Floor Statements

Mr. President, on rollcall No. 112, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, I have no objection if the majority is going to have the first half of the 15 minutes immediately following the Senator's introduction.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we have 15 minutes equally divided. I ask the Chair, after 6 minutes has elapsed, to advise me.

First, let me say there is nothing new to the problem we have had in this country by not having an energy policy. I can remember when Don Hodel was Secretary of Energy and later Secretary of the Interior. We had a dog-and-pony show where we went around the country during the Reagan administration and tried to talk about how serious this was--the fact that our dependence upon foreign countries, or our ability to fight a war, was not an energy problem, it was a national security problem.

We found the message didn't sell. I was critical of the Reagan administration. Later on, when the first Bush administration came along, I thought, surely, out of the oil patch he would want to have an energy policy, but he didn't either. And during the Clinton administration, he did not. When the second George Bush came into office, the first thing he did was say we are going to have an energy policy. Keep in mind that our dependency at that time, when I was active around the country with Don Hodel, was 36 to 37 percent. Now we are up to twice that. It is much worse now than it was before.

We are in the middle of our second gulf war and people should realize what a threat this is. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has most of the jurisdiction over many energy issues, and certainly the air issues. I remember making every effort to get drilling on ANWR. The distinguished President pro tempore has spent his life trying to get production in the northern part of his State. It is something that would resolve the problem.

Yesterday, on this floor, one of the Senators on the Democratic side said it would take 10 years before we would see any of that production. I don't believe that is true. But if it were true, I remind my colleagues that on November 20, 1995, we passed in both Chambers drilling in ANWR, and President Clinton vetoed the bill. We would have it today. We would not be having this problem.

I suggest also that there is one other facet that has not been talked about enough, and that is, we could have all the production, all the exploration in the world, but if we don't have the refining capacity, it doesn't do any good.

We were at 100 percent refining capacity even before Katrina. This is a serious problem. In our committee, we marked up a refinery bill, a very sophisticated bill, very moderate. It would allow those cities where they had closed military bases to use those closed military bases along with EDA grants to establish refineries. It is something that would enhance our refinery capacity and give us new refineries, and it was killed right down party lines. Every Democrat voted against it.

I will read what one of the papers, the Topeka Capital Journal, said:

Politics played a crucial role in Democrat opposition. If

gas prices are high next year--

This is next year now--

the GOP will be blamed. . . .

Even though it is the Democrats who are responsible for it. So we have those problems that are looming at the same time.

I will say this: Democrats did offer an alternative when they killed the refinery bill. All eight Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee I chair, voted in favor of an alternative that would put the Environmental Protection Agency in charge of siting, constructing, and operating oil facilities. In other words, socializing that particular sector of our economy, which is something they apparently believe Government can operate better than people.

It is not true. When we had the LIHEAP program, I had an amendment that would have improved the permitting process for ethanol plants, as well as oil refineries and coal liquid facilities. Again, killed right down party lines.

I guess what I am saying is, we go through this and we see what is happening, and it is always down party lines when we try to enhance our ability to have natural gas. Ask farmers anywhere in America what is causing the cost of fertilizer to go up. It is a shortage of natural gas.

At the same time, we had an opportunity to do something in Massachusetts. Two Congressmen from Massachusetts, Frank and McGovern, put a provision in the Transportation bill that blocks the construction of an already-approved liquefied natural gas facility.

What I am saying is--and I know I am down to 1 minute, Mr. President--it doesn't seem to matter to the Democrats whether we are trying to do something with fossil fuels, trying to do something with oil and gas, trying to do something with clean coal technology, or trying to do something with nuclear energy. It always is killed right down party lines. Now the crisis is here, and we are going to have to face it.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator yielding. My fellow Senator from Oklahoma has done a yeoman's job of trying to remind people that this is supposed to be an emergency supplemental. In every case about which he has spoken, there is nothing emergency about them.

I appreciate the fact that he talks about going through the authorization process. We have a process that has been working for some time that has a lot of checks and balances. I happen to chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. We go through authorization and the appropriators come along.

I applaud him for reminding people what is an emergency and what is not. Let me remind my fellow Senators that we have a President of the United States who agrees with the Senator from Oklahoma. The President has said he is going to veto this bill on the items that are not emergencies and have nothing to do with national security, defense, or with the emergency Katrina. We already have enough signatures on a letter saying we will sustain that veto. So we are going to end up doing this.

I think a lot of this is an exercise in futility. People cannot resist the opportunity to come forward where they can be seen offering more and more of the taxpayers' money for something that is not an emergency. I only wanted to say I applaud him for doing this. I think he is being overworked. Hopefully, we will have this solution with the President's veto. We should not be in a position where we are having to do that.

I applaud the Senator for what he is doing. That is my question.

Mr. President, I submit amended rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

I always thought you did.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Before he leaves the Chamber, I want to applaud the work Senator Specter has done in getting these judges confirmed. It has been heavy lifting. We all know that. We also know probably from looking back, when we look back 10 years or 20 years from now on accomplishments, that perhaps getting these judges confirmed will be the major accomplishment of this legislative session.

Mr. President, I am always distressed with the media and the way they are misrepresenting what is going on in Iraq, and particularly the accomplishments this last weekend. It is hard to believe.

On Saturday, the Iraqi Parliament, which was elected last December, convened to fill the top Government leadership positions. Exemplifying the democratic traditions beginning to take root in Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament successfully negotiated these nominees, clearing the way for the first permanent, popularly elected Government in Iraq's history.

The first permanent, popularly elected Government in Iraq's history-- that is mind boggling.

In addition, I want to commend our soldiers in the theater. Without their brave efforts, this progress would have been impossible.

I just returned from my 11th trip to the Iraqi AOR. I come back, and I remember the stories that are told by our different troops there. Some of the things they come up with are amazing--the anecdotal things, stories that are comparable to the stories we heard back during World War II.

American soldiers continue to clear out terrorist strongholds, allowing democracy a chance to flourish. The accomplishments of American soldiers have permitted Iraqis the opportunity to vote and elect a parliament that has now produced leaders of this nation's national unity government. It has been a long road getting to this point, and we have further to go. There are some major hurdles these new leaders must keep in mind. These are Iraqi leaders. These are the elected leaders. For the first time in Iraq's history, they must build consensus for reigning in the militias, protecting critical infrastructure such as oil pipelines, preserving human rights for all Iraqi citizens, implementing necessary reforms to revive the civil economy, and, perhaps most importantly, the new leaders must inspire confidence in the permanent Government.

While what these seven nominees put forward on Saturday represents a huge political breakthrough, challenges lie ahead for both Iraq's new leadership and our troops stationed there. Our best men and women continue to serve valiantly in some of the most trying conditions. Some have been gravely wounded, and some have paid the ultimate price. The question you hear quite often is, they say, Is it worth it? It is impossible for me to answer that question on an individual basis, when you think about the depth of suffering of a wife or a child or a father, the loss of a loved one. I mourn that we have lost even one life, but I do not regret the cause in which that life is lost.

I will say that as America's elected leaders, we have been chosen to use our best judgment in these most difficult choices. Throughout history people have chosen to take an uncompromising stand in what they believe in. They have done this because they understand some things are so valuable that we must risk everything to preserve them.

Can the cost of preserving freedom ever be too great? That is a question I wrestle with day and night. As I do, I am sure other members of our Government and military leaders do the same.

I know freedom cannot be imposed, but I also know the thirst for it cannot be quenched. If September 11 showed us anything, it was that we affect and are affected by the rest of the world. Standing by and hoping for the best is not an option. When it comes to fighting terrorism around the world, we are involved, whether we like it or not, and the quicker we wake up to this reality, the better chance we have at setting

things on the right course. The American public must be as resolute in this mission as our troops on the ground.

President Bush has stood stalwartly behind our troops and the Iraqi people and measurable progress has been achieved. It would be appropriate to list a few of these. You don't get this from the media, so you are going to have to get it from the floor, from those who have been over there personally and witnessed things happening.

Iraq's first Ambassador to the United States in 15 years presented his credentials to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a State Department ceremony on April 11.

The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq calculated that nearly 11.9 million Iraqis--approximately 75 percent--voted in the December 2005 elections. This represents an increase of about 4 million voters from the January 2005 election.

Since June 2004, when the Coalition transferred sovereignty, Iraqi people elected an interim government in January 2005, drafted and ratified a constitution in October 2005, and elected a 4-year, constitutionally based Government in December 2005.

There have been strong, positive economic changes as well. Iraq's economy is recovering after 30 years of dictatorship and lack of infrastructure maintenance. In 2005, the Iraqi economy grew an estimated 3 percent in real terms. The International Monetary Fund anticipates the Iraqi economy will grow by more than 10 percent in 2006. Certainly the Presiding Officer, one of the greatest economists of this body, understands the significance of the accomplishments in the economy of Iraq.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqis' standard of living deteriorated rapidly. Iraq's per capita income dropped from $3,800 in 1980--higher than Spain at that time--to $715 in 2002, which is lower than Angola. Today economic recovery is picking up, with gross domestic product growing from $18.9 billion in 2002 to $33.1 billion in 2005.

Before liberation, Iraq's cities suffered from inadequate sewage systems. The United States has helped Iraqis build or repair sewage treatment plants for 5.1 million Iraqis. U.S.-funded projects have improved access to clean water for 3.1 million people.

You almost have go to there and see these people, and see what they are doing now that they say they couldn't have done. It is very difficult for an American to walk through the streets--whether it is Tikrit, Fallujah, Baghdad, or anywhere else--without people running up to you and saying my daughter can now get married, our girls can now go to school, now we have water we can drink, now we have a sewage system that we haven't had since the end of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

I think the greatest miracle of Iraq which the ``cut and run'' caucus refuses to acknowledge has been the performance of the security forces. Coalition military commanders are focused on developing Iraqi police forces, and are helping Iraqis develop a disciplined force that protects the rights of all Iraqis. One-hundred thirty Iraqi Minister of Defense combat battalions are now rising up from just a handful in August 2004. Of the 110 bases operated by Coalition forces, 34 have been closed and transferred to the Iraqis. That is something we have to understand. We were manning 100 percent of the bases of operation, and a third are now being taken care of by the Iraqis.

Thirteen Iraqi brigade headquarters and fifty battalions have assumed battle space. They are taking care of their own battle space. Iraqi forces control 65 percent of Baghdad.

I recall meeting General Madhi in Fallujah. At that time he had been working as a brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans until Saddam came down and General Madhi became the brigade commander for security forces in Fallujah. He started training with the Marines in Fallujah. They call it embedded training. They get in there with him. They worked together and they became so close that when we rotated the Marines out of Fallujah, they got together and they cried.

That same general, General Madhi, was transferred to Baghdad where he took over the security, starting from the east to the western part of Baghdad, and now has control of 65 percent of the eastern part of Baghdad. We do not have Americans doing that. We have Iraqis doing that. There are more than 250,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, up from 115,000 16 months ago.

I stood here 3 months ago and talked about my experiences with the commanders in the field. They have a good answer to the question that keeps being asked each Member of the Senate: When will they be on their own and handle their own security? How long will it be? Not many politicians want to give the answer to something like that. I don't mind doing it because I think it is a good idea of what the answer is.

I remember talking to the commanders in the field over the last several years and they have consistently said if we get to the point where we can have 11 divisions of Iraqis trained and equipped--that translates to 325,000--they will be ready to take over their own security. That does not mean all Americans will leave. We still have American troops and an American presence in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sinai, and other places, but they are not doing the security there.

At that time when we get to the point where they have 11 divisions, which should be by the end of this year, or at the very latest by midyear of the following year, they will be able to handle their own security.

Something heretofore considered to be virtually impossible is going to happen. One of the main problems with this war is how the media is focused on weapons of mass destruction. We never should have been talking about weapons of mass destruction. We know Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know that some 4,000 of their own people were killed with weapons of mass destruction. We know in the 8- year Iran-Iraq war, over 100,000 Iranians were killed with weapons of mass destruction. We know they had them. There is no question. That was not the important thing.

The important thing in Iraq is that the most sophisticated training was taking place, training people to be sophisticated terrorists in cities such as Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak, where they had the major trading areas. They are not training anymore. One Iraqi defector, CAPT Sabah Khodada, observed foreign Arabs being trained in hijackings, kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, planting explosives in cities, and suicide operations. It could very well be most likely that is where the training took place that caused their successful attack on America's soil on September 11. Very likely it was. That is what they were teaching at that time.

We went into Iraq and we confiscated 2 million ``exploitable'' documents that we are still analyzing. Some of the documents have already proven the existence of the camps.

I want to lay out the facts. We know Saddam was giving money to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers. We know Saddam violated numerous U.N. resolutions since the end of Operation Desert Storm. We know the air defense forces would regularly shoot at our airplanes. We know he tortured, abused, murdered, and massacred many thousands of his own people.

I ask a very important question. Where would we be now if we had not gone into Iraq? The answer will be left up to history to decide. Probably we will never know. We know we have not been attacked on our territory since September 11. My own personal belief is the work we have done, the successes in Iraq have been responsible for that great victory.

I returned from my 11th trip to the Iraqi AOR. I met with the people over there, including General Madhi. However, the cut-and-run caucus can only think of surrender. They are still out there. Recent casualty rates exposed the insurgents' true intentions.

A lot of people are concerned, as I am, about the Americans, but if you see what has happened in the first 3 months of this year, in January and February and March of this year, the insurgents, the terrorists have been able to successfully kill 112 U.S. forces. However, during that same period of time they have killed 2,720 Iraqi civilians and security forces. What a huge change from the past.

We need to judge the insurgencies not by what they claim but who they actually are attacking. This is an

enemy that we cannot surrender to or give ground to. Their objective is fear. Their method is death. They will never be appeased. If we were to withdraw early, we would abandon Iraq to violence, but we also would cause irreparable damage to this country.

It is not about Iraq, it is about defending America. We were attacked on our soil. The cut-and-run caucus is always there. Surrender is always their option. They are appeasers. An appeaser is someone who throws his friend to the alligators hoping they eat him last. No man lives when freedom fails. The best men rot in filthy jails. Those who yell, ``appease, appease,'' are hanged by those they tried to please.

My wife and I have been married 46 years. We have 20 kids and grandchildren, and I say this: We are winning the war on terror, and winning it in their territory. I ask God to richly bless the decisionmakers and the troops.

Mr. President, there have been several speeches today--I was not here, but I got a briefing--about the high gasoline prices, and I want to clarify some of the comments raised by the minority leader today and his Members in the press.

The minority is so eager to blame others for high gas prices they seem to ignore the fact that they do not bother to consult the media when they have a deadline. I am more interested in reducing high gasoline prices for American families than to bluster the selfish political advantage, unlike the minority.

I took the time to consider the nonpartisan experts of the Energy Information Administration and what they had to say. According to the EIA, there are three reasons leading to high gasoline prices. First, the Nation has not fully recovered from hurricane damage. Twenty percent of the domestic oil production and three refineries, representing nearly 5 percent of refining capacity, remain offline. However, offshore production is resuming and refineries are restarting. The EIA points out that the industry delayed maintenance to maximize production following the hurricanes. Today they must switch over to summer blends.

Yet the focus is on the politics. The senior Senator from New York charged the refiners are purposely withholding capacity from traditionally operating at 90 percent to the current operation of 85 percent. In demanding an investigation, that Senator also implied that the refiners should not maintain their facilities to ensure a safe work environment for employees or they should not switch to special summer blends.

One thing was clear. The senior Senator from New York did not bother to consider the fact that nearly 5 percent of domestic refining capacity is still offline due to hurricanes. Mr. President, 90 percent minus 5 percent equals 85 percent, as the investigation found.

Second, companies are increasing inventories to hedge against potential disruption in the future. Most of the time, the minority would call such risk management responsible but not when they celebrate the misfortune of the American people.

The third reason has to do with MTBE, and I won't get into that. I will only say this. I am the chairman of a committee that is called the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is our responsibility to handle most of the problems. We are in an energy crisis. There is no question about it. But for any Democrat to stand on the floor of this Senate and try to point the finger at Republicans for high gasoline prices is really absurd.

I have sat there and watched the votes take place. We are not able to vote on ANWR in northern Alaska. Right down party lines, Republicans are supporting it, the Alaskans are supporting it, the Democrats are opposing it. We are not able to go offshore and take advantage of the tremendous reserves that are there. It is right down party lines. Right down party lines they stopped us from being able to have tax incentives to go after marginal production.

I am from a State that has marginal production. There is a statistic that if we had all the marginal production flowing today that has been plugged in the last 10 years, it would be more than we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia.

Lastly, in the area of nuclear energy, it goes right down party lines.

I had a refinery bill that would have coupled with some of the closed military bases and said cities can use EDA grants to go in there and set up refineries and employ people and increase our refining capacity, and it was blocked right down party lines.

So the Democrats are clearly responsible for these problems we have in trying to increase the productivity, increase the production that is potentially out there today.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as Chairman and on behalf of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I urge support of this resolution to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Interstate System. The Committee as a whole would like to mark the momentous achievements made over the last 50 years that have provided for revolutionary advances in our nation's vital infrastructure. It is essential that Congress, just as it did in 1956, recognize the importance of continued investment in our nation's highways and the undeniable link between a robust economy and a vibrant national infrastructure.

Because of my work on SAFETEA-LU (Public Law 109-59) I have a better appreciation of just how visionary the authors of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 were when they laid out a network of interstate highways and devised a stable and reliable funding stream to pay for it. I am certain that at the time there were those who felt the plan was too ambitious, too expensive and consequently not a good use of scarce Federal dollars. I am sure all would agree that not only was it a good use of scarce Federal dollars, but that the nation has enjoyed a many-fold return on the expenditure.

Laying out the full interstate system--rather than a piecemeal of road segments--along with providing a dedicated funding source expedited construction and provided certainty. This certainty maximized the economic and mobility benefits of the system. Businesses and individuals knew that they could locate somewhere on the future interstate system and be connected to rest of the country.

The second essential element of the success of the highway program over the last 50 years has been the dependable funding stream for the interstate. In the absence of this dedicated funding source, it is my firm belief that investment in our nation's highways and bridges would be far less than has been the case. Without the relative certainty of funding and knowledge of the interstate's general location, the impacts on productivity and economic growth would have been dramatically less than we experienced.

The connectivity and mobility provided for both freight and people by our interstate system is unrivaled: and I believe was more than just a small part of the economic success enjoyed by the U.S. over the past 50 years. It is essential that we continue to make the necessary investment to fight congestion and maintain the mobility necessary to keep the economy growing.

I have always said that the federal government has two main functions: national defense and to provide infrastructure. Since one of the earliest justifications for the interstate system was to provide for national defense, the highway program is actually a perfect merger of the 2 most important functions of government.

For the last 50 years the gas tax has been deposited into the trust fund and used to construct and maintain our roads. In the past, the gas tax has been a reasonably good proxy for road use; and the trust fund has in recent history had sufficient receipts to fund the highway program. This is changing with the increase in fuel efficiency, highlighted by fuel-cell vehicles coming just over the horizon, and improved technology allows for improvements in how to collect the user fee. It is important to look forward to how we fund the highway program in the future because when the next highway bill is drafted, there will be no cushion of a cash balance left in the trust fund.

The current challenges facing the highway trust fund--and hence the highway program--will be very difficult to resolve and not unlike the challenges faced by the authors of the 1956 act. It will be up to policymakers to be as visionary as they were 50 years ago. A new vision is needed in what the highway program will stand for in the next 50 years and how to pay for it.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly support a resolution designating April 8, 2006, as National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and therefore seek to raise awareness of this debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 people per million.

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

I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 11, the Patients First Act, to protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. There are solutions to alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits, and I am committed to this vital reform.

I have also worked with officials from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand access to lifesaving implantable cardiac defibrillators. I supported legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and co-sponsored a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States.

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

Additionally, I have consistently co-sponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as National Mammography Day and a week in August as National Health Center Week to raise awareness regarding both these issues.

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

I rise before the Senate to seek your help in raising awareness of Cushing's Syndrome, which is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. Though it can lead to death, Cushing's Syndrome often goes undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because the initial symptoms are shared with a number of milder ailments. These symptoms include, but are not limited to, abnormal weight gain, skin changes, fatigue, diabetes, high blood pressure, depression and osteoporosis.

Cushing's Syndrome can take a variety of forms. Normally, the hypothalamus, a part of the brain which is about the size of a small sugar cube, stimulates the pituitary gland, the adrenal glands, and then the kidneys which release cortisol into the bloodstream. High levels of cortisol can result from overproducing cortisol

or from taking glucocorticoid hormones, which are routinely prescribed for asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other inflammatory diseases.

Doctors can detect Cushing's Syndrome through a series of tests, often using x rays to examine adrenal or pituitary glands to locate tumors. However, since awareness of the syndrome is low, doctors do not always run these tests, and patients do not know to ask for them. Therefore, treatment often comes later than it should for victims of Cushing's Syndrome. Potential treatments for Cushing's Syndrome include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, cortisol-inhibiting drugs, or reducing the dosage of glucocorticoid hormones.

The need for heightened awareness of Cushing's Syndrome was brought to my attention by constituents who suffer from this dangerous disease. For the sake of these individuals and for the benefit of sufferers in your own State and around the Nation, I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort to raise awareness of Cushing's Syndrome.

Mr. President, before the Senator from North Dakota leaves, I have been paying attention to his comments and feel strongly that he has made very good points. I am going to zero in on areas he did not cover. I suspect he will agree with many.

One point is there is an answer to stopping our perforated borders. There is a means of doing it a lot cheaper than people have talked about. And the other point is a requirement for English to be the official language. It is a rather complicated subject, but those two areas I think the Senator probably would agree with me, as I agree with most of the remarks he has made.

First, Mr. President, for some reason, I have never been sure why it is, but I have been invited to speak at more naturalization ceremonies in my State of Oklahoma than any other Members, I believe. It is always a very touching event for me because these people go through the process, the legal process, of becoming a citizen of the United States, as my grandparents had to do. They learned the language. They learned more about the history of this country than the average person you will run into on the streets of Washington, DC. And these people are so proud.

I recall one guy. He is from Vietnam. His name is Thi Van Nguyen. He is an outstanding young man, and he had worked hard to become a citizen. I happened to be a speaker at his naturalization ceremony that was taking place in one of the courthouses in Oklahoma.

After the ceremony was over, he went down and changed his name to James Thi Nguyen, instead of Thi Van Nguyen, which was the highest honor one can pay because here is a person who wanted to go through the process of becoming a citizen the right way. It appears to me anything short of a slap in the face to all these people who came here legally and did it right.

I would like to mention a couple of areas I am going to be offering in the way of amendments. One is what we call the National Border and Neighborhood Watch Program or the BRAVE Force. There is an acronym for everything. It stands for border regiment assisting in valuable enforcement.

I think we have learned one thing that probably most of us knew already. I draw from a background of having been a developer in south Texas right on the Texas border. I have been there many times, and I have been down there actually working and developing for some 35, 40 years.

It happens I am an aviator, so I would always fly my own plane down there and land at Cameron County Airport. It is adjacent to the immigration center. I would watch and see what was going on. Yes, we are taking good care of those people.

I started getting interested in it. I said: What is the negative? What are

these people facing should they be caught trying to come illegally over the border? They go into the center. So I looked over at the center and saw half were in brown jumpsuits and half were in orange jumpsuits. I said: What is the reason for that?

They said: A football team brown versus the green and basketball and other activities.

Probably the food--I went over and inspected it--is better than most people would eat in their country.

I looked at that and thought: We aren't really offering much of a disincentive for people to come in illegally.

This program we call the Brave Force Program recognizes that our borders can be closed, our borders can be strong borders, and we can stop people from coming in. I am sick and tired of people saying this can't be done or it can only be done with a certain kind of fence. There are areas with serious problems, but the answer is in numbers.

The minutemen demonstrated very clearly that if you have enough people down there and take a 35-mile area, you can stop people from coming across. I recognize the criticism of that program. I don't agree with it. Certainly there is some authentic argument against it when they say these people are not law enforcement people. They are not trained that way.

I found out something after 9/11 when we were dealing with the TSA, and that is that Federal law enforcement officers have a mandatory retirement age of 57. Since I have worked with them before, I started getting letters from them saying: Why can't we come in as sky marshals and other positions? We, as an organization, would be willing to do it just for cost, just to pay our expenses.

If we had an army down there, as my amendment calls for, these people are available. It is virtually just for the cost of sustaining these people while they are on watch. There would be an army of law enforcement officers for each trained Border Patrol agent. Then we have the neighborhood watch people who are volunteers and are not trained properly, but they can help the second tier.

There would be three tiers. We would have the trained Border Patrol people, then the retired law enforcement officers, and then, of course, the neighborhood watch people. It is a numbers game that has been very successful and has worked.

Civilian volunteers, much like the minutemen, would be able to report to those who are in a higher level of training. I think this BRAVE Force would be effective. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see we can do something on the border. It is just we have not been able to do it.

Let me interject that as one of the high-ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I certainly don't want to get sucked into the point where we are going to have to use military people on these borders when they are already overworked. The OPTEMPO of our military right now is at an unacceptable rate. By ``military,'' I mean our standing forces, as well as the Reserve components--the Guard and Reserve. This wouldn't affect that. This would ensure we are not going to have to further dilute our military.

That is one of the amendments I am going to offer. The second one has to do with the English language. I know people get all exercised about this issue. The language is taken almost verbatim from Peter King's House Resolution 4408 by strengthening a very weak provision in the Judiciary Committee bill that will be under consideration here, that illegal immigrants currently in the United States must merely ``demonstrate an effort'' to learn English when applying for a green card.

Anyone can demonstrate an effort to do anything. You don't have to do anything to do that. So that is a meaningless phrase. There is no requirement whatsoever. My amendment would require these immigrants to learn our language by making English the official language of the United States and making all official business of the United States conducted in English, including publications, tax forms, information material, and other items.

As a matter of fact, my amendment follows what at least 26 other States already have at the State level. They have English as the official language. Half the States already have that, and there is nothing wrong with making that uniform throughout the United States.

Making English the official language would eliminate about $1 billion to $2 billion annually that we spend on providing language assistance, including Federal agencies and funds recipients, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Studies show that those who know English get better jobs, earn more money, and are less likely to be uninsured. As a result, English decreases Government dependency.

This will come as a shock to you, Mr. President, because they think-- and I do speak Spanish. I have worked for many years in areas--I was a commercial pilot in some of the Latin American countries. I know the language fairly well, so I can communicate. But I do know this: There are a lot of immigrants in this country who support English as the language.

In 1995, there was a poll--I talked about this once before on the floor--by Luntz Research, and it said that more than 80 percent of immigrants supported making English the official language.

Eighty percent. These are the ones who are supposed to be against it. They are not against it, they are for it.

The need for official English appears in our newspapers every day-- injuries in the workplace, lawsuits over mistranslation in hospitals, people who are unable to support their families--all because they can't speak English. Making English the official language would also help immigrants assimilate, which is vitally important to becoming an American and preserving our rich heritage.

As my colleague, Senator Alexander, said yesterday--and I thought so much of this, I got his quotes--he said:

Becoming an American--

This is very significant--

Becoming an American is also a unique accomplishment

because it has nothing to do with ancestry.

In other countries, it has to do with ancestry. My family came from Germany, so we all come from different places.

He said:

America is an idea, not a race. We are united by principles

expressed in our founding documents--the very principles that

we are debating in this immigration legislation--not by our

multiple ancestries.

I am still quoting from Senator Alexander, who made this speech yesterday, which is well researched and well thought out.

Some suggest that our diversity is what makes our country

great. To be sure, diversity is one of our strengths, but

diversity is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse.

The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. The greatest

accomplishment of the United States of America is that we

have molded that magnificent diversity into one Nation based

upon a set of common principles, language, and traditions.

That is why the words above the desk--

And the desks of many of us, including mine--

say ``One from many,'' not ``Many from one.''

Clearly, as Senator Alexander so eloquently stated, our Nation is unique among the nations of the world in that we welcome people from all countries and backgrounds to become Americans. By becoming Americans, they are saying they want to adopt our laws and our way of life, and this includes speaking English. It is very much like the case I just cited to you of Thi Van Nguyen coming in so emotionally wrapped up. It wasn't enough just to become a citizen of the United States, he wanted to adopt my name.

Some of our colleagues as well as the people watching us may think this amendment is unnecessary because they mistakenly think English is our official language anyway, but it is not. I have received constituent letters insisting that the Senate do something about bilingual ballots, bilingual education, and driver's licenses in other languages.

People in my State of Oklahoma are angry, and they have good reason to be so. It seems there are those who object to immigrants learning a single word of English. This is not an exaggeration. In the April 10, 2006, issue of The Nation magazine, an article called ``Strangers in the Land'' seriously asks:

Why should linguistic competence be a factor--or acceptable

as an item for democratic debate--in determining citizenship?

As my comrade for a day in Los Angeles would attest, a

nonEnglish speaker in the United States not only can get and

hold down a job; she--

Or he--

can also turn out the vote. Why should a nonEnglish speaker

be allowed to mobilize for American democracy, not to join it

as a citizen?

Learning the language and learning something about American history was something the ancestors of nearly everyone in this Chamber accomplished as a matter of course. All of a sudden, everything is changing, and we are told that it is unfair to expect today's immigrants to do likewise. Yet if people are not encouraged to learn English, they will be dependent upon translation services for the rest of their lives. There is nothing wrong with using a translator. I have done so on my trips to Africa quite often. But it is dangerous to rely entirely upon the accuracy of any translator, especially in one's own country. The competence of any given interpreter is all too often in the eye of the beholder.

Judge Wayne Purdom told the National Law Review that once interpreters are in place, the arguments have only begun:

Sometimes one interpreter is very critical of another's

translation--right in the middle of the courtroom--and they

will interrupt and contradict each other and say the other

person's translation is inaccurate.

We have seen it happen. We have documented cases. Even the translation currently required at the polls has failed to accomplish its intended purpose: helping people cast an informed ballot.

Consider the 2000 election: In one community in New York, the Chinese bilingual ballot translated the ``Democratic'' label on all State races as ``Republican,'' while ``Republican'' was translated to be ``Democrat.'' Consequently, we know the results.

In the 1983 case of People v. Diaz--and we have talked about this before--a California court confessed, and I am quoting now from the record:

We recognize that frequently there is no single word in a

foreign language which carries the identical meaning of a

single word in the English language. We examined four

different Spanish translations of the Miranda advisement at

issue.

That was the case going on at that time.

We discovered that none of these translations was

identical.

If governments do not agree on the proper Spanish translation of the phrase ``You have the right to remain silent,'' how can they accurately translate the context of legal documents? And the short answer is, they cannot. But legal language is complex because it is meant to be exact. Translation may muddy that precision.

I can see the day when someone will go to court claiming that the Spanish translation of some piece of legislation has a different meaning than the English version does. In the absence of an official language, there would be no way to resolve that dispute.

For decades now, we have looked the other way while multilingual mandate was piled upon multilingual mandate. State and local taxpayers have shouldered much of the fiscal burden for our insistence upon welfare forms in Spanish and school documents in Cantonese. Immigrants, too, have suffered from this ``reign of multilingual micromanaging.''

The National Review just this week put the problem in a very vivid perspective, and I will quote because I want this in the Record:

I was reading Li Shaomin's account of being held in China

over long months.

Some of us will remember that.

Li recounted how the Communist security thugs taunted him

and tried to break him. Taking his passport, they said,

``This will do you no good. You may have an American

passport, but you are not a real American, and never will be.

You were born in China, and you will always be Chinese.

Every bilingual ballot and every multilingual government document sends this same message to immigrants: You are not a real American, and you never will be. This is wrong.

Thankfully, America's Hispanic immigrants are turning out this vile message that they need not bother to learn English.

Hispanic Magazine recently carried a story, ``The Next Generation of Hispanic TV is in English.'' Allow me to read a paragraph from this news story:

Most U.S. Latinos are bilingual, 54.7 percent, say Census

data, and consume media in both Spanish and English. The 2002

National Survey of Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center found

that 46 percent of second-generation and 78 percent of third-

generation adult Hispanics speak mostly English.

The Pew Hispanic Center echoed these findings in 2004:

In one key segment of the Hispanic population--likely

voters in U.S. elections--the English language media is the

dominant source of news. More than half of Latino voters, 53

percent, get all of their news in English and 40 percent get

news from media in both languages, while only 6 percent of

likely voters get all their news in Spanish.

Statistics such as these are counter to what most people think. The idea that 80 percent of the immigrants want English to be the official language is really pretty incredible. Hispanics are learning English, they are willing to learn English and support the idea that immigrants should learn English. Only the groups which claim to represent the Hispanic people seem to have a problem with the English language. Of course, should Hispanic immigrants fail to learn English, these self- styled Hispanic leaders will benefit from their ignorance.

John Miller of National Review told The Washington Post, correctly, on May 28, 1998:

On the whole, there is an American national identity that

immigrants ought to be encouraged to assimilate into.

A recent Zogby poll confirmed that most Hispanic Americans still agree with Mr. Miller. Eighty-four percent of Americans, including 77 percent of Hispanics, believe English should be the official language. So there were two totally different polls taken at different times coming to the same conclusions. We are not doing them any favors.

I think a lot of politicians are so afraid they are not going to get the Hispanic vote in some of these highly populated Hispanic States, and they are misinterpreting. To me, it is insulting to the Hispanic community to say: You cannot be a real American unless you learn--just by sitting on the side lines. I believe they are all capable of learning it and they are able to do it and they are willing to do it.

The other polls have similar findings. Ninety-one percent of foreign- born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeeding in the United States, according to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation poll. A 2002 Carnegie/Public Agenda poll found that by more than a 2-to-1 margin, immigrants themselves say the United States should expect new immigrants to learn English. These are immigrants saying that they expect to have to learn English.

My official English amendment is the only popular thing to do, the right thing to do, and it is the fiscally necessary thing to do. Multilingual government is not cheap, and translation is not free. This Nation is at war with a relentless foe. Just as a family seeking to reduce expenditures will reexamine its budget to look for needless frills, so too must the U.S. Government.

I also wish to mention the two pictures I brought with me today. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing I could say that would be more telling than these pictures, taken of high school students in California raising the Mexican flag above an upside down American flag. This is not only disgraceful, it is disgusting and a slap in the face at everything for which this great country stands. These students are living here enjoying the benefits of the United States, not Mexico. But this is happening all over the country, it is not just California. I believe this picture demonstrates what I have been talking about--that we desperately need to seal our borders and instill ways of helping immigrants know and love this country and appreciate the sacrifices made for the liberties they would be enjoying.

So there are two amendments that I have. One would go a long way to securing the border. I know it will work; it has been demonstrated by numbers. That is the name of the game. Secondly, making English the official language of the United States of America, to do away with this type of thing.

Over 2 years ago, on January 7, 2004, after President Bush's press conference

on Fair and Secure Immigration Reform, I announced my principles regarding immigration reform:

I would oppose any program that would shortcut the current naturalization process;

I would oppose any program that rewards illegal aliens for their illegal acts;

I would oppose any program that does not further address the porous nature of our borders.

I remain true to those principles today. Let me elaborate.

I agree with the 1997 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform which stated that measured, legal immigration has lead to create one of the world's greatest ``multiethnic nations.''

I also agree with the commission that immigrants who are ``Americanized'' help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty, democracy and equal opportunity'' in our Nation.

However, I cannot stand idly by and watch this great Nation collapse under the pressure of illegal immigration.

Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, a nonprofit organization dedicated to immigration reform, stated that:

A presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens in this

country is a sign that this country has lost control of its

borders and the ability to determine who is a member of this

national community . . . a country that has lost that ability

increasingly loses its ability to determine the rules of its

society--environmental protections, labor protections, health

protections, safety protections.

Beck goes on to say:

In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to

a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real

community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country

begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of

other countries who manage to move in illegally.

Illegal immigrants continue to flood our borders and cause a myriad of problems for our country and law-abiding citizens like you and me.

For example, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, a nonprofit immigration reform organization, some of the most violent criminals at-large today are illegal immigrants, not to mention the terrorists who have illegally entered our country or overstayed their visas.

I would like to share a personal story regarding illegal aliens who commit crimes in the United States and then flee across the border to Mexico.

Last May, my friend's son, Jeff Garrett, was tragically shot by an illegal alien while Jeff was turkey hunting in Colorado.

Ater he shot Jeff, the alien fled to Mexico where he is hiding today.

I know this story is just one among many about police officers and other innocent Americans murdered each year by illegal aliens who then find safe harbor in Mexico.

We must prevent these criminals from coming across our borders.

Not only are illegal immigrants increasing by crossing the border in droves, they are having ``anchor babies'' in rapid numbers.

These babies are helping the immigration population grow more rapidly than the birth rate of American citizens.

In fact, the Census Bureau estimates that at the time of the 2000 Census, the illegal immigration population reached approximately 8 million.

Therefore, according to this estimate, the illegal-alien population grew by almost half a million a year in the 1990s.

These numbers are derived from a draft report given to the House Immigration Subcommittee by the INS that estimated the illegal population was around 3.5 million in 1990.

In order for the illegal population to have reached 8 million by 2000, the net increase would be around 400,000 to 500,000 per year during the 1990s.

According to CIS, based on numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2002 there were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represent about 3.3 percent of the total U.S. population.

That same year, there were about 383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represented about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002.

Additionally, in the Spring 2005 issue of the American Physicians and Surgeons Journal, Dr. Madeleine Pelner Cosman says:

American hospitals welcome anchor babies. Illegal alien

women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little

anchors, each of whom pulls its illegal alien mother, father,

and siblings into permanent residency simply by being born

within our borders.

Anchor babies are, and instantly qualify for public welfare aid. Between--300,000 and 350,000 anchor babies annually become citizens because of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and the State wherein they reside.

Dr. Cosman continues:

In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300

babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward

were anchor babies, and 45 percent of Stockton children under

age six are Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994,

74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units

cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal

births. Now they account for substantially more than half.

These anchor babies are being used to enable their parents to skirt the law, cross our borders, and bring in additional, illegal aliens.

Furthermore, as the law currently stands, by allowing these children to be considered citizens, it is an incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country.

I am very concerned about the cost these illegal immigrants have on the U.S. economy.

Because illegal workers do not pay income taxes, it is estimated that the Federal Government could be spending $35 billion a year in unpaid taxes, according to Gear Stearns Asset Management.

This figure does not include additional costs spent on illegal immigrants for welfare, healthcare, education, and imprisonment.

In fact, according to Americans for Immigration Control, a nonpartisan, grassroots organization, the implications for these illegal immigrants in the future could cost upwards of $1,500 per year if these same illegal immigrants are granted amnesty because they would suddenly have access to many social programs for which they are not currently eligible.

This means the government could spend an additional $6 billion in welfare expenditures alone.

Taxpayers also pay for illegal immigrant's healthcare.

According to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, illegal immigrant women living in my State gave birth to 2,600 babies in 2005. Delivery of these children cost $6.5 million, or 83 percent of all Medicaid money that is spent on healthcare for illegal immigrants in Oklahoma.

Taxpayers also pay every time an illegal alien visits an emergency room; which they often use as their primary healthcare provider.

Federal prisons are also feeling the strain from illegal immigrants.

June 2003, criminal aliens comprised 34,456 of the prisoners held in Federal prisons.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, holding criminal aliens in Federal prisons cost taxpayers $891 million in 2002.

In Oklahoma alone, the estimated annual operating expenditure for Federal prisons was almost $12,000 per noncitizen inmate in 1999.

Additionally, elementary and secondary education is often one of the most expensive programs funded by State and local governments.

A 1982 Supreme Court ruling entitles children of illegal immigrants to taxpayer-funded government education.

Today, according to the Urban Institute, an estimated 1.1 million school-aged children of illegal immigrants are living in our country.

The cost of educating these illegal students is almost $2 billion per year and is projected to top $27 billion per year in the near future, according to Americans for Immigration Control.

Considering the burden and risk of the current level of illegal immigration, I firmly believe it is vital to secure our borders first, before we address any other immigration issue.

What the Judiciary Committee voted out is amnesty; it allows virtually anyone who is here illegally or who wants to come here to apply for citizenship.

This is a reward for law-breakers. It is essentially an open flow for immigration.

We have seen in the past that this approach does not work.

For instance, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, granted amnesty for illegal immigrants already here in return for strict prohibitions against future illegal entrants.

In place of promised outcomes, however, the number of illegal aliens has more than tripled since IRCA was passed.

Another problem with the Judiciary Committee bill has to do with college tuition for illegal aliens.

While current law allows States to determine whether or not they will provide in-State tuition at colleges and universities for illegal aliens, the Judiciary Committee bill includes a provision whereby the Federal Government mandates that States provide in-State tuition for illegal aliens.

This is unfair for the thousands of out-of-State students who must pay higher tuition costs than illegal immigrants who have broken the law and do not belong in our country.

Some say we don't necessarily need as many guest workers as the Judiciary Committee bill allows.

For example, economist Philip Martin of the University of California says that, when the ``Bracero'' program of the 1960s that brought in seasonal Mexican laborers was discontinued in 1964, the California tomato industry that had depended on these workers developed oblong tomatoes that could be picked by a machine--increasing California's tomato output five times more than what it was before the machines were used.

In a recent Washington Post article, Robert Samuelson expresses his view that with a massive guest worker program, we are importing poverty.

Referring to guest workers, Samuelson says:

. . . they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and

the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980

the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's

poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has

risen 162%. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic

whites in poverty rose 3% and the number of blacks, 9.5%.

He continues:

What we have now--and would have with guest workers--is a

conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States

while relieving Mexico. By and large, this is a bad bargain

for the United States. It stresses local schools, hospitals

and housing; it feeds social tensions (the Minutemen have

witnessed this) . . .

As a matter of fact, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the illegal immigrants that are currently here only represent about 4.9 percent of the labor force; they represent 36 percent of insulation workers, 28 percent of drywall installers, and 20 percent of cooks.

These illegal immigrants, while large in numbers, are not the majority of the workforce.

I ask that we consider the Frist bill which, though not perfect, would increase enforcement and border security.

I further ask that we not bring up the Judiciary Committee's amnesty bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?

Is there a unanimous consent in terms of Members speaking?

My request would be that I be acknowledged to speak on the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment in whatever order you are prepared to give me.

Mr. President, first, let me say to my friend from Alabama, I do not think we have ever been in disagreement on anything. I have a little different take on this issue than he does and a little different background because of an experience I had when I served in the other body.

First, I think realistically, looking at this, you may say ``in writing,'' but if you call your leader and tell him, ``I plan to go ahead and object to this,'' and he knows it is going to come in writing, unless you don't get along with the leader very well, I don't think that would be a real serious problem. But I do agree with the Senator from Alabama that passing laws is not necessarily a good thing. My feeling is we have too many laws, not too few laws. I have said that many times.

But let me share with you an experience I had in the other body. When I was first elected in 1986 to the House of Representatives, I found there was a process used to keep the signatures of a discharge petition from being open to the public. So there could be something very popular. For example, a gun control bill might not be popular in West Texas, but there might be a West Texas Democrat whose party tells him for the national scene, ``We want lots of gun controls, and I know it is not popular in the State, but there is a way you can go home and say you opposed gun controls and at the same time you can get by with appeasing the leadership.''

That is what they did. They would put the discharge petition in the drawer of the Speaker's desk, and you could not get it out unless a majority of people signed the discharge petition. Consequently, they would go ahead and tell people they had signed it when, in fact, they had not.

I had a one-sentence bill that totally reformed that. It stated that all signatures on a discharge petition shall become public record. We actually had seven editorials by the Wall Street Journal. We had all these things saying: Finally, there is light.

All I want--all I want--is to be able to have everyone being accountable for what they are saying. I have two holds right now, and I have said publicly that I am the one who has the holds. I have never, in the 12 years I have been here in this body, not specifically stated that I had holds when I did. So I think that is the main thing. There are similarities between the situation that occurred in the House, and I agree with Reader's Digest, the Wall Street Journal. They said that was the greatest single reform in the last 60 years.

So when I first came to this body, I made this statement: that it appeared to me that being able to put on holds without being accountable is a very similar practice to the inability of knowing what the signatures were on discharge petitions. Consequently, I started back 12 years ago working on this issue. I am very happy to join Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley in what I consider to be a reform that is badly needed in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a November 1994 article in Reader's Digest by Daniel Levine be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold an oversight hearing on Wednesday, March 29, at 9:30 a.m., on the impact of the elimination of

Mr. President, let me say to my friend Senator Sarbanes, there is no stronger supporter of our State revolving funds than I am, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. But I wish to say this is a $2.9 billion tax increase. There are ways of doing it by eliminating some unnecessary programs.

Regarding the portion also affecting the Corps of Engineers, I understand they are underfunded at this time and we are working right now in our committee to see what we can do to come up with some money by striking some of the less important, less necessary programs.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Sarbanes amendment.

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

Mr. President, how much time is divided on this amendment? I didn't get that.

Mr. President, this is kind of a litmus test amendment. We have had it up a couple times before. We do intend to pick up votes each time. It is an amendment to get into some of the big spending we do around here. With the exception of trust votes and national defense, it says that any vote on appropriations that exceeds the previous year has to have a two-thirds majority.

This amendment is endorsed by a number of groups, including the American Conservative Union, Christian Coalition, and other groups. It will be a scored vote. It is a very significant vote. I think it is really the only meaningful vote to do something about curbing spending that we will have the entire day.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a unanimous consent we are operating under, but my only request is if the Senator from Delaware goes next, I be recognized after the Senator from Delaware for my amendment.

So I will be following the Senator from Delaware. Thank you.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2933. I ask the Senate to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, it is my understanding it was agreed to by both sides, that I was to be recognized for the purpose of setting aside the amendment and calling up amendment No. 2933.

If that is what you recall--that is certainly not the intention of this Senator.

I ask if our leader would defer for a question. I appreciate very much the Senator's attention. I have been down here since before the bill came up with the intention of being the first one. I yielded to Senator Santorum. We wanted to go back and forth. It was my understanding Senator Carper was recognized and I would be right after him and that time has arrived.

What is the problem?

Last I saw, Senator Carper was a Democrat.

I ask the Chair what his understanding was of the unanimous consent request?

While the Chair is thinking----

Will the leader yield for a request? If I do not take more than 2 minutes, may I go ahead and bring mine up, set the current amendment aside and bring it up so it will be in the mix?

Yes. My request would be in conjunction with the Wyden amendment but also to bring up my amendment and set it aside so I would be in the mix, if that would be all right. So a couple minutes would do it.

Let me go ahead and propound that.

Madam President, there is an amendment I had submitted on holds, and we have been trying to do this for quite some time. My good friends, Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, have been trying to do the same thing, and I think Senator Lott from Mississippi. So what I will do is not offer my amendment No. 2933 in favor of the Wyden-Grassley now Inhofe amendment that will be considered. That is my unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2934 be called up for its immediate consideration.

OK. We would be able to get it up and get it in without taking any time. If you want to go back to that order, that is fine.

Well, my request is to go ahead and bring it up now, but that is fine.

I would only say that the amendment has been at the desk as of 8 this morning. I assume you have already gone over the amendments.

This would be an amendment having to do with COLAs.

If he should come on the floor--he or she--with a second- degree amendment, I would be glad to suspend.

Madam President, first of all, I ask to bring up my amendment, No. 2934.

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

Madam President, this amendment is very simple. I have always felt that the greatest single hypocrisy every year is when Members come up and vote to exempt Members of Congress from a cost-of- living increase. The hypocrisy comes in when all the press releases hit the home State and they talk about how great this is, saying they are great reformers and then, of course, it is defeated and they end up taking the increase anyway.

Basically, what this does is say if you vote in favor of an increase by voting against an exemption of Congress, then you are not entitled to the increase. It is as simple as that. I say this, too: I love the Kennedys and the Rockefellers, but I don't think you should have to be a Kennedy or a Rockefeller to serve in this body. I can think of many people, such as Senator Dan Coats--Democrats and Republicans alike would hold him up and say there is a guy who was an outstanding Member and he had to quit because of his kids getting up to college age, and he knew he would be able to make enough money to send them to school outside of serving in the Senate.

If there is ever any transparency in stopping hypocrisy, that is what this would be. I am glad to have this in the mix, and when the appropriate time comes, I will call for a vote. It doesn't necessarily have to be a rollcall vote. I will leave that up to the leadership.

With that, I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I want to get a vote. If I had a chance to make my full remarks, I would go into more detail. I am one of the fortunate ones who have other sources of income. As most of you know, I also do things that go to charity. I am probably a logical one to introduce this. I have heard several Members on your side of the aisle say they are supportive, and I anticipate they will be adding their names as cosponsors of this amendment before it comes up for a vote.