Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, OK as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office.''

Mickey Mantle emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, charity, and sportsmanship. He is a shining example of how commitment and dedication can lead to great success. I seek to name the post office in Commerce, OK, in Mickey Mantle's honor. He is still known to Commerce by the nicknames ``Commerce Comet'' or ``Commerce Kid''.

At age 4 Mickey Mantle moved with his family to Commerce where he grew up, having been born in Spavinaw, OK. By his father who was an amateur player and fervent fan, Mickey Mantle was named in honor of Mickey Cochrane, the Hall of Fame catcher from the Detroit Tigers.

Signing with the New York Yankees in 1949, Mantle made his Major League Debut in 1951. He played his entire Major League career with the Yankees. He was a twenty-time All Star and named American League MVP three times. Mantle was a part of 12 pennant winners and 7 World Championship clubs. Some of Mantle's records still hold today. He holds the record for most World Series home runs (18), runs batted in (40), runs (42), walks (43), extra-base hits (26), and total bases (123).

Mantle announced his retirement on March 1, 1969. He actually retired on Mickey Mantle Day, June 8, 1969. In addition to the retirement of his uniform number 7, Mantle was given a plaque that would hang on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium, near the monuments to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Miller Huggins. In 1974, as soon as he was eligible, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame demonstrating his importance to baseball and community.

Sadly, Mickey Mantle's father died of cancer at the age of 39, just as his son was starting his career. Mantle said one of the great heartaches of his life was that he never told his father he loved him.

After a bout with liver cancer himself, Mickey Mantle was given a few precious extra weeks of life due to a liver transplant. The baseball great was overwhelmed by the selfless gift of a liver from a stranger; therefore, Mickey became determined to give something back at the end of his life. Thus, in 1995, the year he died, the Mickey Mantle Foundation was established to promote organ and tissue donation, and Mickey Mantle will be remembered for something more than his heroic baseball career.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding athlete so that future generations will be as inspired by his example of sportsmanship and charity as we have been.

I, too, want to echo the comments of my colleagues. I share their concern in regard to the issue that they have raised.

Mr. President, there are many things we take for granted that have made our Nation prosperous. The Founding Fathers spent their lives seeking to create a United States of America that could survive against the great powers of England, France, and Spain.

These men knew that America had at least one advantage over the European powers: size. President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase of 1803 effectively doubled the size of the United States and provided a means by which America's inland farmers would have a guaranteed way to ship their products to market.

Even today, the comparison remains striking when you ask, ``How far will one gallon of fuel move one ton of freight?''

One gallon of fuel can move a ton of freight 59 miles by truck and 386 miles by rail. That same gallon of fuel will move a ton of freight by water 522 miles.

One of the main reasons for the economy of waterborne shipping lies in something physics students know as friction and we pilots know as drag.

The more that friction or drag increase, the more that fuel economy decreases. There is a lot of friction between a road and a truck. There is far less between a ship and a river.

This simple rule led me to lead the fight for the Water Resources Development Act a few days ago. As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal Government are to provide for national defense and public infrastructure.

Efficiency and economics require the Government to not only plan but to construct and maintain public infrastructure. Investments in real public infrastructure, like waterways and barge canals, create economies of scale that have made the American economy a wonder of the world.

My determination to stand up in this Chamber at every opportunity on behalf of national defense and public infrastructure is a large part of the reason I am introducing legislation today to make English America's official language.

A common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor from Maine to California. A resident of Tulsa can seek work in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Georgia without having to learn a second language. A company based in Oklahoma City can readily sell its products from Portland, ME, to Los Angeles, CA.

In Europe, by contrast, a resident of Berlin cannot look for work in Paris or

Warsaw without surmounting considerable language barriers. A German company cannot easily sell its products in Madrid, again, in part because of the language barrier.

The European Union is an effort to create a United States-like common market in Western Europe, among other things. Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we Americans have enjoyed for free these past 230 years.

There are too many signs that we are allowing this great advantage of an American nation united by a common language to slip through our fingers.

President Bill Clinton created the most radical language policy 6 years ago when he signed Executive Order--E.O.--13166 on August 11, 2000.

E.O. 13166 declared that all recipients of Federal funds had to be ready to provide all services in any language anyone wished to speak at any time.

E.O. 13166 means that while Canada has only two official languages and the United Nations just six, the United States now has over 200 official languages.

Efforts to repeal E.O. 13166 have run aground because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what repeal would mean.

After the debate on my official English amendment, S.A. 4064, to the Senate immigration bill, S. 2611, E.J. Dionne, Jr., told readers of the May 23 Washington Post that he was still going to pray over his children in French. I have only one word to say to Mr. Dionne: relax.

Neither my earlier amendment to the immigration legislation nor the legislation I am introducing today will have any impact whatsoever on the prayers of the Dionne family or, for that matter, a dinner table chat in Spanish or a family discussion in Navajo.

Official English laws are not directed at the language people themselves choose to speak but, rather, in what language the Government speaks to the American people.

My bill basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language. It states explicitly that English is our national language and provides English a status in law it has not before held.

Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English. My legislation declares that any rights of a person, as well as services or materials in languages other than English, must be authorized or provided by law. It recognizes the decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin and discrimination do not create rights to Government services and materials in languages other than English.

If passed, my bill will also repeal all bilingual, or foreign- language, ballot mandates. There is a reason bilingual ballots make so many of my constituents upset. Gathering together at the polling place is one of the few remaining civic rituals we perform as Americans.

I can remember going along with my mother on election day; the American flag behind the table where voters signed in and were verified as eligible; the sound of the ``thunk'' of the levers on the voting machine. I remember thinking even then that voting was a privilege to be approached seriously.

In all too many places these days, the local polling place resembles nothing more than a branch of the Mexican consulate or an outpost of the United Nations--signs in two, three, or even more languages; people yelling at weary poll workers because a Cantonese speaker was summoned to translate for a speaker of Mandarin Chinese.

My constituents ask me all the time how people are supposed to cast an informed vote if they cannot follow the debates, which are in English, and read the campaign literature, also in English. Bilingual ballots strike many of my constituents as an invitation to all kinds of voting fraud.

Of course, when the Government attempts to please everyone by translating important documents into multiple languages, mistakes are inevitable.

To mention just one example out of many, in 1993, the Chinese ballot in New York City had the Chinese characters for the word ``no'' as a translation of the English word ``yes.'' One can only imagine the confusion that ensued.

Official English is popular, even among Hispanics. As I said before during the debate on my amendment, if you look at some of the recent polling data, such as the Zogby poll in 2006, it found 84 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of Hispanics, believed that English should be the national language of government operations. A poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States, according to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey.

I wish to conclude by saying that I think it would be a tremendous demonstration of good faith by the White House to support my legislation. America has plenty of language problems already.

If the Senate version of the President's immigration proposals should become law, every guest worker and ever recipient of amnesty would arrive on our shores as a little bundle of linguistic entitlements. Local government offices and public schools will be simply overwhelmed by the costly language mandates each of these individuals and their families will trigger.

A nation certain of its language and culture can continue to be a welcoming nation to legal immigrants. A nation with uncontrolled borders and no convictions about what it expects immigrants to do once they arrive will soon become a nation in name only.

Mr. President, my legislation is good for America and good for everyone in America. I urge its speedy passage by my colleagues.

Mr. President, there are many things we take for granted that have made our Nation prosperous. The Founding Fathers spent their lives seeking to create a United States of America that could survive against the great powers of England, France, and Spain.

These men knew that America had at least one advantage over the European powers: size. President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase of 1803 effectively doubled the size of the United States and provided a means by which America's inland farmers would have a guaranteed way to ship their products to market.

Even today, the comparison remains striking when you ask, ``How far will one gallon of fuel move one ton of freight?''

One gallon of fuel can move a ton of freight 59 miles by truck and 386 miles by rail. That same gallon of fuel will move a ton of freight by water 522 miles.

One of the main reasons for the economy of waterborne shipping lies in something physics students know as friction and we pilots know as drag.

The more that friction or drag increase, the more that fuel economy decreases. There is a lot of friction between a road and a truck. There is far less between a ship and a river.

This simple rule led me to lead the fight for the Water Resources Development Act a few days ago. As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal Government are to provide for national defense and public infrastructure.

Efficiency and economics require the Government to not only plan but to construct and maintain public infrastructure. Investments in real public infrastructure, like waterways and barge canals, create economies of scale that have made the American economy a wonder of the world.

My determination to stand up in this Chamber at every opportunity on behalf of national defense and public infrastructure is a large part of the reason I am introducing legislation today to make English America's official language.

A common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor from Maine to California. A resident of Tulsa can seek work in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Georgia without having to learn a second language. A company based in Oklahoma City can readily sell its products from Portland, ME, to Los Angeles, CA.

In Europe, by contrast, a resident of Berlin cannot look for work in Paris or

Warsaw without surmounting considerable language barriers. A German company cannot easily sell its products in Madrid, again, in part because of the language barrier.

The European Union is an effort to create a United States-like common market in Western Europe, among other things. Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we Americans have enjoyed for free these past 230 years.

There are too many signs that we are allowing this great advantage of an American nation united by a common language to slip through our fingers.

President Bill Clinton created the most radical language policy 6 years ago when he signed Executive Order--E.O.--13166 on August 11, 2000.

E.O. 13166 declared that all recipients of Federal funds had to be ready to provide all services in any language anyone wished to speak at any time.

E.O. 13166 means that while Canada has only two official languages and the United Nations just six, the United States now has over 200 official languages.

Efforts to repeal E.O. 13166 have run aground because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what repeal would mean.

After the debate on my official English amendment, S.A. 4064, to the Senate immigration bill, S. 2611, E.J. Dionne, Jr., told readers of the May 23 Washington Post that he was still going to pray over his children in French. I have only one word to say to Mr. Dionne: relax.

Neither my earlier amendment to the immigration legislation nor the legislation I am introducing today will have any impact whatsoever on the prayers of the Dionne family or, for that matter, a dinner table chat in Spanish or a family discussion in Navajo.

Official English laws are not directed at the language people themselves choose to speak but, rather, in what language the Government speaks to the American people.

My bill basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language. It states explicitly that English is our national language and provides English a status in law it has not before held.

Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English. My legislation declares that any rights of a person, as well as services or materials in languages other than English, must be authorized or provided by law. It recognizes the decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin and discrimination do not create rights to Government services and materials in languages other than English.

If passed, my bill will also repeal all bilingual, or foreign- language, ballot mandates. There is a reason bilingual ballots make so many of my constituents upset. Gathering together at the polling place is one of the few remaining civic rituals we perform as Americans.

I can remember going along with my mother on election day; the American flag behind the table where voters signed in and were verified as eligible; the sound of the ``thunk'' of the levers on the voting machine. I remember thinking even then that voting was a privilege to be approached seriously.

In all too many places these days, the local polling place resembles nothing more than a branch of the Mexican consulate or an outpost of the United Nations--signs in two, three, or even more languages; people yelling at weary poll workers because a Cantonese speaker was summoned to translate for a speaker of Mandarin Chinese.

My constituents ask me all the time how people are supposed to cast an informed vote if they cannot follow the debates, which are in English, and read the campaign literature, also in English. Bilingual ballots strike many of my constituents as an invitation to all kinds of voting fraud.

Of course, when the Government attempts to please everyone by translating important documents into multiple languages, mistakes are inevitable.

To mention just one example out of many, in 1993, the Chinese ballot in New York City had the Chinese characters for the word ``no'' as a translation of the English word ``yes.'' One can only imagine the confusion that ensued.

Official English is popular, even among Hispanics. As I said before during the debate on my amendment, if you look at some of the recent polling data, such as the Zogby poll in 2006, it found 84 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of Hispanics, believed that English should be the national language of government operations. A poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States, according to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey.

I wish to conclude by saying that I think it would be a tremendous demonstration of good faith by the White House to support my legislation. America has plenty of language problems already.

If the Senate version of the President's immigration proposals should become law, every guest worker and ever recipient of amnesty would arrive on our shores as a little bundle of linguistic entitlements. Local government offices and public schools will be simply overwhelmed by the costly language mandates each of these individuals and their families will trigger.

A nation certain of its language and culture can continue to be a welcoming nation to legal immigrants. A nation with uncontrolled borders and no convictions about what it expects immigrants to do once they arrive will soon become a nation in name only.

Mr. President, my legislation is good for America and good for everyone in America. I urge its speedy passage by my colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters in support of Jerome Holmes be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the junior Senator from Oklahoma for the time he spent on the floor and the time he spent defending this man, not that he should ever need any type of defense against some of the accusations. I didn't realize that there is an article referred to where he stated: There are other ways to get minority students on college campuses besides handing out benefits based solely on skin color.

I am proud of it. I am also proud of the fact that I have known Jerome Holmes for some 5 years. Frankly, prior to this nomination, I made recommendations to the President that he consider this man because he is so incredibly qualified. We all agree he is a man of great character and undeniably fit for the bench. He has connections with both Oklahoma City and throughout Oklahoma, as well as the District of Columbia, a family history that goes back.

He was one of the prominent figures in the Oklahoma City bombing that took place 11 years ago. He was on the Oklahoma City bomb prosecution team, and I believe it was his distinguished service as assistant U.S. attorney that really began to set him apart in the legal field.

When asked about Mr. Holmes, most lawyers in Oklahoma begin their compliments with his work as U.S. assistant attorney in some public corruption cases in our State. He is someone who is willing to get in there and criticize and open up things other people aren't, a great characteristic and I think very important. But if I were to single out another one, I would say his chairmanship of City Rescue Mission in Oklahoma. This is their mission statement:

Serving the homeless both with help, hope, and healing in

the spirit of excellence, under the call of Christ.

I have certainly made my position known for quite some time concerning him and how he limits his opinions to the facts, the litigants, and law before him in any case. At a time when our Nation is faced with the onslaught of judicial activism, he is a breath of fresh air and I believe he is a man of character and principle; that he will rule justly within the parameters of the law.

We have a resolution from the Oklahoma Bar Association. I have the former president of the American Bar Association, the president-elect of the local Federal bar association, I have the deans of all three of the Oklahoma law schools praising him in the highest of terms.

Judge Holloway, currently sitting on the Tenth Circuit, noted Mr. Holmes's compassion for people whose cases were before the court. John Richter, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, who worked with Mr. Holmes, can speak from the prosecutor's perspective and has said that Mr. Holmes is a man of integrity and character and possesses a rock-solid work ethic.

Mike Turpen is someone with whom Senator Coburn is very familiar. I don't believe in the years I have known Mike--and we have one of these very honest relationships. He is a very partisan Democrat. I don't think he has ever said anything nice about a Republican in his life except Jerome Holmes. Dan Webber--we have all these Democrats who are lined up without anyone dissenting from the idea that this guy is the perfect nominee to be confirmed to the Tenth Circuit.

Judge Ralph Thompson--I was elected to the State legislature with Judge Thompson. I considered him not just one of my closest personal friends, but he is certainly a judge of distinction in Oklahoma and has been for over 30 years. He ought to know a thing or two about judges. He said:

Mr. Holmes is dedicated completely to the rule of law, the

proper role of the judiciary and to applying and interpreting

the law without regard to personal views on given issues.

I don't think there is any judge, any Federal judge in the history of Oklahoma, who is more highly regarded than Judge Thompson. He also went on to affirm Mr. Holmes's honesty and compassion.

I have a letter from Pastor George Young, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League, who showed great character in voicing his support for Mr. Holmes. He said: I trust Mr. Holmes, and so in light of our differences I support his nomination. Now, he is one who doesn't agree with everything, every statement that Jerome Holmes has made, and yet he supports his nomination. He is for him. He is supporting him, head of the NAACP and the Urban League.

I talked with various attorneys in the State, and they all have good things to say about him. What I want to do, Mr. President, is submit for the Record a list of letters, if this has not been done by my colleague from Oklahoma.

It has been done, so it is already in the Record.

I thank my colleague for the time he spent in the Chamber. It happens I am on the Armed Services Committee, and we have a critical meeting that is going on even right now, so I haven't been able to be here, but my absence from the floor is no indication that I don't hold this person in the highest regard.

I worked hard in getting his name to the President, made that recommendation early on, and I believe he will be confirmed and history will reflect later on that he would be one of the greatest circuit judges, and I certainly encourage my colleagues to support his nomination to the Tenth Circuit.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill prohibits transporting minors across State lines to obtain an abortion without parental notice or consent. I have and will continue to fight for the protection of children in the womb as well as the safety of minors.

I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and that children in the womb deserve the same rights and protection as all other human beings.

The Child Custody Protection Act will not only help protect these children in the womb, it will also protect their young mothers and families by involving parents who have their best interests at heart.

I believe we can all agree that our young girls must be protected, and the laws put in place for that purpose must be upheld. Currently, 45 States have laws that require notification, consent, or some type of consultation with a minor's parent or guardian before she can legally have an abortion. However, there are no laws to prevent a minor from crossing State borders and having an abortion performed in a State without such laws.

This practice disregards abortion policies of individual States, implicates interstate commerce, and endangers young girls by allowing them to have dangerous abortion procedures performed without the guidance of their parent or guardian. The Child Custody Protection Act prohibits transporting a minor across a State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if doing so circumvents a parental notification or consent statute in the minor's residing State.

The Child Custody Protection Act will not change the parental notification or consent laws of any individual State, but will help to enforce these laws by helping to prevent minors from being taken out of a State for an abortion without a parent's knowledge or consent. This bill will actually reinforce State policies that are already in place.

Sadly, many young girls have been taken out of State by an individual other than her parent or guardian to obtain an abortion and have been subjected to unsafe and unlawful abortion procedures that endanger them physically and mentally. Abortion can cause physical and emotional complications for a young girl, and these dangers are greatly increased by taking her away from of the influence of her parents or guardian, placing her in the hands of an individual who does not have her best interests in mind.

Crystal Farley Lane was one such victim. When she was 12 years old, she became pregnant after tragically being raped by a 19-year-old man. Rosa Hartford, the man's mother, then took Crystal from her home in Pennsylvania, without her mother's knowledge or consent, to New York, where there were no parental consent laws, to have an abortion. After the procedure, Ms. Hartford abandoned young Crystal, who had serious medical complications, 30 miles from her home. When Crystal's mother, Joyce Farley, found out what happened and tried to help by asking the abortionist for Crystal's medical records, she was denied. Fortunately, Ms. Farley was able to help her obtain the medical care she needed in time, despite this obstacle by the abortionist.

Crystal's near-death experience could have been prevented had the Child Custody Protection Act been in place. Instead, there are currently no laws to prevent people like Ms. Hartford from taking Crystal out of Pennsylvania to obtain an abortion without parental consent.

Ms. Farley poignantly testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that, ``situations such as this are what the `Child Custody Act' was designed to help prevent. I am a loving, responsible parent whose parenting was interfered with by an adult unknown to me.''

In another instance, Marcia Carroll's 14-year-old daughter was forced into having an abortion by her boyfriend's family. The family took her from Pennsylvania to New York without Ms. Carroll's knowledge or consent, left her alone to have an abortion that she did not want to have, and then left her a block from her home in Pennsylvania. This 14- year-old girl had to go through a frightening and painful abortion procedure on her own and was then left to deal with the physical and emotional pain from an abortion that she did not want to have.

I find it terribly unjust that there are no laws to prevent situations such as these from happening and that families have no recourse against those who are responsible.

Very often, adult men, who are on average 6 to 7 years older than their victims, are the culprits of this violating crime against these young girls. Two-thirds of these adult men are 20 years of age or older. Additionally, more than half of the time it is a girl's boyfriend who takes her to another State to have an abortion without her parents' consent. An abortion performed in a jurisdiction that prohibits release of the medical records destroys any evidence that might have been used against a perpetrator to prosecute him for statutory rape and leaves him free to continue preying on these young girls without consequence.

The incongruity of this status is striking. There are so many restrictions to protect our minors from making bad decisions by requiring parental consent for their actions. They must have parental consent to take medication at school, even an aspirin. They cannot go on a school field trip without a permission slip signed by a parent. Why, then, can a young girl who cannot take an aspirin without the consent of her parents, cross a State border and have an abortion without notifying them? And why can an adult be prosecuted for giving a child aspirin but not for taking her to another state to have an abortion?

By reinforcing State abortion laws requiring parental notification or consent, the Child Custody Protection Act will protect our young daughters from making or being coerced into poor, irreversible, life- changing decisions. I believe we can all agree that action must be taken to prevent the evasion of laws created to protect minors and their families and help preserve the precious lives of children in the womb. I ask that this Chamber quickly pass this lifesaving legislation.

Mr. President, during yesterday's debate on the Water Resources Development Act, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Jeffords, and I agreed to submit for the Record a colloquy clarifying the intent of a provision authorizing the Poplar Island expansion project in Maryland. Unfortunately, this colloquy was inadvertently left out. I ask unanimous consent that the colloquy be printed in the Congressional Record at this point and that the permanent Record be corrected so that this colloquy appears with the rest of yesterday's debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish medicare health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare medical savings accounts, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices.

My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions.

In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, for Medicaid, I introduced S.1754, a bill to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014 on September 22, 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered.

I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits.

I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to expand access to life-saving implantable cardiac defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250-yard rule for critical access hospitals.

As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have cosponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States.

I also introduced S. 96, the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act, to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removes suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill frees American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities.

As a result of my sister's death from cancer and treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced S. 1956, the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act--ACCESS--on November 3, 2005. This bill would offer a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician.

On April 4, 2006, my resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' passed by unanimous consent. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 million people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol.

Additionally, I have consistently cosponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week: in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the Federal hospital mortgage insurance program.

As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and health care initiatives I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center.

As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law.

To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high-deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA.

In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage.

As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care.

Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA.

My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare.

Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish medicare health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare medical savings accounts, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices.

My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions.

In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, for Medicaid, I introduced S.1754, a bill to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014 on September 22, 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered.

I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits.

I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to expand access to life-saving implantable cardiac defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250-yard rule for critical access hospitals.

As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have cosponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States.

I also introduced S. 96, the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act, to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removes suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill frees American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities.

As a result of my sister's death from cancer and treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced S. 1956, the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act--ACCESS--on November 3, 2005. This bill would offer a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician.

On April 4, 2006, my resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' passed by unanimous consent. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 million people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol.

Additionally, I have consistently cosponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week: in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the Federal hospital mortgage insurance program.

As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and health care initiatives I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center.

As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law.

To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high-deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA.

In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage.

As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care.

Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA.

My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare.

Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our morning business time.

Yes, Mr. President, I think the ranking member of the committee would like to make a short statement, and then it would be fine for Senator McCain to go and, after that, Senator Bond.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to the Inhofe-Bond amendment: Senators Cochran, Domenici, and Thune.

Mr. President, also, I am going to announce what we are doing. We are going to be considering these two amendments, and after the time has expired for both amendments under the time agreement, then we will actually be voting on them side by side. That will take place and people will have a choice.

I also want to mention that the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona acknowledge that the underlying substitute amendment does improve this situation. I don't think anyone is saying that what we have had in the past is acceptable. It is not acceptable. We are talking about making major changes, and the underlying substitute amendment does that as well as either of the amendments we are considering now.

Before I forget to do this, I wish to repeat something I said a couple of days ago. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and all the members of our committee for working closely together so that this very significant legislation could come to the floor. I think, regardless of what amendments are adopted, we are going to have a dramatic improvement over the current system.

Speaking of thanking people, I thank Senator Bond. He is the one who has been a driving force in this committee. I yield to him at this time whatever time he wants to consume on our amendment or on the Feingold- McCain amendment.

I just did.

Mr. President, we had a list of people wanting to be heard. It is my understanding the Senator from Montana wants to be heard, and that would come from the minority time on general debate.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Iowa is here, but I don't see him. Let me do this. We don't have any other speakers requesting time.

Yesterday, Senator Bond had printed in the Record the National Waterways Alliance letter that we received, dated June 30 of this year, wherein they were strongly requesting the passage of the WRDA bill which--I think we all are in agreement on that. We have not had a reauthorization since the year 2000.

They also say they want us to accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment and reject the Feingold-McCain Corps reform. I bring this up because the distinguished Senator from Arizona commented about a lot of groups that were in favor of their amendment. But there are 288 organizations-- labor organizations, Chamber organizations, waterway organizations of the National Waterway Alliance. I will go ahead and read a few:

American Farm Bureau Federation, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Arkansas Basin Development Association--this is kind of interesting. A lot of people don't realize my State of Oklahoma is navigable. We have a port. It comes up through the Arkansas River, comes across from the Mississippi into Arkansas and up to my home town of Tulsa, OK. Obviously, they are in support of this, too.

The California Coastal Coalition, the Carpenters' District Council of Greater Saint Louis and Vicinity, Grain & Feed Association of Illinois, the Harris County Flood Control District of Texas, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers Association, and many of the Illinois--almost every organization in Illinois, I believe; the International Union of Operating Engineers, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Johnson Terminal in Muskogee, OK, Kansas Corn Growers, Kentucky Corn Growers, the Long Island Coastal Alliance, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Maritime Association of the Port of New York and New Jersey, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, the Mid-Central Illinois Regional Council of Carpenters, Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, Mississippi Welders Supply, Incorporated, the Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Levee & Drainage District Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Waterfront Employees, National Corn Growers Association, National Grain & Feed Association, National Grain Trade Council, National Grange, National Heavy & Highway Alliance, Laborers' International Union of North America, International Union of Operating Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Works of America, Operative Plasterers' & Cement Mason International Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the International Union, Brickyard Layers & Allied Craftworkers.

The list goes on and on, including, of course, our State of Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

I guess what I am saying here is most States--the National Farm Bureau as well as the American Farm Bureau and individual State farm bureaus--are all in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment and they are all opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I don't want people to think these organizations are ambivalent. They are strongly in support of our approach.

Again, we all agree on one thing: that is, the need to make some improvements. We like our peer review system better, and we will have ample time to talk about that.

I understand Senator Grassley is here. I yield whatever time he wants to take and suggest it come off the general debate.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator in support of the bill. The Senator from Iowa is in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment and opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I remind him that virtually every organization in Iowa, including the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Association, and others, are in support of the Bond-Inhofe amendment.

I also make a request, and I am sure others will join, asking Members to come to the Senate if they want to speak on either of the two amendments that are being discussed right now.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Burns as a cosponsor of the Inhofe-Bond amendment.

It is my understanding Senator Hatch is going to be making a request to be heard as if in morning business for 15 minutes. Because of the time constrains we are operating under, I will ask that time be taken off of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4682.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:30 be for concurrent debate on the pending Feingold-McCain amendment and the pending Inhofe-Bond amendment and be equally divided between the bill managers or their designees, and that at 2:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 4681, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no intervening action or debate.

For clarification, I encourage Members to come down because our time is running out. It is confusing when you have two amendments that you are using the same time for. So essentially the time that we would have in favor of the Inhofe-Bond amendment would be the same as the time in opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin for his cooperation in moving this along.

Madam President, first, let me make a couple of observations. I think in the discussions we have had so far, there are a lot of things we agree on. We agree that we need to change the system we have right now. I don't really take issue with some of the things that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have said about existing problems with the way that the Corps of Engineers has been working. I recognize also that the Senator from Wisconsin agrees that the underlying substitute amendment does include some provisions to require peer review, specifically for Corps of Engineers studies. The Inhofe-Bond amendment gives additional detail and clarity to that requirement as well as the Feingold-McCain amendment gives additional detail and clarity to that amendment. So there are some areas where I think we are in agreement.

Also, we are in agreement on the necessity of reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act. It has not been addressed since the year 2000.

Our amendment ensures that peer review is integrated into the Corps study process. Most stakeholders agree that the current study process is already too long and further delays are not advisable. That is not a reason to ignore the critical role that peer review can play, but it is a reason to demand that peer review not be an end of the process addition or delay.

Our amendment clarifies that peer review panels are to review the technical and scientific information that forms the basis of decisions, but the decisions themselves are a function of the Government. It is something the Government should be doing, not any independent peer review. Decisions regarding how best to meet our Nation's water resources needs all involve tradeoffs of some sort. No outside group or distinct subject matter experts can truly be considered experts at making those decisions.

I am sure they would all have opinions, but everyone has opinions. Government officials, on the other hand, are specifically charged with making the decision. They have that responsibility. I believe that is one of the distinctions between the Inhofe-Bond amendment and the approach taken by Senators Feingold and McCain.

Another aspect of the Inhofe-Bond amendment I would highlight is the detailing of which project studies at a minimum should undergo peer review. Independent reviews are required if the estimated total project cost is more than $100 million. I believe the Feingold-McCain approach is $40 million.

We also say it has to be over $100 million and if the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Independent reviews may be required if a Governor or head of a Federal agency requests the review.

I know some of those opposed to this amendment have argued that these triggers are too lenient, but I don't believe that is the case.

Of the 44 new or contingent authorizations included in the substitute amendment, 18 would have been subject to independent peer review based on the $100 million trigger alone. That is 40 percent of these projects based on just one of the four possible triggers. The other triggers would be in addition to this requirement of the minimum of $100 million. I don't consider that lenient at all. The Inhofe-Bond amendment also incorporates a recommendation of the American Society of Civil Engineers to require independent review of technical and design specifications of certain projects critical to public safety beyond the study phase.

Finally, I would like to address another baseless charge that has been made against this amendment: that these panels wouldn't really be independent because the chief of engineers is the official in charge of selecting the panels. The amendment is clear that the Corps must issue guidelines that are consistent with the Information Quality Act as implemented in OMB's revised bulletin from December 2004. This bulletin discusses in some detail requirements for reviewers, including expertise and balance of panels, lack of conflicts of interest, and independence.

I have been a little concerned, after reading the Feingold-McCain amendment, as to just how this works. It is my understanding that it would--in my opinion and in the way I look at things--create another bureaucracy and another board that would be looking at these. I am not sure this is really going to be necessary. I do believe that we have tried to strike a balance. I believe we have done so. I am quite confident we can trust a three-star general to follow direct commands, especially those issued in law.

As I have outlined, the Inhofe-Bond independent peer review amendment would ensure review of critical information by experts outside the Corps without creating unnecessary burdens and delays.

As was stated before, we are going to first be voting at 2:30 on the Feingold-McCain amendment and then on the Inhofe-Bond amendment. I will be encouraging them to vote against the Feingold-McCain amendment and for our amendment. But having said that, I would like to say that we are in agreement. Sometimes you get into a discussion on these things and it sounds as if everyone is in disagreement. This isn't like a climate change debate. This isn't one where everybody gets all fired up. I know we are all trying to do the same thing. We know there is room for improvement in the way the Corps of Engineers operates. I have a few examples I could use. We have right now a problem in Oklahoma with one of the individuals who has not been doing a conscientious job. We can't get the Corps of Engineers to listen to us in terms of how this particular bureaucrat is abusive in his treatment of individuals.

I think that we need to do something. Our underlying substitute amendment does something. I think probably either of these two amendments will take that one step further. There are areas where we agree.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent the stacked votes now occur at 2:45 and all other provisions of the agreement remain in place.

Let me make a couple of comments. I appreciate that there is some division of editorial policy around the country. Different positions are taken. I would say this, though. Probably the most impressive thing we have added to the Record is from the National Waterways Alliance, which has been a very strong supporter, of course, of the bill, as are, I believe, most of us on both sides of this issue who do agree we want to have the WRDA bill. We haven't had a reauthorization since the year 2000.

This organization says they want to accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment and reject the Feingold amendments. It is interesting. As the Senator mentioned some of the editorials, perhaps the St. Louis Dispatch would be of interest to my colleague, Senator Bond.

This also has a number of groups from Wisconsin who are strongly in opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment, such as the Wisconsin Corn Growers, the Wisconsin AgriServices of Brunswick, the Farm Bureau, and others.

Sometimes you can evaluate something, an amendment, by who is in support of it. I think if you look at this, there are 288 groups. Virtually everyone who has any interest in using a waterway has said they strongly support the Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is such a varied and diverse group. All the Chambers of Commerce, the labor unions, they are all in there, including, of course, the U.S. Chamber, the Wisconsin groups, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, as I mentioned before, American Association of Port authorities, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Arkansas Basin Development Association.

That is an interesting one because as I sometimes remind my colleagues, people are not aware, maybe one of the best kept secrets having to do with this subject matter is that my home State of Oklahoma is a navigable State. Much of that is due to activities of my father- in-law, who is deceased now. Glade R. Kirkpatrick is the one who introduced legislation to provide for the Arkansas Development Association, working with Senator McClellan from Arkansas, Senator Kerr, at that time from Oklahoma.

I can remember 47 years ago, when I married my wife, the first thing my father-in-law did was take me with him for the dedication of the Port of Catoosa. Lyndon B. Johnson came out. I believe that was who came out to dedicate it.

I remember also--I think my friend from Wisconsin will enjoy this-- many years ago when I was in the State senate, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that we have barge traffic coming into Oklahoma. I approached a group called the Submarine Veterans of World War II. They decided what they would like to do. I said we have to do something to show the people of America that we can take barge traffic up and down here. It was all done through the private sector. We went to Orange, TX, got a 300-foot-long submarine, the USS Batfish, and the idea was to bring it all the way up to my home town of Tulsa, OK. This was quite an undertaking. We had to put floatation on it to raise it up, then bring it down to get it under the bridges. Nobody thought it could be done. All of my political adversaries in the State of Oklahoma were saying we will sink Inhofe with this submarine. It is there, one of the most attractive tourist sites in the State of Oklahoma. Some publications had it coming across the Arkansas line into Oklahoma.

I mention that, that is one of the many groups supporting this, the Arkansas Basin Development Association. Also the California Coastal Coalition, California Marine Affairs Navigation System, the Grain and Feed Associations of Illinois.

There is a long list from Illinois; almost every agricultural organization up there is in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment--the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers. Everybody in Iowa is for this, too. The list goes on and on. It gets into some of the labor unions; in fact, almost all of them are in support of our amendment and opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment, such as the Laborers' International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Works of America, Operative Plasterers & Cement Mason International Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Brotherhood of Brickyard Layers and Allied Craftworkers. The list goes on. As I say, the total number is 288 organizations. I can't think of any user--even recreational groups--who are in support of this.

I have to repeat this. I don't want it to be implied by the Senator from Wisconsin or the Senator from Arizona that I do not believe reform is necessary. I talked at earlier times on this floor about the problems we have had with the Corps of Engineers. Sometimes they have done good work. Sometimes the work has not been so good. They need to have more oversight. They need to have some kind of a system, which is built into the underlying amendment or the underlying legislation. It means, to enhance that, either the Inhofe-Bond amendment or the Feingold-McCain amendment would do that. I think that is a recognition that the main thing we want here is to pass the WRDA bill. It is long overdue. We have to do it.

It is funny for me to stand up here as a conservative, having been the author of the transportation reauthorization bill, which was perhaps the largest nondefense spending bill in the history of this body, and now come along with this one, yet I still have my 100 percent rating with the American Conservative Union, I remind my friends.

Nonetheless, this is important. As I say, we are now down to less than 50 minutes until we have a chance to vote.

Several times they have talked about the Hurricane Katrina situation as the ultimate example for the Feingold-McCain amendment. As outlined in the draft final report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force issued on June 1, the Corps has made mistakes. We do not know why certain decisions were made during the design of the New Orleans levees, but in retrospect we know that they were the wrong decisions. Some or all of these mistakes may have been noticed by an independent peer review panel.

It could have been a panel that would either be adopted under the Feingold-McCain amendment or the Inhofe-Bond amendment.

I agree this unfortunate disaster is an example of the potential usefulness of peer review, but it is not a mandate for their particular amendment. At the time the New Orleans levees were being designed, independent peer review was not a requirement.

I recall one case in particular. In 1976, the Corps had actually done a review of the levee problems that might arise in the future. So they were talking about enhancing the strength of the levee. However, there was an environmentalist group called Save The Wetlands that came along and enjoined them in court and kept them from doing this.

Either review is something that would take care of problems like this that might come up in the future.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have several times addressed both sides of the agreement we have in terms of how Katrina would have been affected with the various different types of approaches of peer review. I was approached by the junior Senator from Louisiana who said that in Louisiana they are very strongly in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment. He says those in support are the City of New Orleans, Jefferson Parish, St. Tammany Parish, the State of Louisiana, the Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District, and the Red River Valley Association.

I yield as much time to the Senator from South Dakota as he desires.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He has been a huge help on the committee. He is always very active.

I agree with him, the WRDA bill has been pretty heavy lifting. We were both around in 2004 when we had our last reauthorization. It was not an easy accomplishment. It was one that was almost the magnitude of the Transportation reauthorization bill.

We have these amendments, and we are coming down to the wire where we are going to be able to see final passage before too long. I thank my friend from South Dakota for all of his help.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent Senators Cornyn and Hutchison both be added as cosponsors to the Inhofe-Bond amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Florida.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized to offer an amendment regarding prioritization report; further, that following the reporting of that amendment, Senator Inhofe be recognized to offer an amendment on fiscal transparency; provided further that there be 1 hour total for both amendments, to be divided equally between Senators Inhofe and McCain; further, that following the use or yielding of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no intervening time or extra debate; and that following the votes, there will be 30 minutes equally divided, followed by a vote on final passage.

Mr. President, let me restate this. We have too many things going on, so let me be sure we get it right.

The unanimous consent request is that Senator McCain be recognized to offer an amendment regarding prioritization report; further, that following the reporting of that amendment, Senator Inhofe be recognized to offer an amendment on fiscal transparency; provided further that there be 1 hour total for both amendments to be divided between Senators Inhofe and McCain; further, that there be 30 minutes equally divided for general debate on the bill, and that following the use or yielding of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment, to be followed by a vote on final passage, all with no intervening action or debate.

I would respond to my friend from Missouri that we do have in this unanimous consent request 30 minutes equally divided before final passage, and I would be glad to yield to the Senator at that time.

Yes. Let me respond to the Senators from Arkansas. I have talked to Senator Rockefeller and we have agreed that as soon as this UC goes through, we will recognize him and the Senator from Arkansas for up to 15 minutes for that purpose.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, right now we are waiting for Senator McCain to return and call up his legislation in conjunction with the unanimous consent agreement.

I would like also to say the same thing. It has been great working with Senator Jeffords and his staff, as well as other staff members, and of course my staff. Angie, here, has been the primary driver with Steve Aaron and Blu Hulsey, David Lungren, our staff director, and Ruth Van Mark, who has done so much work on the transportation end.

On Senator Bond's staff, Letmon Lee; of course, JoEllen Darcey with Senator Jeffords, Catharine Ransom, Alison Taylor, and I guess I would have to mention Ken Connolly, too, as someone who hangs around and gets things done, and Paul Wilkins with Senator Baucus.

There is a lot of truth to this. This is more of a nonpartisan committee. We have a lot of issues on which we disagree, but when it gets down to the big authorization we recognize that what we deal with are some of the most significant aspects of government--those that have to get done.

It is the only way to do that when we are dealing with many areas--is cooperate. I appreciate all the staff working together.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4684

Yes, we have. In fact, I will be bringing up mine, and we will consider them jointly. There will be 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask that the Inhofe-Bond amendment be brought up for immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California.

I thank the Senator from California for bringing up some very good points.

How much time is remaining?

Parliamentary inquiry because there is some confusion, without using our time to make the parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that while we have an hour equally divided on the two amendments that are going to be voted back to back, there is also 30 minutes equally divided on final passage. All of this time would be used prior to the three votes that come consecutively; is that correct?

If that is the case, there would be more like 30 minutes remaining because each side would have 45 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent on our side, and I suggest they probably want to do the same thing, that our time not be segregated as to the amendments versus final passage so we could have 45 minutes for either as we desire.

With that, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri who has been very helpful and constructive in this legislation.

Mr. President, it further demonstrates that people can have honest disagreements. I look forward to responding to some of the comments that were made by the Senator from Arizona.

I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Louisiana.

Reserving the right to object, I inquire as to how much time remains.

No objection.

That is correct, I do not yield time. I just don't object to his using some of the time on the bill.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my intention to yield back some time. We have some colleagues we want to accommodate. I think if I do that, time will also be yielded back from the other side.

While I don't agree with those who tried to argue that there are currently no prioritization projects, I do acknowledge that we can do a better job. That is exactly what the Inhofe-Bond amendment will do.

The administration has priorities right now. They can set priorities. It is called the budget. The administration sets its funding priorities through the President's budget request. For the last couple of fiscal years, President Bush has relied on a measure called the remaining benefit-remaining cost ratio.

The Inhofe-Bond amendment requires the Corps of Engineers to provide critical and easy-to-understand information to Congress that can then be used to make tough budgetary decisions that we have to make when the funds are so limited.

The amendment sets out four national priorities--I mention this because this contradicts something said by the Senator from Wisconsin: No. 1, to reduce the risk of loss of human life and risk to public safety; No. 2, to benefit the national economy; No. 3, to protect and enhance the environment; and No. 4, to promote the national defense.

Let me just say in closing that no one can vote either for their amendment or against our amendment saying that one of them is going to be spending more money or there is pork. It is a wash. They are both the same. Voting for the Inhofe-Bond amendment is not going to reduce the amount of money that is going to be spent on projects or voting for the other amendment is not going to do that, either. Not one of these is a large spending bill or a small spending bill. I would like to get that out of the way.

Our amendment sets out our national goals. The Corps is directed to develop a relative ranking system to report how well each project meets these four priorities.

I really think enough has been said on this issue. I am prepared at this point, if the other side is, to yield back and accommodate some of our colleagues. I do so at this time.

My colleague on both the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees is correct. This Water Resources Development Act provision is simply to clarify existing authority. The other bill managers and I were informed that there was some confusion as to whether funds from the Department of Defense environmental remediation account for formerly used Defense sites could be used to remove abandoned marine camels located in the waters of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay. It was our intent to clarify that the Department could in fact use these funds to remove debris linked to a formerly used Defense site even if that debris has drifted off land and into the water. Of course, any debris in the water not linked to a formerly used Defense site could not be cleaned up using funds from this account, and I believe the language in the bill reflects that distinction.

Again, I agree completely with my colleague. There is absolutely no intent to change the Department's current policy of prioritization through this provision. Those sites presenting the greatest risk to the public should be cleaned up first. This provision is silent with regard to where on that priority list sites in Narragansett Bay may fall.

I do understand the concerns about the impacts of aquatic nuisance species. I want to assure the Senate that it is my intention to resume discussions on a bill and try to bring a comprehensive bill to the Senate floor this year.

Senator Martinez, I am aware of the CERP review process established in WRDA 2000, and during conference we will examine its established independent review process to ensure that Everglades restoration is not unduly impeded.

I am aware that section 2019 of the WRDA bill before us has some problems with how we have attempted to deal with balancing the needs of municipal water suppliers and hydroelectric power generation. Complicating the issue is how CBO has scored our proposals to achieve balance. I fully intend to resolve this issue and do not intend to preempt existing statutory authorities that govern the Corps' ability to reallocate storage and provide municipal and industrial water supply. I ask my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, to accept my assurances that I will work towards a compromise that treats all parties fairly.

Madam President, I think this may be the first time I have had occasion to stand on the floor and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York. I appreciate his thoughtful remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., in open session to continue to receive testimony on military commissions in light of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a vote on the nomination of Mr. Frederic S. Mishkin, of New York, to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Ms. Linda Mysliwy Conlin, of New Jersey, to be First Vice President of The Export-Import Bank; Mr. Geoffrey S. Bacino, of Illinois, to be a Director of the Federal Housing Finance Board; Mr. Edmund C. Moy, of Wisconsin, to be Director of the Mint; Mr. J. Joseph Grandmaison, of New Hampshire, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export- Import Bank; and Mr. James Lambright, of Missouri, to be President of the Export-Import Bank. Immediately following the vote, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the semi-annual monetary policy report of The Federal Reserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, to consider S. 3661, S. Con. Res. 71, S. 3679, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006, nominations, and the Committee print of the Maritime Administration Improvements Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 9 a.m., the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on the science and risk assessment behind the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revisions to the particulate matter air quality standards.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10:30 a.m in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``DHS Purchase Cards: Credit Without Accountability.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Credit Card Interchange Fees: Antitrust Concerns?'' on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witnesses

Panel I: Bill Douglas, Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Distributing, Sherman, TX. Kathy Miller, Owner, The Elmore Store, Elmore, VT. Joshua R. Floum, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Visa U.S.A., Washington, DC. Joshua L. Peirez, Group Executive, Global Public Policy and Associate General Counsel, MasterCard Worldwide, Purchase, NY. The Hon. Timothy J. Muris, Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Of Counsel, O'Melveny & Meyers, Washington, DC. W. Stephen Cannon, President and Managing Partner, Constantine Cannon, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

I. Bills

S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein, Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on the implementation of Public Law 108-148 (the Healthy Forests Restoration Act).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be allowed to meet at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, to discuss High Performance Computing.

Mr. President, last Thursday Senator Jeffords and I took some time to thank the members of our committee and many on the outside for cooperation in bringing to the Senate the Water Resources Development Act. This is a very big bill. It is a very significant bill. It involved the cooperation of quite a number of people. I would say every member of our committee has been very cooperative. I talked a little bit about Senator Feingold and the fact he had some objections. He was very good to work with, along with Senator McCain and others.

We finally are at the point now where, after a lot of negotiation, the Senate is considering today S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act of 2006.

As the world's leading maritime and trading nation, the United States relies on an efficient maritime transportation system to maintain its role as a global power. The bill we debate today is the cornerstone of that system.

The Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, sets out the Federal policy of procedure for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain and build our inland and intracoastal waterway system, which carries one-sixth of the Nation's volume of intercity cargo.

In addition, the Corps is responsible for maintaining approximate channel depths in ports along our coasts and the Great Lakes to handle 95 percent of all foreign trade into and out of the country. In fact, more than 67 percent of all consumer goods pass through harbors maintained by the Corps of Engineers. WRDA also authorizes the Corps to work with communities on flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects designed to protect human life and property.

Inland and intracoastal waterways, which serve States on the Atlantic seaboard, the gulf coast, and the Pacific Northwest, move about 630 million tons of cargo valued at over $70 billion annually. Furthermore, it is estimated that the average transportation cost savings to users of the system is $10.67 per ton, or $7 billion annually over other modes of transportation.

The nearly 12,000 miles of inland and intracoastal waterways include 192 commercially active lock and dam sites. I might add, a lot of people are surprised these are in my State of Oklahoma. Over 50 percent of the locks and dams operated by the Corps are more than 50 years old and consequently are approaching the end of their design life and are in need of modernization or major rehabilitation. This bill authorizes ongoing work to modernize and rehabilitate our inland and intracoastal waterway system.

In the 1800s, the Corps was first called upon to address flood problems along the Mississippi River. Since then, the Corps has continued to provide flood damage reduction along the Mississippi River and in other regions of the country. These efforts range from small local protection to projects such as levees, or nonstructural measures, to major dams. Today, most of the structures are owned by sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts. Although the Corps cannot prevent all damage from floods, the efforts of the Corps do significantly reduce the cost of the flood events.

To illustrate this point, consider that during the 10 years from 1991 to 2000, the decade of the 1990s, the country suffered $45 billion in property damage from floods. If Corps flood damage reduction measures had not been in place, however, that figure would have been more than $208 billion in damage. Clearly, flood control is a wise investment. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the flood control structures on average prevent $22 billion in flood damage each year, a savings of $6 per every $1 spent.

Second, similarly, the Corps also participates in and this bill authorizes hurricane and storm damage reduction projects along our Nation's coast as well as projects to combat shoreline erosion. So we are talking now about three aspects: navigation, the hurricanes, and the erosion problem.

And then the third Corps mission is ecosystems restoration. Working with non-Federal sponsors, the Corps implements single-purpose ecosystems, restoration projects, multipurpose projects with ecosystems restoration components, or projects for flood protection or navigation that incorporate environmental features as good engineering. The Corps has restored, created, and protected over 500,000 acres of wetlands and other habitats between 1988 and 2004. In some cases, existing water resources projects are modified to achieve restoration benefits.

This bill includes authorization of several such projects, including quickly approaching the crisis that, if ignored, would dramatically stunt continued economic growth.

We have to understand right now, with what is happening in this country, the increase in economic activity is what has brought us out of this recession. The deficits people in this Senate like to talk about are being addressed by the fact that, for each additional 1 percent of economic activity, it increases revenues about $45 billion. This bill is going to be very helpful in increasing economic activity.

As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this Senate, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal Government are to provide for national defense and public infrastructure. A lot of my conservative colleagues are going to be talking about projects and maybe earmarks. That is not in this bill we are talking about. They might be surprised to know that I, with a rating of 100 percent by the American Conservative Union, this year and last year, am proposing this bill, which is a big spending bill, but we are not spending. We are authorizing. We have an orderly procedure to reach those projects which would enjoy the most support.

I say to my conservative friends, I am one who is not for wasteful spending. I have maintained the perfect record in terms of my conservative leanings. In fact, it is exactly what being a fiscal conservative is all about.

The primary purpose of government spending is to provide for the national defense and to provide for critical infrastructure. Think how chaotic the system would be if each individual would build and maintain their own infrastructure system. Society simply would not function. Every first-year political science student learns that the function of the body politic is to provide resources that are used by all. Efficiency and economics require the Government not only plan but construct and maintain public infrastructure. So I am not shy about voting for increased authorization on national defense needs or public infrastructure.

At the same time, we have to spend limited tax dollars wisely, with that in mind, on three major restoration projects in Louisiana, Florida, and the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Unfortunately, as other infrastructure bills, WRDA has been decried in the press perhaps as a pork bill. During the debate in the Senate we may hear from some who will agree with that. It is the popular thing to say. As one of the primary authors of the bill, allow me to explain why this charge, if raised, is not accurate.

First, contrary to public belief, this bill is not just project authorization. It contains also significant policy changes designed to ensure an efficient and effective process for addressing our Nation's water resources needs. Later in this debate, Senators will have an opportunity to consider several amendments on further policy reforms.

The bill does have project authorizations. It is an unfortunate fact of life when infrastructure bills are debated we first have to battle back the charge that all we are doing is funding unneeded projects.

Look at the facts. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers 2005 report cards on America's infrastructure, none of the Nation's primary infrastructure such as roads, airports, drinking water facilities, wastewater management systems, gets above a C, and most receive a D. That is without exception. None. And every project authorization is quickly approaching a crisis that, if ignored, will dramatically stunt continued economic growth. We are at the point now where we need to do something.

With that in mind, the committee established a very firm policy of what types of project requests we would consider. Every project authorization included in this bill is based on a report of the Chief of Engineers verifying that the project is technically feasible, economical, economically justified, and environmentally accepted.

I will talk a little bit about the types of engineering reports that are necessary. We did not include environmental infrastructure projects such as water treatment facilities or riverfront development projects because neither of these are a Corps of Engineers mission. Finally, we did not authorize cost-share waivers on existing or new projects. We have always felt the local community has to have an investment and has to have the support of the State, county, or city in order to come forth with the project.

At the present time, Senator Bond and I will be offering two amendments, one on prioritization of projects, and another establishing a procedure of independent peer review. Both of these issues are important reforms to the program. We agree that Congress needs better analysis so we can more easily compare individual projects, thereby ensuring the most needed projects are addressed in a timely manner. Independent peer review fulfills a critical function to ensure that policymakers are using accurate information to make decisions. Therefore, Senator Bond and I will be offering an amendment to clarify which projects should undergo independent peer review.

Finally, some have expressed a concern about the size of the bill. I understand and appreciate these concerns. However, I point out that it has been 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into law. Traditionally, WRDA is done every 2 years. Given the 6-year timelag, what the Senate is being asked to consider represents what would be three WRDAs if we had kept to the 2-year schedule. Given that, I believe the cost is reasonable.

The amount of this bill would be eventually about $7 billion in authorization. However, if we were to follow the pattern set in 2000, for a 2-year bill, it was 5.07, so it is considerably less than if we had been doing it every 2 years as we did in the year 2000.

For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the Army Corps of Engineers program, let me explain. The program does include planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of water projects that give improved flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, shore protection, navigation, ecosystems restoration, hydroelectric power, recreation, and other various water resources needed. Virtually all water resources projects are cost shared with a local sponsor. The statutory cost share varies depending on the size of the project. Generally speaking, the local share is about 35 percent; the Federal share is about 65 percent.

Projects generally originate with a request for assistance from a community or local government entity with the water resource need that is beyond its capability to alleviate. A study authority allows the Corps to investigate a problem and determine if there is a Federal interest in proceeding further.

If the Corps has performed a study in the geographic area before this time--in other words, if it has already done it--a new study can be authorized by a resolution of either the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee I chair, or the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. If the Corps has not previously investigated the area, the study needs to be authorized by an act of Congress, typically through what we are considering today, a WRDA bill.

Army Corps studies are usually conducted in two stages: the first, called a reconnaissance study, or the recon study, is a general investigation, including an overview of the problem, identification of potential local sponsors--that could be State, tribal, county, or local agencies or governments or nonprofit organizations--and an initial determination of a Federal interest. A recon study is done at full Federal expense and usually costs $100,000 to $200,000 and usually can be completed in about a year.

The second stage is a feasibility study, which is the detailed analysis of alternatives, costs, benefits, and environmental and other impacts. A feasibility study is cost-shared 50-50 with a local sponsor, usually costing upwards of $1 million and takes up to several years to complete.

Congress must provide authorization for the Corps to begin the recon study, but the Corps can move from the recon to feasibility stage without further authorization. Based on the results of the study, the chief of engineers may--this is the significant part--may sign a final recommendation on the project, known as the Chief's Report. Accordingly, the committee has used a favorable Chief's Report as the basis for authorizing projects.

I am going through this process so people will understand this has been thoughtfully considered in each one of these, and the Corps has gone into them and actually come out with a final Chief's Report. I have to say, individuals who sometimes complain about the way the Corps is working might remember in the late 1990s when we had the Everglades Restoration Act. I happen to be the only Member who voted against it. It was 99 to 1, I say to the Presiding Officer. The reason I voted against it is because it did not have a Chief's Report. We have to stay with this system.

Before I yield the floor to my colleagues, I want to point out some other provisions in the managers' substitute amendment that were added to the committee-reported bill. The primary changes were made in response to the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last year.

We are proposing a new National Levee Safety Program designed after the National Dam Safety Program. The new Levee Safety Program requires that a national inventory be made of all levees and that those levees that protect human life and public safety be inspected. As with the Dam Safety Program, the provision establishes a State grant program to encourage States to establish their own safety program, as

these activities are best handled at the local level.

We also made some changes to language already in the bill to authorize a project for coastal wetlands restoration in Louisiana. These changes are intended to address the two main suggestions for process improvements that the Environment and Public Works Committee heard from a broad range of stakeholders following Hurricane Katrina.

First, we try to do a better job of addressing our water resources needs in a comprehensive, integrated manner, rather than in the traditional stovepipe manner of separate missions areas.

Secondly, the time it takes between identifying a water resources need to completing a solution is significantly longer than it should be. Our substitute amendment addresses the time from identification of need to solution.

So we are going to proceed with this bill. I have a request from a well-respected Senator, but I am going to ask if the Senator could withhold until we have the opening statements done.

Let me say, in closing, I have a special interest in this bill because--a lot of people do not realize it, and I am sure the Chair does because he is aware of these things--my State of Oklahoma is in that way navigable. We have a navigation way that comes all the way to the Port of Catoosa. That is in Tulsa, OK. It was put together by a State authorization in legislation that was passed by my father-in-law, the late Arthur Patrick, in the early 1930s. And you might have heard of the McClellan-Kerr Dam. That is the one that is there. So we have that history, and I have that bias that I bring to this floor with my opening remarks.

With that, let me thank the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords, who has been so cooperative throughout the development of this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank the minority leader of our committee who has done such a good job.

Let me announce what I would like to do and see if there is any objection. I will not pose this as a UC, but I will mention we have some people who do have to leave. We had announced earlier we would go straight to the Boxer amendment. I am in support of the Boxer amendment, and that is not going to take a long time. However, she has graciously agreed to let the Senator from Michigan go in advance of her for 10 minutes.

The question I would like to ask the Senator from Michigan is, would it be permissible, and not counted against the time of the Senator from California, if Senator Santorum went for 3 minutes prior to you? This is at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Missouri. Would that be all right? It would put you off only 3 minutes.

How much time?

After the conclusion of his remarks---

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri be first recognized for 15 to 18 minutes, immediately followed by Senator Santorum for not to exceed 4 minutes, and then Senator Stabenow for not to exceed 10 minutes. And then we will proceed on to the Boxer amendment.

For whatever time she wants to use.

Mr. President, in my opening statement, I talked about the rather difficult process we go through in this WRDA process and the Corps of Engineers starting off with a reconnaissance or a recon setting and then going to a feasibility study. I would like to say the project, as discussed by the Senator from California, has already gone through all this. It has already been authorized twice. So I join her in wanting to get this done.

I would like to make the comment, though, that at the conclusion of this voice vote, I think we are going to be going to the Specter amendment. It is the intention of the chairman, anyway, to go ahead and have that as a recorded vote this evening.

I support the Boxer amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, at this time I will not give my full statement in opposition. I will say I would like, at this point, to have printed in the Record a couple of letters, one from the Transportation Institute and the other from the Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, both saying essentially the same thing; that is, $165 million has been spent for

hoppers to be able to have modern dredges work in the same areas. The capacity is there to bring the McFarland up to date. It would be, according to the Corps of Engineers, a cost of about $20 million. For all these reasons, they oppose it.

I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the Record.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Could I interrupt just for a moment? I would like at this point to yield a few minutes, whatever time is necessary off of our time, to the Senator from Missouri who has another committee hearing and would like to take his time now. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. President, it doesn't need the $20 million to bring it up to standard for it to compete. The Corps of Engineers has stated that its operational costs are almost double that of the private sector dredging that has been taking place. This has been agreed to by the Seafarers International Union of North America. So it is the Corps of Engineers that is making that assertion, and it is agreed to by both the Seafarers International Union and the Transportation Institute.

Mr. President, let me comment.

I was asked the question by the Senator from Pennsylvania as to clarification on this Army Corps of Engineers report. It was the Energy and Water appropriations that made a request of the Corps of Engineers on June 3, 2005. The Corps report states:

From the above discussion, the most reasonable option would

be to retire the McFarland.

It goes on to state:

It is expected that sufficient industry hopper dredging

capability exists to perform the requirements that may occur

on the Delaware River.

Finally, it states:

McFarland would have to be rehabilitated and repowered at

the cost of approximately $20 million.

It says that on page 22 of the report.

I will go ahead.

I ask the Senator from Delaware to take his time and I will elaborate a little bit more on this on my time.

Mr. President, I know no Senator on this floor would misrepresent the facts in a case like this. We have an opportunity with an agreed-to provision of our bill, which I thought we all agreed to, that we are able to save a lot of money and finally put this thing to rest.

Every year we go through this same exercise. Everyone wants to keep this old relic called the McFarland. I cannot figure out for the life of me why they want to do it other than the fact maybe this is some kind of an emotional institution that exists that we want to hold on to. If that is the case, maybe we should let the Historical Society have that and they can see what dredging used to be like in the old days.

The McFarland is the oldest and most expensive hopper dredge owned and operated by the Corps. The Corps did a study in the hopper fleet and concluded that the McFarland should be retired. The WRDA bill does that. The pending amendment would prevent the retirement of the McFarland.

The Corps found the McFarland operates at almost double the daily cost of a private-sector dredge, and there is sufficient private dredge capacity to cover the work of the McFarland.

Proponents of keeping the McFarland in service argue that it is necessary for two main reasons. No. 1, to keep the Delaware River free from navigational hazards and to be ready for emergency dredging. Both are incorrect.

The Corps found they have more than enough capacity to handle dredge for

the Delaware River. Private dredges currently do over 80 percent of the dredging in the McFarland service area and still have idle capacity. The McFarland is the wrong type of dredge for much of the work on the Delaware.

The Corps and private industry have an agreement whereby the Corps can pull any private dredge off of any Corps project to send to an emergency. Since this agreement, the McFarland has not done any emergency work on the Delaware. Not only is the McFarland dramatically more expensive to operate than the private dredges, its age necessitates a rehabilitation that would cost over $20 million to remain in service. Even after updating, it would still be far more expensive to operate than those private dredges.

Since 1978, Corps policy has been to use industry first. This policy has been very successful. We need to retire this inefficient dredge. It will save the taxpayers a lot of dollars and get the Government out of the business of competing with the private sector.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have listened to these arguments. We keep going back and refuting the arguments. We have it documented. There is no question about that.

As far as the national security ramifications are concerned, I tell my good friend from Pennsylvania I have served for 20 years either on the House or the Senate Committee on Armed Services and I have watched these things very carefully.

The Senator has mentioned San Diego and San Francisco, all these areas for national security purposes.

I suggest to my good friend from Pennsylvania that these do not use the Corps dredges. They use private-sector dredges in these areas, in all of them you mentioned.

Again, going back to the arguments, as I quoted from institutions such as the Transportation Institute and the Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, they all say the same thing, which I could repeat as many times as we need to tonight--and I have quite a bit of time left, so I guess I could do it several times--that it would take $20 million or so to refurbish this thing, to get it so it can operate.

The report that was quoted by the Senator from Pennsylvania of the American Bureau of Shipping, that was, as I understand it, only referring to the hull, that the hull has some problems and that the hull is not cracked. So again, I just repeat these arguments, as I have done before.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that his time has expired. Is that correct?

Mr. President, I will just take a couple minutes.

Let me say, if the argument is that it is the industry influencing these reports, I think it is rather strange that the Seafarers International Union of North America, the AFL-CIO, are the ones that agree with this report and strongly recommend that we vote against this amendment to keep us from retiring this--as I referred to several times--this relic.

Now, the Senator has a couple of arguments I had not responded to. One was he states that it went down and performed some type of a function in Katrina. It is my information they took it down to Katrina, but it would not work, so they used it as an office.

As far as the ``flimsy'' report is concerned, I do not think I have actually

read from the report, but this says this is in response to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. They requested the Corps of Engineers to clear this up so once and for all we can get rid of this relic. This was June 3 of 2005. They said, reading from that report:

[I]t is expected that sufficient industry hopper dredge

capability exists to perform the requirements. . . .

It further says:

Even if the scheduled work for the McFarland were

maximized, the reduction in daily rate would still be almost

double the daily rate of a comparable industry hopper dredge.

. . .the McFarland is the oldest dredge in the fleet, and

operates at a daily rate that substantially exceeds

comparable industry medium class hopper dredges. If the

McFarland were to be kept in the Minimum Fleet it would have

to be rehabilitated and repowered at a cost of approximately

$20 million.

So what you are saying is, you want to spend public funds of $20 million more to get something to compete with the private sector, that costs twice as much to operate as the private sector. I think this is absurd. I think we have been trying to do this for a number of years.

Now, we have the labor unions joining other interests in saying that we need to get rid of this thing and start saving money in our dredging. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania.