Confederate Congress and in the first U.S. Senate before his first of two terms as Minister to France. He returned to his Virginia, and as many students of Mr. Jefferson have done since, served 4 years as Governor.

During Thomas Jefferson's Presidency, James Monroe returned to France and was essential in the negotiation of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. His foreign policy experience led James Madison to name him both Secretary of State and Secretary of War as the United States was once again pulled into war with Great Britain in 1812.

Elected President of the United States in 1816, Monroe's Presidency has long been referred to as the Era of Good Feeling. During this time he helped resolve longstanding grievances with the British, acquired Florida from the Spanish in 1819, signed the Missouri Compromise and renounced European intervention or dominion in the Western Hemisphere with one of our Nation's greatest foreign policy documents, the Monroe Doctrine.

In 1820, Monroe achieved an impressive re-election, losing only one electoral vote, reserving the honor of a unanimous election for George Washington alone.

My own family has strong ties to the legacy of James Monroe. My wife Susan and I enjoyed our wedding on the grounds of his home, Ashlawn- Highland, in Charlottesville where her family has worked for many years. In fact, part of Monroe's property in Albemarle County is now on the grounds of his teacher's great institution of learning, the University of Virginia and is respectfully referred to as Monroe's Hill.

The life of James Monroe is one that embodied virtue, honor and commitment during his accomplished life of public service. It is fitting that he would pass from this Earth on July 4, 1831.

It is with sincere admiration that I respectfully ask my colleagues to recognize James Monroe's 247th birthday as a reminder of his remarkable and magnificent leadership for the people of Virginia and the United States of America.

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that I reintroduced today with a number of my Senate colleagues--the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2005.

The spirit of volunteerism is indelibly rooted in our Nation's history. From when early settlers landed in Jamestown in 1607 to when our citizen soldiers took up arms against the British Crown in the Revolutionary War, volunteerism has always been a part of American culture.

But that unwavering spirit did not stop there, it has continued and thrived in many individuals and charitable organizations today. One such group of organizations that has selflessly given back so much to Virginians and Americans are charitable medical transportation systems operated by volunteer pilot organizations, VPOs.

The mission and purpose of public benefit and non-profit volunteer pilot organizations involved in patient transport is to ensure that no financially needy patient is denied access to distant specialized medical evaluation, diagnosis or treatment for lack of a means of long- distance medical air transportation. The principal goal is to remove the geographical and financial burdens that would deny access to specialized care.

Last year public benefit flying non-profit volunteer pilot organizations provided long-distance, no-cost transportation for over 40,000 patients and their escorts in times of special need. Mr. President, this year, that figure will likely grow to roughly 54,000 people.

One such organization that has played an intricate part in this mission is Angel Flight. Angel Flight is a not-for-profit grassroots organization with a volunteer corps of more than 6,200 volunteer pilots/plane owners--divided into six regions across the United States--who fly under the banner of Angel Flight America. Angel Flight provides flights of hope and healing by transporting patients and their families in private planes, free of charge, to hospitals for medical treatment.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Transportation and the FAA closed airports and grounded commercial air traffic, but the FAA allowed Angel Flight volunteers to fly. Angel Flight pilots flew firefighters, families of victims of the bombings, Red Cross personnel, medical and other supplies including the protective booties for the Search and Rescue dogs to New York and Washington, DC.

In my years of public service, I have always maintained that we must provide access to care to all Virginians and Americans. Medical care should be available to all individuals. Sadly, our Nation is facing a medical crisis. Medical malpractice insurance costs and Medicare physician reimbursement are forcing many of our doctors to stop seeing ``high-risk'' patients or Medicare beneficiaries and in some cases forcing our doctors to give up practice altogether and retire. As a result, patients have to travel great distances to receive the medical care that they need to live happy, healthy and productive lives. Unfortunately, a number of these patients do not have the financial means to travel long distances, thus, ultimately denying patients access to life-saving or quality of life improving specialized treatment.

We can say the same with patients who rely on volunteer pilot organizations such as Angel Flight or one of its subsidiary groups like Mercy Medical Airlift in my home Commonwealth of Virginia. Unfortunately, due to the public's apparent notion that organizations that use airplanes are financially well-off and have deep pockets, many of the volunteer pilot organizations are open to frivolous and junk lawsuits. This leads to an access to care issue.

Also, aviation insurance has skyrocketed up in price and non-owned aircraft liability insurance is no longer reasonably available to volunteer pilot organizations. Many insurance companies had always provided this type of insurance but post September 11, 2001, this insurance is scarcely found and if found, the costs have increased greatly, to the astronomical sums of $5 million a year. Because of the exorbitant costs of insurance, volunteer pilot organizations have a difficult time recruiting and retaining pilots and professional persons.

I would like to submit an editorial written by the Virginian Pilot. This editorial correctly identifies the obstacles that these volunteer pilot organizations have to go through. I would like that editorial inserted here.

That is why I decided to introduce the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. In 1997, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which handled much of the liability issue for volunteer endeavors in the country; however, this legislation did not adequately address aviation-related matters.

My bill amends the highly regarded Good Samaritan Act to provide necessary liability protections in the area of charitable medical air transportation and promote volunteer pilot organizations. More specifically, this legislation will protect volunteer pilot organizations, their boards and small paid staff and nonflying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. The VPOs are simply the ``match-makers'' between the volunteer pilot willing to help a neighbor and the needy patient family. The pilot has full and sole responsibility for conducting the flight in a safe manner in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations. In addition, this legislation will provide liability protection for the individual volunteer pilot over and above the liability insurance that they are required to carry.

Furthermore, the Volunteer Pilot Protection Act will provide liability protection for ``referring agencies'' who tell their patients that the charitable flight service is available. Referring hospitals and clinics are becoming unwilling to inform their patients that charitable medical air transportation help is available for fear of a liability against them should something happen in a subsequent volunteer pilot flight. Hence, organizations like the Shriners Hospital System and the American Cancer Society would be able to make known available volunteer pilot services to transport their patients to Shriners or other hospitals where they receive care.

I know a few people have concerns that this bill would provide blanket immunity to Volunteer Pilot Organizations but I want to stress that my bill requires insurance on the part of the pilot and if there is negligence on behalf of the pilot, the injured party does have legal recourse. This bill does not provide blanket immunity to VPOs, but has been carefully worded to allow

legal action to be brought against the insurance policy of the pilot in event of negligence.

By providing volunteer pilots with liability protection, insurance rates for these pilots will ultimately be reduced. Therefore, more pilots will be able to afford insurance and fly for the public good. With less-costly insurance available, I am confident that more pilots will generously give their time to fly for and help the medically needy.

This bill enjoys the support of a number of charitable organizations, including the Children's Organ Transplant Association, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the Air Care Alliance, the Independent Charities of America, the Health and Medical Research Charities of America, the National Association of Hospital Hospitality Houses, and many others.

Not only does this legislation enjoy the support of numerous charitable organizations, it also enjoyed the support of the United States House of Representatives. On September 14, 2004, the House of Representatives passed the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of2004 by a vote of 385-12. Mr. President, this is a clear indication that this bill has broad bipartisan support in the House and I know the House will once again pass this commonsense legislation.

I am confident that this legislation will start a trend to help curb the large amounts of counterproductive lawsuits, lower insurance costs, and promote the spirit of volunteerism that has been rooted in the framework of our country's storied history. I, along with the volunteer pilots and organizations, and with the thousands of families who rely and may rely on the help of volunteer pilot organizations, urge the Senate to quickly and finally pass this legislation in the 109th Congress.

I would like to thank Congresswoman Thelma Drake, our newest member to the Virginia team, for taking over this legislation for former Congressman Ed Schrock and introducing the companion bill on the House side. In addition, I would also like to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Chambliss, Inhofe, Coburn, Talent, Cornyn, and Isakson for their support as we work to pass this vitally necessary legislation.

[From the (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot,

Mar. 11, 2003]

Shield Helpful Pilots From Frivolous Lawsuits

In the realm of volunteers, few outshine the generous folks

at Angel Flight.

This nonprofit organization flies patients for whom air

transport would be otherwise unaffordable to medical

facilities around the country. Private pilots spirit

individuals to dialysis, chemotherapy sessions, organ

transplants and other surgeries by donating their aircraft

and their valuable time. The goal is a noble one: to ensure

that no one in need is denied medical care for lack of long-

distance transportation.

But in our lawsuit-happy society, even these warmhearted

souls can't escape the possibility of landing in court. While

a law known as the Volunteer Protection Act shields most

people who give their time to worthy causes from frivolous

suits, it doesn't cover volunteer pilots or flight

organizers. Liability insurance costs for Angel Flight and

similar nonprofits have skyrocketed from $1,000 to more than

$25,000 annually.

This prohibitive price tag threatens the future of Angel

Flight, which is funded solely through donations. A

spokeswoman for Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic, headquartered in

Virginia Beach, said the burden will ultimately fall on sick

and needy patients. And with 600 volunteer pilots

transporting an average of 100 medical cases a month,

literally thousands of lives may be affected by this

oversight in the law.

Fortunately, lawmakers are paying attention. U.S. Rep. Ed

Schrock recently introduced bipartisan legislation to add

volunteer-pilot organizations to the ranks of those covered

by the Volunteer Protection Act. U.S. Sen. George Allen is

expected to introduce a similar measure in the Senate.

Congress should pass these bills, the sooner the better.

Keeping Angel Flight aloft is literally a life-and-death

matter.

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that I reintroduced today with a number of my Senate colleagues--the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2005.

The spirit of volunteerism is indelibly rooted in our Nation's history. From when early settlers landed in Jamestown in 1607 to when our citizen soldiers took up arms against the British Crown in the Revolutionary War, volunteerism has always been a part of American culture.

But that unwavering spirit did not stop there, it has continued and thrived in many individuals and charitable organizations today. One such group of organizations that has selflessly given back so much to Virginians and Americans are charitable medical transportation systems operated by volunteer pilot organizations, VPOs.

The mission and purpose of public benefit and non-profit volunteer pilot organizations involved in patient transport is to ensure that no financially needy patient is denied access to distant specialized medical evaluation, diagnosis or treatment for lack of a means of long- distance medical air transportation. The principal goal is to remove the geographical and financial burdens that would deny access to specialized care.

Last year public benefit flying non-profit volunteer pilot organizations provided long-distance, no-cost transportation for over 40,000 patients and their escorts in times of special need. Mr. President, this year, that figure will likely grow to roughly 54,000 people.

One such organization that has played an intricate part in this mission is Angel Flight. Angel Flight is a not-for-profit grassroots organization with a volunteer corps of more than 6,200 volunteer pilots/plane owners--divided into six regions across the United States--who fly under the banner of Angel Flight America. Angel Flight provides flights of hope and healing by transporting patients and their families in private planes, free of charge, to hospitals for medical treatment.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Transportation and the FAA closed airports and grounded commercial air traffic, but the FAA allowed Angel Flight volunteers to fly. Angel Flight pilots flew firefighters, families of victims of the bombings, Red Cross personnel, medical and other supplies including the protective booties for the Search and Rescue dogs to New York and Washington, DC.

In my years of public service, I have always maintained that we must provide access to care to all Virginians and Americans. Medical care should be available to all individuals. Sadly, our Nation is facing a medical crisis. Medical malpractice insurance costs and Medicare physician reimbursement are forcing many of our doctors to stop seeing ``high-risk'' patients or Medicare beneficiaries and in some cases forcing our doctors to give up practice altogether and retire. As a result, patients have to travel great distances to receive the medical care that they need to live happy, healthy and productive lives. Unfortunately, a number of these patients do not have the financial means to travel long distances, thus, ultimately denying patients access to life-saving or quality of life improving specialized treatment.

We can say the same with patients who rely on volunteer pilot organizations such as Angel Flight or one of its subsidiary groups like Mercy Medical Airlift in my home Commonwealth of Virginia. Unfortunately, due to the public's apparent notion that organizations that use airplanes are financially well-off and have deep pockets, many of the volunteer pilot organizations are open to frivolous and junk lawsuits. This leads to an access to care issue.

Also, aviation insurance has skyrocketed up in price and non-owned aircraft liability insurance is no longer reasonably available to volunteer pilot organizations. Many insurance companies had always provided this type of insurance but post September 11, 2001, this insurance is scarcely found and if found, the costs have increased greatly, to the astronomical sums of $5 million a year. Because of the exorbitant costs of insurance, volunteer pilot organizations have a difficult time recruiting and retaining pilots and professional persons.

I would like to submit an editorial written by the Virginian Pilot. This editorial correctly identifies the obstacles that these volunteer pilot organizations have to go through. I would like that editorial inserted here.

That is why I decided to introduce the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. In 1997, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which handled much of the liability issue for volunteer endeavors in the country; however, this legislation did not adequately address aviation-related matters.

My bill amends the highly regarded Good Samaritan Act to provide necessary liability protections in the area of charitable medical air transportation and promote volunteer pilot organizations. More specifically, this legislation will protect volunteer pilot organizations, their boards and small paid staff and nonflying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. The VPOs are simply the ``match-makers'' between the volunteer pilot willing to help a neighbor and the needy patient family. The pilot has full and sole responsibility for conducting the flight in a safe manner in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations. In addition, this legislation will provide liability protection for the individual volunteer pilot over and above the liability insurance that they are required to carry.

Furthermore, the Volunteer Pilot Protection Act will provide liability protection for ``referring agencies'' who tell their patients that the charitable flight service is available. Referring hospitals and clinics are becoming unwilling to inform their patients that charitable medical air transportation help is available for fear of a liability against them should something happen in a subsequent volunteer pilot flight. Hence, organizations like the Shriners Hospital System and the American Cancer Society would be able to make known available volunteer pilot services to transport their patients to Shriners or other hospitals where they receive care.

I know a few people have concerns that this bill would provide blanket immunity to Volunteer Pilot Organizations but I want to stress that my bill requires insurance on the part of the pilot and if there is negligence on behalf of the pilot, the injured party does have legal recourse. This bill does not provide blanket immunity to VPOs, but has been carefully worded to allow

legal action to be brought against the insurance policy of the pilot in event of negligence.

By providing volunteer pilots with liability protection, insurance rates for these pilots will ultimately be reduced. Therefore, more pilots will be able to afford insurance and fly for the public good. With less-costly insurance available, I am confident that more pilots will generously give their time to fly for and help the medically needy.

This bill enjoys the support of a number of charitable organizations, including the Children's Organ Transplant Association, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the Air Care Alliance, the Independent Charities of America, the Health and Medical Research Charities of America, the National Association of Hospital Hospitality Houses, and many others.

Not only does this legislation enjoy the support of numerous charitable organizations, it also enjoyed the support of the United States House of Representatives. On September 14, 2004, the House of Representatives passed the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of2004 by a vote of 385-12. Mr. President, this is a clear indication that this bill has broad bipartisan support in the House and I know the House will once again pass this commonsense legislation.

I am confident that this legislation will start a trend to help curb the large amounts of counterproductive lawsuits, lower insurance costs, and promote the spirit of volunteerism that has been rooted in the framework of our country's storied history. I, along with the volunteer pilots and organizations, and with the thousands of families who rely and may rely on the help of volunteer pilot organizations, urge the Senate to quickly and finally pass this legislation in the 109th Congress.

I would like to thank Congresswoman Thelma Drake, our newest member to the Virginia team, for taking over this legislation for former Congressman Ed Schrock and introducing the companion bill on the House side. In addition, I would also like to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Chambliss, Inhofe, Coburn, Talent, Cornyn, and Isakson for their support as we work to pass this vitally necessary legislation.

[From the (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot,

Mar. 11, 2003]

Shield Helpful Pilots From Frivolous Lawsuits

In the realm of volunteers, few outshine the generous folks

at Angel Flight.

This nonprofit organization flies patients for whom air

transport would be otherwise unaffordable to medical

facilities around the country. Private pilots spirit

individuals to dialysis, chemotherapy sessions, organ

transplants and other surgeries by donating their aircraft

and their valuable time. The goal is a noble one: to ensure

that no one in need is denied medical care for lack of long-

distance transportation.

But in our lawsuit-happy society, even these warmhearted

souls can't escape the possibility of landing in court. While

a law known as the Volunteer Protection Act shields most

people who give their time to worthy causes from frivolous

suits, it doesn't cover volunteer pilots or flight

organizers. Liability insurance costs for Angel Flight and

similar nonprofits have skyrocketed from $1,000 to more than

$25,000 annually.

This prohibitive price tag threatens the future of Angel

Flight, which is funded solely through donations. A

spokeswoman for Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic, headquartered in

Virginia Beach, said the burden will ultimately fall on sick

and needy patients. And with 600 volunteer pilots

transporting an average of 100 medical cases a month,

literally thousands of lives may be affected by this

oversight in the law.

Fortunately, lawmakers are paying attention. U.S. Rep. Ed

Schrock recently introduced bipartisan legislation to add

volunteer-pilot organizations to the ranks of those covered

by the Volunteer Protection Act. U.S. Sen. George Allen is

expected to introduce a similar measure in the Senate.

Congress should pass these bills, the sooner the better.

Keeping Angel Flight aloft is literally a life-and-death

matter.

Mr. President, I thank my good colleague Senator Warner for his great leadership on this matter. This is a bipartisan effort.

Let us recall what this amendment is about. It is to provide our Navy with the maximum flexibility to project our power in East Asia. The Senator's amendment says before we mothball the JFK, two things have to happen. There is the Quadrennial Defense Review to determine how this mixture should be, and actually 180 days thereafter, and also assure us we can have a nuclear carrier ported in Japan, which prohibits nuclear- powered ships in their land.

A little over 2 years ago, Admiral Clark said: The current force of 12 carriers and 12 amphibious groups is the minimum we can have to sustain the operations we are in. In the 2002 naval posture statement: Aircraft carrier force levels have been set at 12 ships as a result of fiscal constraints. However, real-world experience and analysis indicate that a carrier force of at least 15 ships is necessary to meet the warfighting Commander in Chief's requirements for carrier presence in all regions of importance to the United States.

What has happened in the last 2 years? Nothing to restrain or think that these threats are less than they were before. We are still in the war on terrorism. China is building up their navy. They are passing anticession laws, threatening Taiwan more than ever. So while we are standing down, to some extent, our building of a navy, then reducing a carrier which would not be available to be in Japan in that theater of concern, it is illogical to take away this flexibility of protecting our security interests in the Indian Ocean as well as, for that matter, the Pacific Ocean. I believe a plan to mothball the Kennedy at this time is shortsighted, especially in this time of war and with the rapid buildup of the Chinese Navy.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

The threats in the western Pacific are greater than they were before. Even last year, the funding was put in for this year for the refurbishment and the maintenance of the JFK. For the sake of our security and the flexibility we need for projecting our power, protecting our interests in the Far East, the wise thing to do is accept the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, which is shared by cosponsors from Florida and elsewhere.

I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, of which I am a cosponsor as well as the two Senators from Florida.

The Department of Defense is on an ill-timed course to weaken our military strength by reducing the number of aircraft carriers from 12 to 11 and maybe even more. This decision is completely inconsistent with recent past statements on the absolute number of carriers needed to conduct operations.

According to ADM Vernon Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, just a little over 2 years ago:

The current force of 12 carriers and 12 amphibious groups

is the minimum we can have and sustain the kind of operations

we are in.

According to the 2002 Naval Posture Statement:

Aircraft carrier force levels have been set at 12 ships as

a result of fiscal constraints;

however, real-world experience and analysis indicate that a

carrier force level of 15 ships is necessary to meet the

warfighting Commander in Chief's requirements for carrier

presence in all regions of importance to the United States.

I am not convinced that reducing our carrier fleet is the best strategic decision in the midst of our global war against terrorism. Realistically, it looks like the Department of Defense and the Navy are maneuvering quickly to negate any legislative oversight. But we in Congress should make sure that all considerations are taken into account before we rush into a decision that may hamper our military's ability to fight this global war on terrorism. That is why this amendment is being offered.

What does this amendment achieve? First, the amendment ensures that the Navy proceeds on the scheduled necessary maintenance of the USS John F. Kennedy so that the carrier is kept in active status. In addition, this amendment requires the Navy to keep 12 carriers until the latter of the following: 180 days after the quadrennial defense review comes before Congress or that the Secretary of Defense has certified to Congress that agreements have been entered into to provide port facilities for the permanent forward deployment of such numbers of aircraft carriers that are necessary in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility to fulfill the roles and missions of that command.

Moreover, it is important that we keep the Kennedy available because Admiral Clark stated that it is essential to have a carrier home ported in Japan. However, we know that Japan has serious reservations--in fact, prohibitions--about allowing us to port a nuclear carrier there, and currently there is no sign that that prohibition would be removed for nuclear carriers. Therefore, with Japan's prohibition on nuclear vessels, it is unwise to limit our options by retiring one of the only two nonnuclear aircraft carriers. The other is the Kitty Hawk, which is actually an older vessel than the JFK.

The bottom line is that the United States must have maximum flexibility in protecting our security interests in the Pacific and the Indian oceans. I believe any plan to mothball the Kennedy is shortsighted, especially during this time of war and with China's rapid naval buildup. In addition, as far as China is concerned, with the continued tension between China and Taiwan, it is imperative that we have a carrier in the region that can respond quickly to any possible conflict that may arise.

In that regard, the Washington Post published a story written by Edward Cody on April 12, 2005, entitled ``China Builds A Smaller, Stronger Military; Modernization Can Alter Regional Balance Of Power Raising Stakes For The U.S.''

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

At a time when our military is already stretched thin, why would we want to eliminate one of the most effective methods of projecting our power and possibly opening up an area of vulnerability for the United States and our allies. The decision is clear: We must preserve at least a 12-carrier minimum for the safety of Americans and for the rest of the world, particularly our allies.

I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. This amendment offers a lifeline to the USS John F. Kennedy, and I am pleased that my good partner, Senator Warner, was able to offer this commonsense approach to keeping the Kennedy viable as well as our deterrence and our ability to protect our interests in the western Pacific.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia and the Senator from Maryland. I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion on this amendment. It is an immigration issue, but it is more importantly a small business issue.

There are a lot of small businesses that are seasonal in nature. It may be construction, landscaping, tourism, or the seafood industry. It is vitally important that we get this immigration, this H-2B visa issue, in order logically. These are law-abiding citizens who want to keep their small business in operation, providing the services that people in their communities so desire.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I hope all colleagues will vote for small businesses, to keep them operating in States all across the Nation and bring some common sense with this temporary remedy, to bring some common sense and reasonableness to a program that every year ends up in a crisis. I thank Senator Mikulski of Maryland and my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, of course. All of us are

working together for the betterment of many family businesses.