Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and also for the great job he has done in bringing this Defense authorization bill to the floor.

Mr. President, on early Thursday morning, about 5:30, my radio alarm went off and I heard the three words--al-Zarqawi is dead. I think that affected me by just hearing that. I sat up in bed, and I thought it did work. It is happening. I told the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that I have to go to Iraq.

The two most significant things that have happened in Iraq since bringing down Saddam Hussein happened on the same date, coincidentally. It is just remarkable: first of all, bringing down al-Zarqawi, the monster, and at the same time confirming the ministers in Iraq. We thought that would be a long, enduring battle. It sailed through, and it happened on the same day.

I can't tell you what a profound effect it had on the people of Iraq and on our troops over there. And now we find out about the surprise visit by the President. I figured out that our planes crossed on the way. I was coming back from Iraq and he was going to Iraq. If I had known that, I would have stayed. But it was a pretty well-guarded secret. Of the two places I spent most of my time, this one was where al-Zarqawi was actually killed, just a couple of miles north of Balad Air Force Base and then in Baghdad.

It was such an incredible thing to be there after it happened and to talk to the different ministers. Defense Minister Jasim is the new Defense Minister, and he had a lot of things to say. In fact, he asked me to bring back this message for the American people. I am going to read this, because this came just a few hours ago from Defense Minister Jasim to me to take to the American people. He said:

Tell them their sacrifice is for a very noble cause, they

have given freedom to 26 million people. I believe they are

waging a just war for humanity. The terrorism must be stopped

or it will spread all over the world, like a carbon copy of

fascism and communism. This is the first world war of the

21st century. The American victims have borne the price of a

freer world . . . We are very grateful . . . The war in Iraq

is a just war and we have no option but victory. It is not a

war that affects Iraq alone, but is truly a world war.

The terrorists are a sickness that must be eliminated . . .

There is great transformation taking place in Iraq but the

international media does not focus on positive things

happening. They only focus on the negative, the bad things

happening . . . what the terrorists are doing . . . they will

publish anything bad . . . They try to say Americans are

leading the way and we the Iraqis are in the back. This is

the opposite. We are in the front and Americans are in the

back.

We started with the multi-national forces in front and us

at back. Then we worked side by side as very good partners.

Now we are often in front and the multinational forces are in

a supporting role.

Your presence here is very important. From the beginning to

now, we have always had an American partner. I am sad when my

American partner leaves me. But, when he leaves and returns

to the U.S. I feel we have a voice going back to America. I

fell in love with the American people.

That is Abdul Jasim, who is the newly confirmed Minister of Defense. He said so many other things when we were there that I would like to share, but it is very difficult to do that because he was so emotional at the time.

Well, this happened to be my 11th trip over to the Iraq AOR, and I have been watching, as the months have gone by--every other month or so being over there--and seeing the differences, seeing the changes that are taking place.

Just to give you an example, one of the tests we use to determine how strong the Iraqi people are supporting us is the number of qualified tips that come in. The way they come in is where someone says, for example: There is a safe house over here. We suspect something. These are Iraqi people saying where the terrorists are. And those numbers of tips have increased tenfold in the last 12 months. I can remember when there were only 30 or 40 tips a month. There are now 5,000 tips a month, and they are qualified tips. Some of these tips led to not just bringing down al-Zarqawi but also

some 17 others on the same day. So these things are going on. These things are happening.

As to the quality of the Iraqi security forces, I think Minister of Defense Jasim is right. He sees that our media is not accurately reporting what is going on over there. How many people in America know that as of the current time, 75 percent of the special operations by Iraqis are actually led by Iraqis, not by Americans? We are leading 25 percent. I remember when it was zero percent. Now, they are leading 75 percent. And 62 of the 112 battalions are at level 2 or level 1. That means they are capable of going out and fighting. That is half of them.

One of the statistics we got from Dr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser--a real sharp guy and one who really has his hand on this--says 66 percent of the hospital beds are occupied by Americans and 34 percent by Iraqis. However, 66 percent of the surgeries are on Iraqis and 34 percent are on Americans. That kind of tells you what is happening over there and the change that is taking place. They are the ones who are doing it.

While we were over in Balad, we had occasion to learn there were several attacks on Iraqis. Some 50 Iraqis were killed last night, and they were killed by the terrorists. Here is the important thing. Zarqawi was not an Iraqi; he was Jordanian. Osama bin Laden is not an Iraqi; he is Saudi. Now, this new guy, al-Muhajer, we don't know about him. All we know is he is not an Iraqi. In other words, this is a war being waged by people from outside of Iraq on the Iraqis, and the Iraqi people are very sensitive to it. They know it.

It is interesting, one of the things the Minister of Defense said is that a lot of things are American issues, they are not really issues over there. For example, all we talk about in the media here is, well, we have the Shiites and the Sunnis, and they do not like each other. And he said that is not true at all. He said: We are Iraqis first, and then we are Sunnis or Shiites or Kurds second. To demonstrate that, there is a structure over there in Baghdad which is comparable to our Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We stopped there. They had an honor guard there. The honor guard had nine people. They had one leader and eight others. When I asked him the question, through a translator: What about the problem that exists between the Shias and the Sunnis, he said: No, that is not true at all. He said: I am a Shia. My wife is Sunni. And I have been working on the honor guard with these people for several days here at our Unknown Soldier event, and I don't know who they are. I can't tell you who one of the eight is in terms of being a Sunni or a Shia.

So those are American problems. Those are not things resonating over there. And the quality of what they have done in terms of being quality soldiers is something the American people are not aware of. I had occasion to be up in Fallujah back when the last election took place, and I was there when the Iraqi security forces actually were doing their thing, voting. They were taking their lives in their own hands by doing it because this is Fallujah, one of the most dangerous areas over there.

They came back very proud. No one was killed while they were trying to do it. They came back and said: We are participating in an election. That was during the last election. Now everyone is confirmed. The government is in place. They know what they are doing. And the most recent thing, which you may not have heard of because it just happened, is that Dr. Rubaie, the National Security Adviser for the Iraqis, said he believes that in a matter of a very short period of time--by the end of the year--he will ask our troops to leave, except for 100,000. In other words, we are slowly bringing it down.

We have heard in the field a lot of things you do not hear when there are hearings here in Washington, DC. If you go over there and you talk to the people on the ground, talk to the commanders on the ground, they have said for a long period of time that when we can get to the point where we have 10 Iraqi divisions of trained and qualified and equipped Iraqi security forces--10 divisions--then they will be able to take care of their own security. Well, the number that equates to 10 divisions would equal 325,000 trained and equipped Iraqi troops. Well, we are right now, today, at 264,000 trained and equipped Iraqis.

Now, some of the adversaries over here say they are not really trained to do a good job, they are not really good soldiers. Let me tell you, they are. All you have to do is talk to our soldiers who train them. Now they train themselves.

Last week, I was over in Afghanistan, and they are doing a good job of training their own troops over there. And that model has worked very well in Iraq. So we are rapidly getting to that point. Will we be out altogether? No, we will not be out altogether, but they will be providing their own security. We still have troops in Kosovo and Bosnia and Sinai and other places but not providing the security. They will be providing their own security. We are getting so close to that point. What has happened in just the last few days is very significant.

So as to al-Zarqawi, there is no one who has been a more brutal terrorist than he has been. He was the No. 1 terrorist in the world, and he is down now. Al-Zarqawi was the one responsible for the assassination of our U.S. diplomat, Lawrence Foley, in 2002. We all remember the horrific things we saw: the beheading of Nicholas Berg in 2004--that was al-Zarqawi--the 2005 bombing of three hotels in Jordan, the countless bombings and terrorist attacks against U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians. He was trying to create a sectarian civil war in Iraq by murdering Shiites and acting as al-Qaida's commander in Iraq. Osama bin Laden called him the ``Prince.'' I think most people considered him, if anything, to have been even worse than Osama bin Laden. So that was a great change. That was a great victory for the coalition forces, but, more importantly, it was a victory for the Iraqi people.

So with these things happening--and you look at the good side that you do not get sometimes in the media--there are 18 provinces in Iraq, and 15 of them are relatively secure. There are hardly any incidents taking place there. Most of the problems are in just three of them. And keep in mind, these are not Iraqi terrorists; these are outsiders who are coming in. They are having a harder and harder time recruiting people to carry out their terrorist activities. We have found that recently they are actually changing their homicide vests for suicide vests so they can put them on individuals and force Iraqis to go and perform certain acts. And if they do not do it, they can, remotely, detonate and blow that Iraqi up.

So things like that are happening right now. At the same time, good things are happening with the administration. The government is in place. I cannot tell you how impressed I was personally with Dr. Rubaie. I have known him for a long period of time. And I would say that the Defense Minister, Abdul Jasim, has already acknowledged, from the quotes I have given, that he is one of our very best friends. He is the one who said al-Zarqawi was suffering from the same disease as Hitler and Stalin, and he is one who is going to finish the job that we helped them with in the beginning.

I would say this is a time when good things are happening, and we feel very good about the progress the Iraqi security forces are making, very good about the constitutional government that is in place, very good about the new Ministers who have been confirmed now. And we are light-years ahead of where we were only 6 months ago.

So this, what I have characterized as probably America being in the most threatened position we have been in in our history, is now showing that we are at the core of the terrorist activities, which is in Iraq. We are now winning. The Iraqi people are winning. So I feel very good about that.

Let me say to Senator Warner, the chairman of our committee, I am very proud of the bill we have put together. I have some amendments, and I will want to be recognized at the appropriate time to bring them up.

I ask the Senator, do you have other people coming down wanting time right now?

That would be good. I thought maybe I could describe what amendment would be coming and why.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

No. I say to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, this amendment is very significant, and I will have ample opportunity to explain it. Hopefully, we can do that this afternoon.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a military fellow, Scott Fisher, be granted floor privileges during the duration of our consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say this has not really been my issue. We have been involved in some other things, but it is one about which I cannot remain silent.

I have to say I am probably the wrong person to talk about the marriage amendment for a couple of reasons. One reason is I am not a lawyer--one of the few in this body who is not a lawyer. However, I have to say sometimes that gives you a better insight into these things than if you are.

I enjoyed listening to some of the liberal Democrats on the Sunday shows saying they are for a marriage between a man and woman, yet immediately starting to back down, backpedal, and think of every reason in the world. It reminds me a little bit of my English as the national language amendment that we had a couple of weeks ago. Everyone was saying they were for it, and then they turned around and thought of reasons to vote against it. That is what is happening now. What does that tell you? It tells you the vast majority of people in America want this amendment.

When they talk about the polling being only 50 percent of the people in America supporting a constitutional amendment for marriage between a man and a woman, they normally are talking to people who are very much for that but think we can do it some other way. They think there is another way of doing it, that we can do it State by State or we can do it statutorily. But it doesn't work out that way.

I think, even not being a lawyer, I can see that a State-by-State approach to gay marriage will be a logical and legal mess that will force the Federal courts to intervene and require all States to recognize same-sex marriages.

Apparently, most people do agree that is the problem. I find all of those who are concerned about the very strong lobby, the homosexual marriage lobby, as well as the polygamous lobby, that they share the same goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage requirements to just one, and that one is consent. In doing so, they are paving the way for legal protection of such practices as homosexual marriage and unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children, group marriage, incest, and, you know: If it feels good, do it.

When you look at the history of this country, you can see way back in the founding days that the marriage institution was one of the very basic values on which this country was based. Way back in 1878, Reynolds v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of Congress's antipolygamy laws, also recognized that the one-man/one- woman family structure is a crucial foundational element of the American democratic society. Thus, there is a compelling governmental interest in its preservation.

That was 1878. That wasn't just the other day. Yet 3 years ago this month,

the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its likely support for same-sex marriage and possibly polygamy and Federal jurisdiction over the issue when it struck down the sodomy ban in Lawrence v. Texas. That happened only 3 years ago this month. The majority opinion extended the reach of due process in the 14th amendment of the Constitution to protect that.

Then they declared--this is significant--they declared:

[P]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy

for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia stated:

The reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws

limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. . . .

That is really much of a concern, when a member of the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with my interpretation as to what that particular interpretation meant.

Now we face a serious problem. Looking at the various States, right now we have 45 States that have passed laws, statutes, or have passed constitutional amendments to their State constitutions that would do away with gay marriage. Look at the percentages.

For those people who say less than 50 percent of the people want a constitutional amendment to protect marriage between a man and a wife, look at the percentages. In my State of Oklahoma, it is 76 percent of the people. That is three-fourths of the people. Down in Louisiana, 86 percent of the people said marriage should be between a man and a woman. This is 45 States out of 50 States. Only 5 States have not had that type of either statutory change or a constitutional amendment.

When you look at the percentages, it is very true that a very large percentage of people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Let me mention something that has not been mentioned quite enough in this debate. A lot of people are not as emotional about this issue as I am. For those who are not, if you look at just the numbers, look at what is going to happen in this country if we follow some of these countries such as the Scandinavian countries. In those societies, they have redefined marriage. In Denmark, as well as Norway, where they have now had same-sex marriages legalized for over a decade, things that are happening there in terms of the society--it has nothing to do with emotions.

According to Stanley Kurtz's 2004 article in the Weekly Standard, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock.

Kurtz says:

Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have

unmarried parents.

That is in Denmark.

Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more.

Stop and think. What is going to be the result? The result is going to be very expensive. Many of these kids are going to end up on welfare, so it goes far beyond just the current emotions. I think my colleague, Senator Sessions, I believe it was yesterday, said:

If there are not families to raise children, who will raise

them? Who will take the responsibility? It will fall on the

State. Clearly it will become a State responsibility.

I am not sure. I have listened to many of my colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of respect, talk about some of the ways the language should be legally changed in one way or another to perhaps accomplish something or avoid another problem.

I ask if I could have a minute and a half more?

Maybe this isn't worded exactly right. But this is the only show in town. It is the only opportunity that we will have to do anything. Again, I said maybe I am the wrong person to talk about this. I was talking to my brother, Buddy Inhofe, down in Texas. He is a Texas citizen, I say to my friend from Texas over here. He and his wife Margaret--he is 1 year older than I am--they have been married for 53 years. Every time they have a wedding anniversary, it is just like getting married again.

As you see--maybe this is the most important prop we will have during the entire debate--my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I am really proud to say in the recorded history of our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship. I think maybe I am the wrong one to be doing this, as I come with such a strong prejudice for strong families.

When we got married 47 years ago, there were a couple of things that were said. In Genesis 2:24 it is said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be

joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19 says:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning

made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall

leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and

the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer

two but one flesh. . . .

I can assure you that these 20 kids and grandkids are very proud and very thankful that today, 47 years later, Kay and I believed in Matthew 19:4, that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Thank you for the additional time.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

I have heard people say that perhaps this issue should be left to the States. As a general rule, you will not find anyone who is a stronger supporter of States rights than I am. But this is a national issue the definition of marriage is and has been a national issue.

A May 22 Gallup Poll shows that a solid majority of Americans--58 percent--are opposed to granting gay marriages the same legal rights as traditional marriages. Additionally, same-sex couples are traveling across State lines to get married; as they do so, they will become entangled in the legal systems of other States, due to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. A State-by-State approach to gay marriage will be a logistical and legal mess that will force the Federal courts to intervene and require all states to recognize same- sex marriages. This is the only possible outcome.

The definition of marriage must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. The homosexual marriage lobby, as well as the polygamist lobby, shares the goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage requirements to just one: consent. In doing so, they are paving the way for legal protection of such repugnant practices as: homosexual marriage, unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children, group marriage, incest, and bestiality. Using this philosophy, activist lawyers and judges are working quickly, State-by- State, through the courts to force same-sex marriage and other practices, such as polygamy, on our country.

In 1878, Reynolds v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of Congress's antipolygamy laws, recognized that the one-man, one-woman family structure is a crucial foundational element of the American democratic society, and thus there is a compelling governmental interest in its preservation.

The eroding of State common-law marriage requirements comes with a price--If we can remove the opposite-sex requirement today, then what would keep us from removing the one-at-a-time requirement, or legal-age requirement tomorrow? In June of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its likely support for same-sex marriage and Federal jurisdiction over the issue when it struck down a sodomy ban in Lawrence v. Texas.

The majority opinion extended the reach of due process and the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect:

. . . personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation,

contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and

education,'' and then declared that ``[p]ersons in a

homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes,

just as heterosexual persons do.

In his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia pointedly cautioned:

This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws

limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples . . .

Additionally, there is a case pending in the Tenth Circuit where the petitioners are using the homosexual marriage lobby's success in Lawrence v. Texas to bolster their claim to a ``right'' to polygamous conduct and marriage.

Not only are Federal courts ruling in favor of such marriages, State courts are, too. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples could marry. The State's high court ruling clearly ignored tradition-- even its own State legislature.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in his testimony on June 22, 2004, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:

We need an amendment that restores and protects our

societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from

changing that definition.

Not only has the Massachusetts court ruling affected that State, it has and will continue to open the floodgate of similar decisions by other State courts across the country.

Lawsuits are now pending in nine States, including my State of Oklahoma, asking the courts to declare that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional. Same-sex couples from at least 46 States have received marriage licenses in Massachusetts, California, and Oregon and have returned to their home States. Many of these couples are now suing to overturn their home State's marriage laws. Unfortunately, using the equal protection and due process clauses in the U.S. Constitution, State and Federal courts have begun to strike down both the Federal and State Defense Of Marriage Act, DOMA, laws, which define marriage as between a man and a woman. The judicial branch is making this a Federal issue by stripping the power from the people's elected legislatures and forcing recognition of same-sex marriages.

Today, 45 States, such as Oklahoma, have statutory and/or constitutional protection for traditional marriage. On average, State constitutional amendments have passed with more than 71 percent of the vote, including with 76 percent in Oklahoma.

In societies where marriage has been redefined, potential parents become less likely to marry and out-of-wedlock births increase. According to Stanley Kurtz's 2004 article in the Weekly Standard, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Kurtz says:

Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have

unmarried parents--not coincidentally, these countries have

had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or

more.

Just last month, May, in a National Review Online article, Stanley Kurtz again addresses the issue saying:

Europe's most influential sociologists are saying much the

same things: Same-sex marriage doesn't reinforce marriage;

instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a

host of other mutually reinforcing changes (like single

parenting, parental co-habitation, and multi-partner unions)

that only serve to weaken marriage.

In fact, liberal German sociologists, Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck- Gernsheim, have openly and honestly expressed their eagerness to expand the welfare state and destroy the traditional family.

As Kurtz puts it, they want ``the government to subsidize the new, `experimental' forms of family that emerge in the aftermath of the traditional family's collapse.''

When this issue was on the floor 2 years ago, many of my conservative colleagues made statements and observations that sufficiently framed this debate.

Senator Allard, the sponsor of this amendment, believes our Founding Fathers never envisioned that we would be changing the very structure of marriage and that we would be changing this core structure of society when he said:

We are in danger of losing a several-thousand-year-old

tradition, one that has been vital to the survival of

civilization itself.

As my colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, said: a small group of activists and judicial elite ``do not have a right to redefine marriage and impose a radical social experiment on our entire society.''

And my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, said: ``If there are not families to raise . . . . children, who will raise them? Who will do that responsibility? It will fall on the State.'' This, to me, is one of the most troubling outcomes of the whole gay marriage debate-- that the State will assume the parenting role of raising and financially supporting children.

Even Senator Reid restated his personal view just yesterday, which he also expressed in 2004, when he said:

I'm personally opposed to same-sex marriage. I think a

marriage should be between a man and woman.

So when 70 percent of the voters in Nevada amended their State constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and when they further amended it in 2002 with a State defense of marriage provision, with Senator Reid's full support, some of us are confused now that Senator Reid thinks restricting marriage to a man and a woman is ``writ[ing] discrimination into the Constitution.''

I would also like to point out that several prominent, respected religious voices in our country have spoken out against the idea of gay marriage and in support of the traditional definition.

According to ``Focus on the Family,'' headed by Dr. James Dobson, family is the fundamental building block of all human civilizations.

Chuck Colson, a man who most people in this body know quite well, was the founder of Prison Fellowship. He has this to say about the prospect of gay marriage:

The redefiners of marriage are working tirelessly. Their

agenda is to tear down traditional marriage and make it

meaningless by removing its distinctives.

The Reverend Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham, acknowledged that:

There is a real movement for same-sex marriage. We could

lose marriage in this country the way that we know it.

Finally, Dr. Jay Alan Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, who has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court recognizes that ``for centuries marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman.''

That is really what this is all about--marriage is between a man and a woman.

Civil authority did not create marriage. Marriage predates the state.

Civil authority chose to recognize it as the preferred union between a man and a woman, because it is reproductive in nature and propagates the survival of civilization itself.

We can dance around it and try to cater to certain groups, but I find something that has served me well for a number of years when something like this comes up, and that is to go back to the Law, go back to the Scriptures.

In Genesis 2:18, 21-24, God said:

It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a

helper comparable to him. . . . and the Lord God caused a

deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of

his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib

which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman,

and He brought her to the man.

And Adam said, ``This is now bone of my bones and flesh of

my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken

out of man.'' Therefore a man shall leave his father and

mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one

flesh. . . .

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus said:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning

made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall

leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and

the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer

two but one flesh

The reason I read these two Scriptures is because they were quoted at a very significant event that took place over 47 years ago. It was when my wife and I were married.

Mr. President, the Senator asked a question. I will be glad to respond to that question.

Mr. President, I am submitting for inclusion in the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office providing cost estimates for two bills ordered reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works on May 23, 2006 and reported without written report to the full Senate on May 24, 2006, S. 801 and S. 2650. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as chairman and on behalf of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I would like to recognize the dedicated public works professionals, engineers, and administrators who represent State and local governments throughout the United States and was pleased to introduce S. Res. 475 proclaiming the week of May 21-May 27, 2006, as National Public Works Week.

As we celebrate the contributions of the tens of thousands of men and women in America who provide and maintain the infrastructure and services that Americans rely on every day, let us not forget these same people are our first responders too. More often than not, they are on the scene before police, fire, and medical personnel. They can be found clearing roads, restoring water and power as well as critical infrastructure lifelines following disasters. Only in the absence of these dutiful public servants, would we truly recognize how valuable their tireless efforts are in providing and maintaining the basic infrastructure that many Americans often take for granted.

America's public infrastructure is the lifeblood of every community. It includes the roads, bridges, public transportation and airports, the drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, the solid waste services and facilities and other important utilities essential to our quality of life. These structures and services help sustain community life, safeguard the environment, protect our health, support our economy and allow people and goods to move safely and efficiently. These structures and services are truly public goods.

Because of my work on the most recent transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59, I have a better appreciation of just how important a reliable, well maintained and fully functioning network of interstate highways and transportation infrastructure is to the Nation. America's transportation system is one of the world's most expensive, with more than 3.9 million miles of roads, 5,300 public-use airports, 26,000 miles of navigable waterways, and more than 173,000 route-miles serviced by buses and rail in urban areas.

Transportation-related goods and services contribute more than $1.3 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product, about 11 percent of the total.

Furthermore, every $1 billion invested in roads and bridges generates approximately 47,500 jobs. Not only are infrastructure investments of the most fundamental and important functions of government, but they are also financially wise.

The Nation's 54,000 community drinking water systems supply drinking water to more than 250 million Americans, and municipal wastewater treatment systems each year prevent billions of tons of pollutants from reaching our rivers, lakes, stream, and coastlines. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants, these water utilities protect human health and preserve the environment. Additionally, our water infrastructure supports a $50 billion a year water-based recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year in basic manufacturing which rely on clean water.

Clearly, public works professionals play a vital role in protecting the environment, improving public health and safety, contributing to economic vitality and enhancing the quality of life of every community of the United States.

I am delighted to use this National Public Works Week to thank them for their diligent and continued service.

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

Mr. President, I inquire as to the regular order and the time agreement reached on the next few amendments.

And the vote will take place at 10 o'clock?

Mr. President, the next amendment coming up will be the amendment we refer to as the English national language amendment. Since there is some time right now, unless someone else wants the floor, I can discuss what it is all about.

I inquire, is someone requesting time?

I thank the Senator.

As I understand it, on our side there is 17 minutes remaining, is that correct, and I can use a few minutes?

I thank the Senator for that generous offer. I will not make any comments at this time and will wait until our amendment is up. We will discuss it then.

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

I ask for the regular order.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors several Senators, including the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senators Alexander and Kyl.

Madam President, this is, I believe, a very significant amendment. We have had an opportunity to talk to people who had problems. In addition to making English the national language, we also unify some of the applications in terms of legalized immigrants.

I have had the honor of speaking at naturalization ceremonies. It is a very warm thing to know that these people come in and do it the legal way, the right way; wherein they have to, and they do, learn the language. We have some language in here that Senator Alexander had suggested that I think makes this a better bill, and I think Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions also have this language. So it goes beyond that.

Basically, what it does is it recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language. It states explicitly that English is our national language, providing English a status in law that it has not had before. It clarifies that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English. It declares that any rights of a person and 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, and establishes enhanced goals of the DHS as redesigned. This is what I talked about in trying to make those more uniform.

I think Senator Alexander wants to make a few comments. I would only say that this is something that is more significant probably to the American people than it is inside this Chamber. I know there is opposition to this. There are some people who don't believe that English should be our national language. 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 succeeding in accordance with the United States, according to the 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

Also, we heard the other day, when President Bush made his very eloquent statement, he said:

An ability to speak and write the English language, English

allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening grocery

stores, from cleaning offices to running offices, from a life

of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of

their own.

So I believe this is something very significant that we are doing today that people have talked about now for four decades that I know of, and I believe it should be popular.

I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Arizona, who was very instrumental in coming up with some good language that made this a better piece of legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frist be added as a cosponsor.

I thank Senator Sessions for the contributions he has made. You and Senator Alexander have both made contributions, and I think it would be appropriate for me to yield some time to Senator Alexander because he can articulate some of the other areas that we are addressing here, other than English as the national language.

First of all, I do appreciate as always the very eloquent Senator from Tennessee giving the historic perspective. I think it is important to understand that virtually every President throughout the history of America has made statements to that effect. Teddy Roosevelt said in a speech:

We must also learn one language and that language is

English.

President Clinton said in his speech in 1999, in talking about immigrants:

New immigrants have a responsibility to enter the

mainstream of American life. That means learning English and

learning about our democratic system of government.

We heard just the other day in a speech given by our President that it is necessary in order to unify us and to leave all the obstacles that are out there.

I thank not just the obvious ones who have been speaking already, but Senator McCain and Senator Graham have been a very important part in making changes, along with Senator Alexander and the occupant of the chair, the junior Senator from Florida.

At this time, I would like to hear from Senator Graham. I yield to him whatever time he desires.

Will the Senator yield so I can answer this question?

First of all, if you look at the second page of the bill, it provides:

Unless otherwise authorized or provided by law. . . .

So we have that set up for exceptions that are already in law.

Now, the Court Interpreters Act was passed in 1978. They did not, prior to that time--there was a problem that corrected. That act, the Court Interpreters Act, protects already existing constitutional rights such as the 6th amendment, the right to confront witnesses speaking against you, and the 5th amendment and 14th amendment and due process. The United States--I think it was in Negron v. New York. That is a Federal case which is often cited to support the right to an interpreter in Federal and State proceedings. So it is Federal and State proceedings. I believe that exception takes care of the problem you have.

Reserving the right to object.

I object.

And for clarification, there would be a vote on the Inhofe amendment at 4:15; is that correct?

Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, we are now going to the Inhofe amendment No. 4064. It is my understanding that we have between now and 4:15, with the time equally divided on my amendment and an alternative amendment that is proposed by Senator Salazar, and I would ask if that is correct.

I thank the Chair for that clarification. It could very well be, and it is my understanding that some others do have an alternative that they want to have considered.

Mr. President, this is an issue that has been with us for a long time. Due to the great history that is very often presented to this Chamber by the occupier of the chair, we went back into history and saw that for hundreds of years we have been trying, many of us, as our forefathers tried, to make English the national language. The last time we had a vote was 1983. In 1983, there was a--I don't remember who the author was at the time, but it was before I even came to the House. But that was 23 years ago. So 23 years it has taken now to get a vote on this issue.

Ours is a very simple amendment. It is very straightforward. We have perfected it by adding things that the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Alabama have asked for, and we think as a result of that, we have a bill that is actually better than ours was when it first started.

I yield.

Yes, that was changed. It was actually written up--they wrote the word ``national'' in the wrong place. It is, ``Declaration of national language.''

Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate the Senator asks that question. We have had a chance to discuss that at some length with a large number of people, and I have stood pretty fast to my belief. Now, keep in mind I am one of the few people around here who is not a lawyer, and therefore sometimes that puts me in a better position to understand the law than some of my lawyer friends. But I would say that when we write down, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law, no person has a right, entitlement, claim,'' et cetera, in the bill, which is the form of the bill that you have seen and that we have all been working on, so my feeling is that language takes care of any problem within the existing law that is on the books.

Mr. President, let me ask if it would be all right, if you have a number of questions--I don't mind yielding, but I would just as soon yield on your time.

Mr. President, I would respond by saying I think the statement stands by itself, speaks for itself. It says, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.'' We are a country of laws, and if there is anything that is inconsistent, that is an exception under section 162.

Mr. President, let me respond.

Mr. President, let me first of all say no, it is not my intent, nor is it the intent of this amendment, to do that. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It does say ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.'' What that says to me is if there are some of these privileges out there that you believe are not in the law, then I would not be addressing those. I think what you are talking about is a matter of law, but I don't know that. I would rather say if it is a matter of law, we are providing an exception. And I guess I would ask you the question, since I now have the floor, do you believe that some of these rights are entitlements?

It is mine.

No, no. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, it is certainly not our intention. And I think what the Senator is saying is that language and national origin are the same when, in fact, I am not saying that language and national origin are the same.

Let me go ahead and try to respond, even though I am speaking to lawyers and I am not one, with some court cases that I think might clarify things for all of us.

Mr. President, let me hold off yielding until I get through with what I am about to say. I was going to mention these this morning, but I would like to go ahead and say where I believe we are today in responding to the question that has already been asked. I think it speaks for itself, but let me see after reading these cases whether you agree with that or not.

All right. I would rather wait until I am through, but go ahead.

Mr. President, it is my understanding--we talked about this before the Senator came in--that we will have two amendments that we will be talking about: the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe amendment. They will be side by side. There will be a vote at 4:15. That vote will take place on my amendment first and then on the Salazar amendment, is my understanding.

Mr. President, first of all, I would like to get into some of the legal background. For the legal analysis, let me start by mentioning Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld who was the author of the seminal Fundamental Legal Conceptions, a powerful and enduring analysis of the nature of rights and the implications of liberty. Hohfeld noted that rights correlate to duties. A has a duty to B if B has a right against A. If A has no duty, that means B has no right and A has liberty, are the terms that he used. Such Hohfeldian analysis applies here.

My amendment makes clear that nobody has a right or entitlement to sue the Federal workers or the Federal Government for services or materials in languages other than English. In Hohfeldian terms, the Federal Government has no duty to provide services or materials in languages other than English, but the Federal Government is free to do so. In other words, they are not compelled to do it, but they may do it, they have the authority to do that.

The question has been asked: How does this amendment affect the X program? Will the Federal Government be free to offer X service or material in Y language? The answer is, yes, the Federal Government is at liberty to offer, can offer, X services or whatever the program is, in whatever language seems to be appropriate, but the Federal Government only has the duty to offer X services and Y language if a statute creates that right.

In other words, we are talking about English as the national language. We are talking about certain exceptions that are written into law, and we have said on page 2 that I have read several times, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.''

That means there are many cases where that would be the case. Again, such examples exist, such as the Voting Rights Act, which provides for bilingual ballots, and the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, which provides for translation services in the Federal courts.

Prior to 1978, there was no such act, and that was not the case. This does not change the decision in the change in law that took place in 1978.

For over 30 years, the courts have ruled uniformly and consistently on these matters, of providing services and materials in languages other than English. Federal courts have rejected attempts to equate a person's language with their national origin in dozens of court cases. This is what I referred to. It seems to me perhaps the other side is trying to say they are one and the same.

But the Federal courts have rejected the attempts to equate a person's language with their national origin in dozens of court cases and court decisions going back more than 30 years. Therefore, any expansion of the concept of national origin to encompass a theory repeatedly rejected by the Federal courts must come explicitly from Congress. It must be a law. It must be something that Congress proposes and passes and not be imposed by a flawed or arbitrary interpretation of the law. Today the Senate is stating that there is no right, entitlement or claim to services and materials in any language other than English. That is assuming we pass our amendment.

I will mention just three of the long, unbroken line of court cases spanning over 30 years.

In 1983 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined in Soberal- Perez v. Heckler, which the Supreme Court let stand, that there is no right to government forms in languages other than English.

In 1994 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined in Toure v. U.S. that there is no right to government deportation notices in languages other than English.

The most recent United States Supreme Court case in this area is Sandoval v. Alexander, the Alabama driver's license case. Justice Scalia wrote the decision in Sandoval in 2001.

The Supreme Court in Sandoval rejected the equation of language and national origin.

Indeed, the Federal courts have repeatedly considered and rejected just this equation of the failure to provide foreign language services and materials with a violation of the prohibition against national origin discrimination.

There is no support in the legislative history or judicial interpretations of title VI for the right or entitlement to Federal Government services or materials in languages other than English. Executive Order 13166 purported to interpret title VI, but it was written before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Sandoval.

This amendment now clarifies in Federal statute the line of cases culminating in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Sandoval case. Here we are making clear that there is no legal basis for Executive Order 13166 that purported to direct services and materials in languages other than English. I state it again clearly: There shall be no right or entitlement to services or materials in languages other than English.

I ask unanimous consent additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I know we can get bogged down. I suspect the reason this particular amendment that has been proposed numerous times in the past but not in the last 23 years, and that it is going to get bogged down on a lot of technical questions, is that perhaps some people do not want this amendment, so they come up with all kinds of technical reasons to oppose it. But what we are doing is declaring--we are making a declaration--that English is the national language for the United States of America.

We are taking the exceptions, for example, the Court Interpreters Act. Before the Court Interpreters Act passed in 1978, defendants did not have a right to an interpreter. It was up to the Court's discretion. The Court Interpreters Act protects already existing constitutional rights such as in the sixth amendment, the fifth amendment, the 14th amendment, amendments on due process. It is very important to know that is one of the many exceptions that is written into law. It is a very important exception.

You also have some exceptions found in the Voting Rights Act. Somebody mentioned this morning some disaster could take place in California, a tsunami or something such as that, and when the eviction notices come, obviously, if you are addressing Chinatown, it would be in Chinese. We know that. That protection is there.

I believe we have covered the legitimate concerns that are out there. I know there are some people who do not want this to happen who are going to vote against this. I understand that. That is what this is all about. It has been 23 years since we had an opportunity to vote for it or against it. Those of you who want to vote against it, you are going to have your opportunity at 4:15 today. In the meantime I agree with the Presidents--almost every President of the United States going back long before Teddy Roosevelt. One of the things he said is, ``We must also learn one language and that language is English.'' As we remember, President Bill Clinton in his State of the Union Message in 1999 got a standing ovation when he said that our new immigrants have a responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life. That means learning English and learning about our Democratic system of government.

I agree with that. I didn't agree with everything that President Clinton said, but I certainly was one who stood and applauded during that State of the Union Message in 1999.

I think other Presidents have done the same thing as recently as a few days ago, when our President said that an ability to speak and write the English language, English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to renting offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to a diplomat career and a home of their own.

This is an opportunity. We look at people who come to this country and, oddly enough, those individuals that I have spent many hours with--I say to my good friend from Colorado that when I was mayor of Tulsa, we had never had any kind of recognition of our Latin population. Yet I knew it was a very large population. I would say to you, at that time I used to be a commercial pilot in Mexico and I actually spoke the language fairly well at that time. It has been many years, 25, 30 years, I guess. But when I became a mayor I said: I know around here we are very rich in history and have a talented bunch of people who have come here and are good citizens of our city of Tulsa. So I formed the Hispanic Commission of the city of Tulsa. This may or may not surprise you. Some of them were kind of in hiding, not even recognizing that they were Hispanics, and they came out. We had the Cinco de Mayo and all the celebrations there. It is probably the most popular thing that has ever been done in the city of Tulsa.

I went back and talked to these people. I said: Do you agree with the polling data that shows very clearly that Hispanics want to have English as the national language? And they said yes. This is a group I have been dealing with since 1978.

I think it may be someone's impression that certain extremist groups--and I am sure there are some extremist groups that have a large number of Latinos in them. They may be offended. They may not want to have this. That is fine. Let them exercise their influence on every voter, each of the 100 Members of this body. That is the way the system works.

But I will say this. Jumping from the ones I know and the ones I have had experience with back in my city of Tulsa, the Hispanic population is very proud of the fact that they are going to learn English, and it should be our national language. As recently as 2 months ago, a Zogby poll, in March of 2006, found that 84 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of the Hispanics, believe English should be the official language of Government operations. In 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation poll--which I don't think anyone is going to question--found 91 percent of the foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeeding in the United States. In 2002, there is also a Carnegie/Public Agenda poll that found by a more than 2-to-1 margin, immigrants themselves say that the United States should expect new immigrants to learn English.

My favorite poll is this one. In 2004, the National Council of LaRaza found that 97 percent--strongly 86.4 percent or somewhat 10.9 percent-- agreed that the ability to speak English is important to succeed in this country. That is a no-brainer. We all know that. There is not a country you go to where that is not true.

I would say this. There are 50 other countries around the world today that have English as their national language. In these countries, they expect you, when you come to their country, to learn English. But if you go to another country, if it is Italy or France or any other country, you are expected to be able to communicate in their language.

In 1988, G. Lawrence Research showed 87 percent favored English as an official language with only 8 percent opposed and 5 percent not sure. That was 1988. Very consistent; about the same numbers. A 1996, national survey by Luntz Research asked, ``Do you think English should be made the official language of the United States?'' and 86 percent of Americans supported making English the official language and only 12 percent opposed and only 2 unsure. That was 1996.

In 2000, Public Opinion Strategies, showed 84 percent favored English as the official language, with only 12 percent opposed and 4 percent not sure.

In 2004 another Zogby poll, that was a different one than the one I quoted, but 92 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents favored making English the national language. Again, that was a March poll of Zogby. It is consistent throughout.

You have some things working here. You have everybody wanting it, including the Latin community. You have more than half the States, 27 of the 50 States--27 States have accepted English as an official language, including Colorado, I might add, I say to my good friend from Colorado. Let's see where Illinois is. Yes, Illinois. You don't have a problem in Illinois. You already have it as a State concept that has been accepted.

So if you have 27 States, you have 51 other nations accepting English as the national language, you have all the polling data showing this is what people want, you have an exception made so no one is going to lose anything by doing it this way, then I can only come to the conclusion that you don't want it as the national language.

That is fine. That is good. If that is the case, we are going to have a vote at 4:15 and make that determination.

Before I yield, let me ask how our time is coming along.

I yield the floor at this point.

Do I personally want that? No, I don't. This amendment doesn't do that because it makes those exceptions because what you are referring to is the law.

It is my understanding, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that the courts already have had some interpretations of that which perhaps are not the same as you are stating right now. What the courts have interpreted I stand behind because that means it is law. That is according to my amendment.

You will have an opportunity to have that in your side- by-side amendment that will be voted on after mine. My answer is no because we have already massaged this language. A lot of people are supporting this. If I start changing things now, as you well know, they are going to start peeling off, and I won't have the support I have right now. We will have an opportunity to vote on my amendment. Then we will have an opportunity to vote on whatever language you decide to put in, in your amendment.

Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Tennessee requires.

Mr. President, I know the minority leader has several speakers who want to speak. I also know that virtually everyone on our side is wanting to stay with the 4:15 vote.

What I would like to do, of course, is encourage the minority leader to use his leader time if necessary but go ahead and allow anyone on the other side to use time at this time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

You mentioned several things. I believe the last one you mentioned was covered in the Court Interpreters Act of 1978. It does allow you to have that, and it is actually written into law.

I would also suggest that these are already in law. This is not something that has to be done.

Those protections are specifically exempted on page 2.

Mr. President, let me go ahead and respond.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the manager has agreed to allow 45 more minutes for the other side; is that correct?

That is acceptable.

Mr. President, one request I would have, if the Senator would yield for a moment.

Mr. President, when Senator Salazar wants to make a correction, I have a correction to make at the same time. We could do that right now, if you want to do it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment on page 2, to change the word ``official'' to the word ``national.''

If the Senator from California could hold off for a minute, I think we have heard some very eloquent statements in opposition to an amendment that doesn't exist. We could stand up and talk about the flags of the different States. This has nothing to do with that. Yes, I have made probably five speeches on the floor in Spanish. Every time we did, I had to go up and put it down in English for the Record. I don't mind that. This has nothing to do with that. As far as there being nothing in here encouraging people, if you look at section 767, this is encouraging people and helping people to learn the English language, a concept that 90 percent of Hispanics in America want. I just hope that anyone listening realizes that these are excellent arguments, but they have nothing to do with this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, again, it is a beautiful statement in opposition to an amendment that doesn't exist. When the Senator from California talks about emergencies and an emergency evacuation, I previously used the example of California because I suspected she might be coming down. That is, if there is an evacuation or some emergency, it can be done in Chinese so Chinatown can all evacuate. That is not a problem.

Yet when I spoke on the floor in Spanish, the only reason I had to translate it is because that is one of the rules of the Senate. It has nothing to do with this bill. That would not be affected in any way.

I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 8 minutes.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

I don't have time. We were very generous in giving you time, I would remind you.

Mr. President, where in this bill does it say you can't put those signs up, or where does it say in this bill that my speech that I made in Spanish would not be able to be included in the Congressional Record?

If the gentleman will yield, colloquy goes two ways. Let me just respond.

Mr. President, just one comment.

First of all, I request that the minority leader not use leadership time since he now has 45 more minutes than we have, but that is just a request.

I would say this: We have a very short period of time to wind up. I would have to say that all of these ridiculous examples, such as the one the Senator from Illinois just came up with and the flag examples, have nothing to do with this amendment. It might be some other amendment that was referred to. This merely recognizes and declares English to be our national language. We have exceptions for anything that is in there in law or would refer to anything else that is accepted.

Mr. President, I would like to ask, how much time do we have remaining?

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

Mr. President, I think it is very obvious what is going on here. It has been 23 years since we have had a chance to vote on it. It probably will be the last time most Members--maybe all of the Members in this Chamber--will have a chance to vote to make English the national language.

Those who are offering this amendment today don't want English to be the national language. They use the word ``common,'' the common language.

Those opposing this amendment want an entitlement to have the Federal Government provide for language, services, and materials. They can do it now. If you pass this bill, they can still do it. It is just not mandatory. It is not something that can't be done; it doesn't have to be done. They say that national origin equates to language. Their claims are consistently refuted by the Federal Government, the most recent one being in 2001, the Sandoval case.

The opponents of this don't want people learning English but instead being served in foreign languages.

I think it is interesting that the word ``racist'' was used. I just wish the people here knew what has happened in the past and what I have been involved in in my State of Oklahoma. This is not the time to repeat what I said earlier. But the bottom line is I received the highest award given by the Hispanic community in the city of Tulsa. I started the first Hispanic community commission, and it is now a model for the Nation.

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 May 18, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The Report of the Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to met during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to mark up S. 1811, the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act;'' S. 633, the ``American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act;'' and S. 2784, the ``Fourteenth Dalai Lama Gold Medal Act.''

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 10 a.m. on S. 2686, the Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for an Executive Session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for an Executive Session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the nomination of W. Ralph Basham, of Virginia, to be Commissioner of Customs, Department of Homeland Security.

TE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iran's Political/Nuclear Ambitions and U.S. Policy Options.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Robert I. Cusick to be Director of the Office of Government Ethics.

PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a confirmation hearing on General Michael V. Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Aging be authorized to meet May 18, 2006 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Unobligated Balances: Freeing up Funds, Setting Priorities and Untying Agency Hands.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nepal: Transition from Crisis to Peaceful Democracy.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that we have under unanimous consent my amendment and then a Democratic amendment and then the Ensign amendment. Is the Senator talking about changing that order?

Mr. President, I believe we are ready with our amendment, and under the unanimous consent we would be next. We are making some modifications right now. We could use a little time. We are ready to go in our place in line, unless it works out by unanimous consent that Senator Ensign and I change places so that my amendment would come up after the next Democratic amendment. That is what I will be willing to do.

I ask unanimous consent that we stay on the current unanimous consent request, with the exception that Senator Ensign's amendment be traded with mine, and I will take his place after the next amendment.

No. I respectfully say to the chairman that we are ready to go with our amendment, and the unanimous consent request propounded by the minority leader has a Democratic amendment prior to mine. I don't know. Is that still in the order? I ask if it is. If it is not, I ask for regular order.

The previous unanimous consent has been negated; is that my understanding?

How, might I ask, did that happen?

Reserving the right to object, the problem is, I say respectfully to our chairman, we are being left out of this queue. If we are going right now to a Democratic amendment, under the regular order I should be the next amendment. As it is now, it would be the Cornyn amendment and then the Democratic amendment.

If I could ask the acting majority leader a question, it is my understanding the Lieberman amendment that was to be the Democratic amendment between the two Republicans amendments is now not going to be offered, at least at this time; that being the case, would the Senator object to setting the current amendment aside for me to bring mine up for consideration? Is this what the Senator is objecting to?

Will the Senator yield?

Is there any time that has been scheduled for his amendment?

Mr. President, I would like to ask one more question. After the Cornyn amendment, we will go to the Kennedy amendment. I am locked in after that; is that our understanding?

And this Senator.

It is our understanding, then, after we dispose of the Kennedy amendment, then we come to my amendment; is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment and bring up amendment No. 4064.

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

I know we will have a vote at 6 o'clock, so I will paraphrase a few things so everyone will know in advance what we are doing.

This is English as the national language amendment. We talked about it at length last night. It has been very popular and enjoyed the support of most of the Members in the Senate today.

We heard the other night when the President made his speech, among other things:

. . . an ability to speak and write the English language is

very significant . . . English allows newcomers to go from

picking crops to opening a grocery . . . from cleaning

offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying

jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own.

He also said:

Every new citizen of the United States has an obligation to

our customs and values, including liberty and civic

responsibility, equality under God and tolerance for others

and the English language.

I recall President Clinton standing on the floor and making the statement about the responsibility of new people coming into this country. He said:

. . . they have the responsibility to enter the mainstream

of American life. That means learning English and learning

about our democratic system of government.

Many others have been quoted, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, that we must also learn one language. That language is English.

This has been aired quite a number of times. In 1997, Senator Shelby offered the amendment and never got a vote on the amendment, but he did have a number of Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors of the amendment. We currently have Senators Byrd, Bunning, Burns, Chambliss, Coburn, Enzi, and Sessions as cosponsors of this amendment, and we have not made an effort to get more cosponsors which we will do prior to bringing it up after the Kennedy amendment.

The time has come to go ahead and do it and quit talking about it. This time is now.

There has been a lot of polling data that shows that the vast majority of Americans, the most recent one being the Zogby poll only a couple of months ago, 84 percent of Americans want this as the language. Interestingly enough, when they segregate out the Latinos who responded to the polling, over 70 percent in many polls--which I will go over when there is more time--support this as our national language.

Of course.

We would be joining 51 other countries that have English as their language; 27 States have used this language in the State legislature to make this their language.

The national language, yes.

There are, yes. There are some.

First of all, there are some exceptions. Our language says ``except where otherwise provided in law.'' There are some exceptions. For example, before the Court Interpreters Act, passed in 1978, defendants did not have the right to an interpreter. It was up to the court's own discretion. In 1978, they said that they did. This has not changed that. This leaves that in place. We also have the bilingual ballots requirement, Voting Rights Act. That is not changed by this. Maybe it should be changed, but that should take special legislation that addresses the Voting Rights Act.

The national disaster emergency evacuation provides if you had something in California, for example, where there was a tsunami, you could use the Chinese language in Chinatown, in places where it is appropriate. It leaves those common sense things in place.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I also would like to say, our family came from Germany, and that is the first thing they did, too.

Amendment No. 3965, as Modified

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the minority leader for that quick response to my request. I know we are all anxious to get as many amendments up and taken care of as possible.

I know we cannot do this until probably tomorrow sometime, and it is our understanding there is now a unanimous consent for Senators Kyl, Obama, Sessions, a Democrat, and then me. With that, if no others want to be heard on the amendments, I would like to visit about the amendment we will take up tomorrow.

Mr. President, in his speech, the President endorsed the idea that people immigrating to this country should assimilate and learn English.

I will quote from his speech:

. . . We must honor the great American tradition of the

melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many

peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping

newcomers assimilate into society, and embrace our common

identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our

shared ideals, an appreciation for our history, respect for

the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the

English language. English is also the key to unlocking the

opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from

picking crops to opening a grocery . . . from cleaning

offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying

jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When

immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they

realize their dreams . . . they renew our spirit . . . and

they add to the unity of Americans.

Last November, speaking to an audience in Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, President Bush again stated his support for immigrants to learn English. He said:

Every new citizen of the United States has an obligation to

learn our custom and our values, including liberty and civic

responsibility, equality under God and tolerance for others,

and the English language.

So this has been very specific. Ronald Reagan addressed it many times, certainly, in the State of the Union Message. I recall being here in 1999, when President Bill Clinton at that time said:

Our new immigrants . . . have a responsibility to enter the

mainstream of America. That means learning English.

It goes on and on and on. I think almost every Member has at one time or another talked in the Senate about the reasons it is necessary for the English language to be part of any kind of an immigration bill.

Today, once again, I am offering my English amendment, No. 3996, along

with my colleagues, Senators Sessions, Coburn, Burns, Bunning, and others. My amendment follows Congressman Peter King's bill, H.R. 4408, as well as Senator Shelby's bill, S. 323, from the 105th Congress, by making English the official language and requiring all official business of the United States to be conducted in English.

It also allows exceptions. This is very important because arguments have been made against it. But there are exceptions where our law specifically says something should be done in another language, such things as protecting someone's legal rights to make sure they understand what their privileges are, what their responsibilities are when they are served.

Also, recently, when we experienced Hurricane Katrina, where an evacuation order was issued, that order could be delivered by the Federal Government in necessary languages to get the message out.

So we have taken care of these problems.

I would suggest there are three main reasons to adopt this amendment. One is for unity and assimilation. To begin with, as the President has said numerous times, learning English is vital to achieving assimilation, assimilating yourself into society. So many people are looking at illegals who are coming over and getting jobs, but they do not stop and think about the fact that in order to become a citizen, you have to assimilate into society so you can enjoy the benefits. They do not come naturally. You have to make it happen.

President Theodore Roosevelt echoed this point at a luncheon for the National Americanization Committee on February 1, 1916. He said:

Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn

English, but that he has got to learn it. . . . He has got to

consider the interest of the United States or he should not

stay here.

It goes all the way back for many years. Our leaders have reiterated this. Our country is made up of immigrants from all over the world, immigrants who have joined together under common ideas, common beliefs, and a common language to function as ``one nation under God.''

As we allow great numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, into the country, we are overwhelming the assimilation process and creating what some have called ``linguistic ghettos,'' segregating these immigrants into a massive underclass who are not able to obtain good-paying jobs and climb out of poverty and Government dependency.

By not requiring immigrants to assimilate and learn English, we are also undermining our unity and importing dangerous, deadly philosophies that go against our American ideals.

September 11 is an example of this, as Muslim extremists executed their jihadist philosophy against the United States and caused thousands of Americans to lose their lives.

The second thing to be considered is the cost. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that it costs taxpayers between $1 billion and $2 billion to provide language assistance under President Clinton's Executive order that came out during his Presidency.

There are also enormous costs associated with the mandate that local governments provide multilingual ballots. For example, Los Angeles County taxpayers spent over $1.1 million in 1996 to provide multilingual voting assistance in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Filipino, according to a GAO report.

In 2002, Los Angeles's multilingual election costs more than doubled to $3.3 million, according to the Associated Press.

The third reason is, this is something the American people want. All the American people want it. I have never seen anything polled more consistently than this issue has been polled. Three national associations are dedicated solely to this amendment: U.S. English, English First, and Pro-English.

Senator Specter's Judiciary Committee invited this amendment in the Legislative Directors' meeting in the Republican Policy Committee by saying it ``welcomed amendments on English'' as a means to enhance ``assimilation'' of immigrants.

This issue has raised millions of dollars in direct mail over the years. These donors must include populists, given the huge levels of support. No other amendment has been more thoroughly vetted. This concept has been around for decades, indeed, for centuries. Historically, the legislation has been bipartisan.

In 1997, several of us joined Senator Shelby in his official English bill. It was a bipartisan bill with 21 cosponsors, including Democrats Hollings and Byrd and many others. And over 150 current Members of the House of Representatives have cosponsored official English legislation.

Most of the States--27--have made English their official language. This is kind of interesting. The vast majority of the States, on their own, on a State basis, have made English the official language.

There are 51 nations around the world that have made English their official language, but we have not. Now, can you explain to me why Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have made English their official language, yet the United States has not?

The pollsters, consistently over the last 20 years, have all shown positive results at levels in the 80s, the 80-percentile range. In 1988, G. Lawrence Research showed 87 percent favored English as the official language, with only 8 percent opposed and 5 percent not sure.

A 1996 national survey by Luntz Research asked: Do you think English should be made the official language of the United States? Eighty-six percent of Americans supported making English the official language. Only 12 percent opposed it.

Eighty-one percent of first-generation immigrants, 83 percent of second-generation immigrants, and 87 percent of third- and fourth- generation immigrants supported making English the official language.

I think a lot of people have this misunderstanding that this is some kind of a protectionist issue. Yet the vast majority of Latinos, the vast majority of immigrants have supported this, also.

In 2000, Public Opinion Strategies showed 84 percent favored English as the official language, with only 12 percent opposing.

Ninety-two percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents favor making English the official language. That is according to a 2004 Zogby International poll.

Another Zogby International poll question on official English--this poll is a month old, conducted between March 14 and 16 of 2006--said: Five out of six likely voters support official English. When informed the United States has no official language, five out of six likely voters--84 percent--agree the country should make English the official language. The majority of Hispanic voters support official English. An overwhelming majority of likely Hispanic voters--71 percent--agree the country should make English the official language.

A bipartisan majority support official English. Official English is not an ``extreme'' position. Eighty-four percent of self-identified ``moderate'' voters support English as the official language.

Hispanics also agree learning English is important. So it is not just that it is the right thing to do, it is what they can do for themselves. The National Council of LaRaza, which opposes official English, commissioned a 2004 Zogby poll showing that Latinos believe in the importance of learning English. Over 97 percent strongly agreed that ``the ability to speak English is important to succeed in this country.''

In south Florida, Hispanics back English, according to a 2005 University of Miami School of Communications/Zogby International survey. ``How important is it for Hispanics who immigrate to the United States to adopt American culture?'' Seventy percent said it is very important. These are Hispanics who are responding.

The December 2002 Pew Hispanic Center/Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation National Survey of Latinos asked:

Do you think adult Latino immigrants need to learn English

to succeed in the United States or can they succeed even if

they only speak Spanish?

About 9 in 10--89 percent--of Latinos indicate that they believe immigrants need to learn to speak English to succeed in the United States.

And this goes on and on and on. There should not be any question in anyone's mind that one of the most

popular notions out there is for us to adopt English as the official language.

Finally, according to ProEnglish, a group dedicated to making English the official language, one out of every five Americans speaks a language other than English at home.

Referring to immigrants speaking English in our country, Congressman Steve King of Iowa said:

I don't think the immigrants are the problem; I think it is

the people at the border that are telling them that they

don't have to learn English, should not have to and keep them

in these cultural enclaves so that then allows them to

control the immigrants and gives them political power.

I believe we are doing a great disservice if we do not recognize this as one of the true, great issues of our time. There is no more appropriate time than during the consideration of this immigration bill to bring this out and finally do something we have talked about doing now for over 100 years and getting it done and getting it done on this bill.

Mr. President, let me repeat how much I appreciate the minority leader allowing me to get into the queue. We look forward to having this debated and voted on tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fallen son of Oklahoma who died while defending his Nation, SSG Lance M. Chase.

Staff Sergeant Chase grew up in Midwest City Oklahoma and graduated from Midwest City High School in 1991 after playing football there. He was also an avid fisherman and fan of NASCAR. Before joining the Army in 1995, Staff Sergeant Chase spent 20 months working for the Oklahoma City Sheriff's Office as a detention officer alongside his father who is a Reserve officer and member of the sheriff's bomb squad.

Staff Sergeant Chase was assigned to 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood Texas. There he trained other soldiers on how to maintain and move M1A2 Abrams tanks and was an honored marksman. After returning from his first tour of duty in Iraq, he got involved with efforts sending books and hygiene products to the Iraqi people. He told his wife Kristen that his biggest joy was seeing Iraqi children returning to their local schools.

Before Staff Sergeant Chase went to Iraq, he told his two sons-- Brett, who is 11 years old, and Trevor, who is 9 years old, that he would rather fight this type of terrorist war on their soil than to fight it on our own soil where his children would be in danger. Staff Sergeant Chase was in his second tour of duty in Iraq on January 23, 2006, when his M1A2 Abrams tank was hit by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq. He was 32 years old. SSG Chase clearly understood our mission in Iraq and felt that he had helped to make the lives of the Iraqi people better. Staff Sergeant Lance M. Chase deserves to be remembered for the fine soldier that he was and the sacrifice that he made for us.

Staff Sergeant John G. Doles

Mr. President, I wish to honor a brave soldier from Oklahoma who gave his life in service of this Nation. SSG John Doles of the U.S. Army embodies the spirit and values that have protected this country's freedom and continue to spread hope to the far corners of the world.

Sergeant Doles was an ``all-American kid'' he grew up in Chelsea, OK, riding horses and playing football. Sergeant Doles joined the Army in 2000 and attended Airborne School at Fort Benning, GA. He went on to become a Ranger and told his father that this was what he wanted to do with his life because he loved his country.

Sergeant Doles was also a devoted family man. He left behind a wife, Heather, and two children, Logan and Breanna. After his tour in Afghanistan, he planned to reenlist and become an instructor at the Army Ranger Camp at Fort Benning, GA, so he could be closer to his family.

Sergeant Doles was no stranger to the hazards of duty. He participated in one of the largest combat jumps since World War II. His unit parachuted into northern Iraq in March of 2003 with the ``Red Devils.'' This major operation assisted in the swift liberation of Iraq. Sergeant Doles was a squad leader of about a dozen soldiers with the 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry Regiment, part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. On Friday September 30, 2005, he was killed in an ambush in Shah Wali, Afghanistan. He was 29 years old.

Sergeant Doles gave his utmost to his family and his country. He has left behind many who saw firsthand what a true hero he was. As a son of Oklahoma and a fine example of what this country stands for, Staff Sergeant Doles deserves our honor and remembrance.

Private First Class Travis J. Grigg

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a remarkable man. PFC Travis J. Grigg was an Oklahoman through-and-through: a hard worker,

dedicated, friendly, and a lover of his family and country. Those who knew him best remembered him as athletic and caring more about others than himself. He graduated from Inola High School, of Inola, OK, in 1999 and was a starter on the football, basketball, and baseball teams. He entered the U.S. Army in 2004, proudly serving his Nation in Iraq for about a year.

According to his family, Private First Class Grigg found his niche in the Army. He was a team player and a responsible man who once commented, ``I feel like we're helping some people over here.'' He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. He joined the Army to earn money for college to become a teacher and football coach, but after joining, he decided that he wanted to become a firefighter like his father.

November 15, 2005, in Taji, Iraq, Private First Class Grigg was one of four individuals in a HMMWV that was hit when an improvised explosive device detonated. Tragically he, along with four other soldiers, did not survive the incident. He was 24 years old.

Private First Class Grigg will be missed by his father, four sisters, and two brothers. His sacrifice will not soon be forgotten by them his friends, his fellow soldiers, or by his country. I ask that we take this time to honor his name and his life.

Petty Officer Second Class Brian K. Joplin

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a son of Oklahoma, Petty Officer Brian K. Joplin.

Petty Officer Joplin grew up in Hugo, OK and was assigned to Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15, based at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, TX. He was an aviation machinist and was known as a mechanic whose talent was second to none. Petty Officer Joplin was always willing to donate his time to his friends and neighbors. He spent his Memorial Day weekend of 2005 repairing and certifying a vintage B-25 Mitchell Bomber that was very much like the one his grandfather flew in World War II.

Petty Officer Joplin was deployed to Iraq in June of 2005. On Tuesday October 4, 2005, he was on a training mission when he fell from his MH- 53 Sea Dragon helicopter and was killed. He was 32 years old.

Petty Officer Joplin is survived by his wife of 12 years, Belinda, and his daughters, Tori and Alicia. They will always remember a loving husband and father who had a great sense of humor, patience, and forgiveness and our thoughts are with them. We remember Petty Officer Joplin for his service, dedication, and love of his country, and at the same time, we recognize his valor and commitment. He will not be forgotten. It is because of men like Petty Officer Joplin that I am proud to be a part of this great country. He was a special soldier, a true Oklahoman, and a true American.

Private First Class David J. Martin

Mr. President, I rise to pay homage to Army PFC David J. Martin, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country with his life. Although he was only 21 years old, Private First Class Marshall was a dedicated defender of America and knew the value of freedom and the sacrifices freedom sometimes demands. For his service, I am proud to honor him on the Senate floor today.

Private First Class Martin was a member of the Second Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, of the 101st Airborne Division. A native Oklahoman from Edmond, Private First Class Martin was one of four sons of Richard and Janet Martin. Private First Class Martin's mother is the president of the Edmond and North Oklahoma City Chapter of the Blue Star Mothers, a support group for mothers whose children are in the military and also send care packages to our soldiers in Iraq. We hold her in our prayers as all of her sons are serving our country in some way. Private First Class Martin's younger brother, Daniel, also enlisted last year, and his older brothers, Neil and Andrew, are police officers in Edmond, OK.

After graduating from Edmond North High School in 2002, Private First Class Martin briefly attended the University of Central Oklahoma and was a member of the ROTC unit there before enlisting in the Army. He earned an Army Achievement Medal during his training in Fort Benning, GA, for being an outstanding leader.

Private First Class Martin had only been in Iraq for a month when he was tragically killed. On October 31, 2005, the humvee he and three other fellow soldiers were riding in was struck by an improvised explosive device in Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq. I ask that the U.S. Senate now pay tribute to PFC David Martin, a man who knew the true meaning of service and sacrifice. I am proud of him and proud of his demonstrated commitment to winning the freedom of those he did not know. We will not forget this Oklahoman hero, this American patriot--PFC David Martin.

First Sergeant Tobias C. Meister

Mr. President, I stand today to honor the memory of a brave American who gave his life defending the Nation. He felt a call to serve his country, to be part of something bigger than himself, and ultimately he paid the highest price. First Sergeant Tobias C. Meister, of Jenks, OK, was assigned to the Army's 321st Civil Affairs Brigade which was deployed to Afghanistan.

First Sergeant Meister was born in Remsen, Iowa and joined the Iowa National Guard in 1992, 2 years prior to graduating from Ramsen-Union Community High School in Iowa. He was an infantryman before transferring to the Reserves in 1998 and attending the University of Texas at San Antonio. There he earned a business degree and later took a job in Tulsa, OK, with the oil and gas firm Horizon Natural Resources.

First Sergeant Meister was an accomplished martial artist who was undefeated as a kickboxer. Those who fought against him knew immediately he was a fierce competitor. One of his opponents said that Meister weighed about ``165 pounds and you knew 100 pounds of it was heart if you saw him fight.'' He loved martial arts and the discipline that it required.

First Sergeant Meister was a drill sergeant and had been named the Army Reserve's Drill Sergeant of the Year in 2002. In 2004, he decided to join those he had been training for combat. On December 28, 2005 in Asadabad, Afghanistan, he was killed at the age of 30 during combat patrol operations when an improvised explosive device was detonated near his humvee.

First Sergeant Meister gave his life for the freedom of millions of Americans and also for the peace and prosperity of the Afghani people crippled by a totalitarian regime. He is survived by his wife Alicia and 18-month-old son Will. The loss of this exemplary husband, father, and soldier is a loss we all feel; our thoughts and prayers are especially with his family and friends. He knew that he and his fellow soldiers were fighting to protect America, to keep their Nation safe. It is for men like First Sergeant Meister that I am proud to be a part of this great country. He was a special soldier, a special man, and a defender of our freedom.

Technical Sergeant Jason L. Norton

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a man who paid the last full measure for the protection of our freedom. TSgt Jason L. Norton was from Miami, OK, and was assigned to the 3rd Security Forces Squadron at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska serving as a patrol and security officer training police canines. He had been deployed to Iraq in November of 2005.

Technical Sergeant Norton joined the Air Force in 1992 after graduating from Miami High School in 1991, where he played football and wrestled. His Air Force career took him to many different places. He was known as smart, easy to talk to, and always willing to share what he knew with others. He earned 17 medals, including an Air Force Commendation Medal, 4 Air Force Achievement Awards, and 2 Air Force Expeditionary Service Medals. He enjoyed his time in Alaska, earning a reputation as a great Alaskan hunter while also providing his time as a father figure to children who needed one.

For Technical Sergeant Norton, family was everything. Even though he was stationed 4,000 miles away in Alaska, he made a point to return home often to see his family. He met his wife Cristina while he was serving at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma, and they have two children, a daughter, Rebecca, who is 8 years old, and a son Dalton, who is 7. He has been described as a great father who showed an equal devotion to his lifelong friends. Once he traveled back to Oklahoma from Alaska to attend the funeral for the

wife of a longtime friend who had died of cancer.

On January 22, 2006, TSgt Jason L. Norton's vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while conducting a convoy escort in the vicinity of Taji, Iraq. He was 32 years old, and the Air Force posthumously awarded him the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Mr. President, we have lost a shining example of dedication, service, and sacrifice for others and should never forget the sacrifice of TSgt Jason L. Norton.

Army Specialist Joshua M. Pearce

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a young man from Oklahoma, Army SPC Joshua M. Pearce, who knew what it meant to be a soldier and was willing to pay the ultimate price for our freedom.

Specialist Pearce was from Guymon, OK, and was a baseball pitcher on the Guymon High School baseball team who was voted ``Life of the Party'' and ``Best Looking'' by his senior classmates in 2003. He always wanted to be a soldier, so he enlisted in the Army right after graduation, joining his older brother, Jeremy, in the Armed Forces. Specialist Pearce was described by friends and family alike as a person who always made everybody in the room smile.

Specialist Pearce was deployed to Iraq as a part of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team that is stationed at Fort Wainwright, AK. Over the 6 months he served in Iraq, he talked to his mother, Becky Hilliard, through e-mail, telephone, or instant messaging on a daily basis. In an open letter he wrote on September 11, 2005, Specialist Pearce stated that ``I am not here to kill someone; I am here to help as many as I can live a better life. If killing some people to save the life of a fellow soldier happens to fall in the agenda, so be it. We drive down the streets of these little towns and see little children on the corners bare-footed asking for water, food, or whatever they can get.'' He told his sister, Heidi Barncastle, that ``he was doing this so his nephews didn't have to.''

Specialist Pearce was riding in his Stryker military vehicle on February 26, 2006 near Mosul, Iraq, when it was hit with an improvised explosive device. He was 21 years old. Specialist Pearce did not want his friends and family to mourn his loss should he die. He was doing what he always wanted to do and believed in the mission that he was on. Mr. President, we will not forget this Oklahoma hero and American patriot, SPC Joshua M. Pearce, who died doing something that he loved.

Private First Class Joshua Francis Powers

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Oklahoma's brave soldiers who has given us the last full measure to protect our freedom. PFC Joshua Francis Powers' sacrifice for his country should never be forgotten.

Private First Class Powers was from Skiatook, OK. He joined the Army in July of 2005, 1 month after earning his GED. He was remembered as an even-tempered soul who had varied interests from collecting swords and knives, making soap for senior citizens, fishing, and just simply hitting golf balls out into the pasture to occupy his time. He had a penchant for reading, sewing, playing video games, and often served as a peacemaker between his brothers, Michael and Jonathan. He was also a devout son who would often fix his mother Patrica's frozen pipes before he was asked to.

Private First Class Powers was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 592nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY. After joining the Army, he was worried that his dog, Spunky, who had been his pet since he was in kindergarten, would die of old age before he got home. Private First Class Powers had been in Iraq for only 2\1/2\ weeks before he died of noncombat related injuries. He was 21 years old. Mr. President, we should always remember those who served the way PFC Joshua Francis Powers served and sacrificed for our freedom.

Corporal Jeffry A. Rogers

Mr. President, I wish to honor a true hero who, on November 16, 2005, gave his life while serving in Iraq. Cpl Jeffry Alan Rogers is an example of the selfless dedication that is essential to maintaining this country's freedom.

Corporal Rogers was from Oklahoma City and attended Putnam City North High School. He was one of six from the class of 2002 who enlisted in the military after graduating. He insisted on enlisting in the Marines after witnessing the horrors of September 11 saying, ``We have to keep our world safe. We have to protect our people.''

Corporal Rogers became an outstanding marine assigned to F. Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Division in Camp Pendleton, CA. His high test scores earned him an invitation to join the security forces and a $50,000 scholarship. He suggested to his parents that they build a house with the money that they had saved for his college education, and he even designed the house where his family now lives in Yukon, OK.

Corporal Rogers is remembered as a courteous and loving man who always said the little things that mean a lot to people. His commanders fondly recall how he invested into those under him and helped them set goals.

In his last letter to his parents, he quoted John 15:13 saying ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' Mr. President, Cpl Jeffry Rogers indeed demonstrated this deepest love. At 21 years of age, he put aside his own safety, volunteering to serve in the most dangerous of professions. He gave everything, and his sacrifice will be remembered by friends, family, and all of us who are profoundly indebted to him.

Technical Sergeant Patrick L. Shannon

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a son of Oklahoma who after over 37 years has finally returned home. TSgt Patrick L. Shannon was serving his country in the Vietnam War when he was declared missing in action in 1968 after the radar site he and 18 other servicemen were operating in Laos was attacked by North Vietnamese commandos. We now know that Technical Sergeant Shannon did not survive the attack. He was 30 years old.

Technical Sergeant Shannon was from Owasso, OK, and was operating a radar installation Lima Site 85 atop the Pha Thi Mountain in the Houaphan Province in Laos, which was approximately 13 miles south of the border with North Vietnam. Lima Site 85 was helping to direct U.S. bombing missions of key targets in North Vietnam. On the morning of March 11, 1968, the site was overrun by North Vietnamese commandos. Only 7 of the 19 servicemen survived the attack, and the United States later bombed the site for 4 days to destroy the equipment that was left behind. North Vietnamese soldiers later threw the bodies of the dead servicemen off a cliff because the rocky ground did not permit a burial. This is where the remains of Technical Sergeant Shannon were found.

Technical Sergeant Shannon finally came home last year. A DNA sample from his sister helped to positively identify Technical Sergeant Shannon and bring closure to his family who had wondered what had really happened to him on that fateful day. His youngest child, Paula Wallace, said that her father ``would be happy to be back in America.'' Mr. President, I, too, am happy that TSgt Patrick L. Shannon has finally returned home after answering his country's call to arms.

Sergeant First Class Brandon K. Sneed

Mr. President, I wish to honor a brave soldier from Oklahoma who gave the last full measure to protect our freedom. SFC Brandon Sneed of the U.S. Army embodied the spirit of service and the values that make this country what it is today.

Sergeant Sneed was a great soldier. He joined soon after graduating from high school in 1990. As he rose through the ranks, he developed a reputation of dependability. He was serving as a field medic with Bravo Company in the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment attached to the 69th Armor Regiment serving in Iraq.

Sergeant Sneed was no stranger to the hazards of duty. He would routinely go under fire to retrieve wounded soldiers. His second tour in Iraq was scheduled to end in December of last year.

Sergeant Sneed was also a family man. He married his wife Lori in 1994, and they had three children, Christopher, Brandee, and Brandon, Jr. His family had just moved into a new home. Sergeant Sneed met his wife while they both served their first tour in the Army together; they had plans to open a rehabilitation facility upon his retirement from the Army.

On October 10, 2005, Sergeant Sneed was killed while attempting to rescue

an injured soldier when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle was destroyed by a roadside bomb. This occurred near Ramadi in Iraq's Anbar province. He was 33 years old. He had a strong sense of duty, work ethic, and a caring heart. He was devoted to his family, his country, and gave the highest sacrifice to his soldiers. Sergeant First Class Sneed deserves our honor and remembrance.

Corporal Joshua J. Ware

Mr. President, I wish to honor one of this country's fallen warriors, a young man that comes from my home State of Oklahoma. Marine Cpl Joshua J. Ware was serving the cause of freedom in Iraq when he paid the ultimate price.

Corporal Ware was born in Lawton, OK. He played football and baseball and ran track at Roland High School. In 2002, 1 year before he graduated, he signed up for the Marine Corps and enlisted just 5 days after graduating from High School and just 2 days after his birthday.

Corporal Ware was serving in Iraq with F Company, 2nd, Battalion, 1st Marine Division, and bravely fought in the second battle of Fallujah. He was on his second tour of duty in Iraq on November 16, 2005, when he was killed as a result of enemy small arms fire in Ubaydi, Iraq. He was 20 years old and was the first Comanche or Kiowa to die in combat since 1968.

Many are left behind who are proud and grieved at his sacrifice. Corporal Ware is survived by his parents, three brothers, and one sister.

The loss of Corporal Ware is one that will continue to be felt as the years pass. He gave more than was required, in life and in the sacrifice of his death. He gave up his own well-being, putting himself in harm's way, and demonstrated courage that demands our recognition. I hope to express our gratefulness for his sacrifice with these simple words and honor him before the Senate today.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and on the behalf of my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to introduce a bill to honor the memory an American hero and proud son from our great state of Oklahoma. Ernest Childers was the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is our Nation's highest military award and it was awarded to him by Congress ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action.''

Ernest Childers was born in Broken Arrow, OK, on February 1, 1918, as the third of five children. His father died when he was young and he grew up mostly on a farm. His hunting skills in his youth provided much of the food for his family and formed the basis of a great military career.

Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He then went to Fort Sill in Lawton, OK, for basic training before being deployed to Africa in World War II. On September 22, 1943, despite a broken instep that forced him to crawl, 2nd Lieutenant Childers advanced against enemy machine gun nests in Oliveto, Italy, killing two snipers and capturing an enemy mortar observer in the process. His actions were instrumental in helping the Americans win the Battle of Oliveto and won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He continued his career in the Army earning several other military awards including the Combat Infantry Badge, Europe and Africa Campaign Medals, The Purple Heart, The Bronze Star, and the Oklahoma Distinguished Service Cross. He retired from the Army in August of 1965 as a Lieutenant Colonel in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division.

Ernest Childers passed away on March 17, 2005 and was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor winner still living in the state. He was an honored guest of many Presidential Inaugurations and as a Creek Indian, was named Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians in 1966. He once said ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' Mr. President, I am proud and believe it is only appropriate to introduce a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs' Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic to honor the enduring legacy of a true hero and fine soldier.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and on the behalf of my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to introduce a bill to honor the memory an American hero and proud son from our great state of Oklahoma. Ernest Childers was the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is our Nation's highest military award and it was awarded to him by Congress ``for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action.''

Ernest Childers was born in Broken Arrow, OK, on February 1, 1918, as the third of five children. His father died when he was young and he grew up mostly on a farm. His hunting skills in his youth provided much of the food for his family and formed the basis of a great military career.

Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He then went to Fort Sill in Lawton, OK, for basic training before being deployed to Africa in World War II. On September 22, 1943, despite a broken instep that forced him to crawl, 2nd Lieutenant Childers advanced against enemy machine gun nests in Oliveto, Italy, killing two snipers and capturing an enemy mortar observer in the process. His actions were instrumental in helping the Americans win the Battle of Oliveto and won him the Congressional Medal of Honor. He continued his career in the Army earning several other military awards including the Combat Infantry Badge, Europe and Africa Campaign Medals, The Purple Heart, The Bronze Star, and the Oklahoma Distinguished Service Cross. He retired from the Army in August of 1965 as a Lieutenant Colonel in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division.

Ernest Childers passed away on March 17, 2005 and was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor winner still living in the state. He was an honored guest of many Presidential Inaugurations and as a Creek Indian, was named Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians in 1966. He once said ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' Mr. President, I am proud and believe it is only appropriate to introduce a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs' Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic to honor the enduring legacy of a true hero and fine soldier.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildife and Water and Senator Murkowski, an important and influential member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, EPW. The bill being proposed is similar to legislation, S. 1039, that passed the Committee on Environment and Public Works last Congress on a strong bipartisan vote and a bill that passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 413 to 2. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in the minority objected to bringing that important, bipartisan legislation to the floor. At an impasse with the close of the 108th Congress, I asked the Government Accountability Office to survey the wastewater community in order to determine what steps publicly owned treatment works, POTWs, had taken to assess their security and if need be, what steps they had taken to enhance security at their facilities.

In March 2006 we received GAO's report and the results confirm that the approach advocated by the House of Representatives and by the EPW Committee is the right approach. The Federal Government must work cooperatively with our counterparts at the state and local level to ensure our nation's infrastructure is secure. GAO found that without a federal requirement to do so, the overwhelming majority of the largest POTWs have conducted or are in the process of conducting vulnerability assessments. They did not need a heavy handed federal mandate to do the right thing. Of those who have not and do not plan to do a vulnerability assessment, a majority believed they had taken sufficient other security measures or believed that by updating their Emergency Response Plan the utility had a good understanding of its vulnerabilities.

While this is tremendous progress, it is important that all systems know what their vulnerabilities are and take steps to mitigate them. The legislation my colleagues Senator Chafee and Senator Murkowski and I introduce today builds upon the good work already taking place by working in collaboration with the publicly owned treatment works. For the few systems remaining who have not done an assessment, our bill provides them an incentive to do so by authorizing funding. Further, once these systems have completed their assessments and certified to EPA that they have done so, they can join their colleagues in seeking grants to address some of the security problems identified in the assessments.

During Hurricane Katrina, we saw how important emergency response plans are and how valuable mutual aid agreements can be. Our bill allows funding for the development, expansion or upgrading of an emergency response plan as well as for the voluntary creation of a mutual aid agreement or participation in such an agreement.

The GAO also found that the majority facilities had actually made significant security improvements prior to the tragedy of September 11. Of the 206 who responded, 149 had vehicle gates; 174 had security fences; 160 had redundant power sources; 133 had redundant pumping devices or collection bypass systems. Following September 11, 138 facilities now have safeguards for on-site delivery of materials and 112 have additional site lighting. It is important for all of my colleagues to note how much progress these entities have taken to secure their facilities and protect their communities.

The use of chlorine has been a topic of discussion for years. Chlorine is by far the most effective disinfectant available and it is the least expensive. During these times of aging systems, growing Federal regulations and limited resources, cost is an important

consideration. In its January 2005 report on security at wastewater utilities, the GAO estimated it would cost a utility $12.5 million to switch from chlorine to sodium hypochlorite. There are other considerations that must be considered as well, such as downstream effects of a chlorine alternative. For example, the switch from chlorine to chloramines in Washington, DC's drinking water system was found to cause lead to leach out of service pipes and into the faucets of homes and businesses. Thus, decisions about chlorine must be fully evaluated and must be site specific. Many POTWs are already undergoing these evaluations. After careful review of cost, technical feasibility and safety considerations, and without the presence of a Federal mandate on technology, 116 of the 206 largest POTWs do not use gaseous chlorine. According to the GAO report, another 20 plan to switch to a technology other than chlorine. To sum, nearly two-thirds of the nation's largest POTWs are not using chlorine. Those who continue to use chlorine have taken steps to ensure the chlorine is secure.

While the GAO report found significant steps were being taken at the nation's largest wastewater utilities, the Office also found an area very much in need of assistance. Each POTW has a collection system that consists of the pipes to carry wastewater from homes and businesses to the treatment works. These pipes are often large enough for an individual to stand in and they provide an underground roadway beneath most major cities. In its January 2005 report, 42 of the 50 experts on GAO's panel identified the collection system as the most vulnerable asset of a POTW. However, in discussions with engineers and utility managers, there remain many questions and obstacles on how to effectively secure a collection system. Therefore, our bill authorizes a research program to identify how a collection system could be used in a terrorist attack, how to identify potential chemicals or explosives that could be placed in a collection system and how best to mitigate against these risks. Finally, our legislation asks EPA to examine the various drinking water technologies to determine how affordable and effective each is.

As GAO found, POTWs are taking the critical steps necessary to secure their facilities and develop appropriate response mechanisms in the event of an attack or natural disaster. We at the Federal level must continue to work with them, not against them by imposing one-size-fits- all, heavyhanded unfunded Federal regulations. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and that we can finally enact wastewater security legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildife and Water and Senator Murkowski, an important and influential member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, EPW. The bill being proposed is similar to legislation, S. 1039, that passed the Committee on Environment and Public Works last Congress on a strong bipartisan vote and a bill that passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 413 to 2. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in the minority objected to bringing that important, bipartisan legislation to the floor. At an impasse with the close of the 108th Congress, I asked the Government Accountability Office to survey the wastewater community in order to determine what steps publicly owned treatment works, POTWs, had taken to assess their security and if need be, what steps they had taken to enhance security at their facilities.

In March 2006 we received GAO's report and the results confirm that the approach advocated by the House of Representatives and by the EPW Committee is the right approach. The Federal Government must work cooperatively with our counterparts at the state and local level to ensure our nation's infrastructure is secure. GAO found that without a federal requirement to do so, the overwhelming majority of the largest POTWs have conducted or are in the process of conducting vulnerability assessments. They did not need a heavy handed federal mandate to do the right thing. Of those who have not and do not plan to do a vulnerability assessment, a majority believed they had taken sufficient other security measures or believed that by updating their Emergency Response Plan the utility had a good understanding of its vulnerabilities.

While this is tremendous progress, it is important that all systems know what their vulnerabilities are and take steps to mitigate them. The legislation my colleagues Senator Chafee and Senator Murkowski and I introduce today builds upon the good work already taking place by working in collaboration with the publicly owned treatment works. For the few systems remaining who have not done an assessment, our bill provides them an incentive to do so by authorizing funding. Further, once these systems have completed their assessments and certified to EPA that they have done so, they can join their colleagues in seeking grants to address some of the security problems identified in the assessments.

During Hurricane Katrina, we saw how important emergency response plans are and how valuable mutual aid agreements can be. Our bill allows funding for the development, expansion or upgrading of an emergency response plan as well as for the voluntary creation of a mutual aid agreement or participation in such an agreement.

The GAO also found that the majority facilities had actually made significant security improvements prior to the tragedy of September 11. Of the 206 who responded, 149 had vehicle gates; 174 had security fences; 160 had redundant power sources; 133 had redundant pumping devices or collection bypass systems. Following September 11, 138 facilities now have safeguards for on-site delivery of materials and 112 have additional site lighting. It is important for all of my colleagues to note how much progress these entities have taken to secure their facilities and protect their communities.

The use of chlorine has been a topic of discussion for years. Chlorine is by far the most effective disinfectant available and it is the least expensive. During these times of aging systems, growing Federal regulations and limited resources, cost is an important

consideration. In its January 2005 report on security at wastewater utilities, the GAO estimated it would cost a utility $12.5 million to switch from chlorine to sodium hypochlorite. There are other considerations that must be considered as well, such as downstream effects of a chlorine alternative. For example, the switch from chlorine to chloramines in Washington, DC's drinking water system was found to cause lead to leach out of service pipes and into the faucets of homes and businesses. Thus, decisions about chlorine must be fully evaluated and must be site specific. Many POTWs are already undergoing these evaluations. After careful review of cost, technical feasibility and safety considerations, and without the presence of a Federal mandate on technology, 116 of the 206 largest POTWs do not use gaseous chlorine. According to the GAO report, another 20 plan to switch to a technology other than chlorine. To sum, nearly two-thirds of the nation's largest POTWs are not using chlorine. Those who continue to use chlorine have taken steps to ensure the chlorine is secure.

While the GAO report found significant steps were being taken at the nation's largest wastewater utilities, the Office also found an area very much in need of assistance. Each POTW has a collection system that consists of the pipes to carry wastewater from homes and businesses to the treatment works. These pipes are often large enough for an individual to stand in and they provide an underground roadway beneath most major cities. In its January 2005 report, 42 of the 50 experts on GAO's panel identified the collection system as the most vulnerable asset of a POTW. However, in discussions with engineers and utility managers, there remain many questions and obstacles on how to effectively secure a collection system. Therefore, our bill authorizes a research program to identify how a collection system could be used in a terrorist attack, how to identify potential chemicals or explosives that could be placed in a collection system and how best to mitigate against these risks. Finally, our legislation asks EPA to examine the various drinking water technologies to determine how affordable and effective each is.

As GAO found, POTWs are taking the critical steps necessary to secure their facilities and develop appropriate response mechanisms in the event of an attack or natural disaster. We at the Federal level must continue to work with them, not against them by imposing one-size-fits- all, heavyhanded unfunded Federal regulations. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and that we can finally enact wastewater security legislation.