Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System Drinking Water Act of 2005 to assist water systems throughout the country comply with the numerous Federal drinking water standards. My bill will require the Federal Government to live up to its obligations and require the EPA to use all of the tools given the Agency in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA).

In Oklahoma we continue to have municipalities struggling with the arsenic rule. Further nearly 80 percent of our small systems, those serving less than 10,000 people, are not in compliance with the Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Stage I rule. In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified $4.5 billion in infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. $40 million a year of that need is to meet Federal drinking water standards. This does not include costs imposed by Oklahoma communities to meet Federal clean water requirements.

The EPA on December 15th finalized the Disinfection Byproducts Stage II rule and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The costs of complying with these two rules are not included in the $40 million a year need recently identified by the State. At current funding rates, the State receives $8.5 million dollars for its drinking water revolving loan fund.

My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with the rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the SDWA. The DBP Stage I rule is very complex and involves a lot of monitoring and testing. The other rules are equally complex in nature and many small systems simply do not have the expertise needed to implement them. If we are going to impose complicated requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those requirements. Therefore, my legislation also requires that each system receive the help it needs to come into compliance before an enforcement action can be taken.

The bill also creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the science behind the rules compared to new developments since their publication.

Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document that states can use to create their own programs.

This legislation seeks to provide communities with more tools in order to comply with these Federal requirements while also requiring EPA to use the tools it has been provided, including the identification of variance technologies.

Repeat the time, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I returned 2 days ago from Iraq. There was an article in yesterday's Hill magazine that was erroneous--there will be a correction printed--where they inaccurately stated the number of times I have been over to Iraq. It has actually been 10 times. I have been doing this not because I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but because I believe it is our constitutional responsibility to see firsthand that our guys over there are getting the equipment they need to prosecute the war, and they have been.

I want to share with you what happened the first of this week because even though the vote took place yesterday, on Thursday, the vote for the Iraqi security forces actually took place on Monday and Tuesday. We had a chance to go up there and visit with them.

The interesting point is, we saw this coming. There have been a lot of politicians coming back and talking about how bad things are over there. I can't figure out where they get their information because as we have been approaching these elections over the last few months, we have noticed the IED incidents have been down 30 percent and suicide bombs have been down 70 percent.

There is a road that goes from where we get off the C-130s to go into the Green Zone. Mr. President, you have been there. We were averaging about 10 terrorist incidents on that road each week up until June. We haven't had one since June. So we see all these good things are happening, and then the unexpected quality of the training we are getting for the Iraqi security forces. These guys right now--and I think this is significant because people keep asking, What is the exit strategy? I can tell you what I believe. One Senator believes we are going to be out.

Right now there are 214,000 Iraqi soldiers who are trained and equipped. At the end of this month, while we are drawing down--we are drawing down probably 15,000 to 20,000 of ours troops--they are going to increase to 220,000. By the end of 2006, it is anticipated they will be at 300,000. The goal is to get 10 divisions of Iraqi security forces. Ten divisions of Iraqi security forces equal 325,000 troops. That will happen by July of 2007.

In terms of the way we are functioning now, we will be out of there, but there will still be some troops there. We still have troops in Kosovo and in Bosnia, but the heavy lifting will be over. They will be taking care of themselves.

I see the incredible courage of these people. Up in Fallujah 3 nights ago, I had all of the Iraqi security forces that had voted that day come in. They were all rejoicing, and I said to them--this is kind of funny. I said to them, through an interpreter: When is it going to be that you are going to be able to be on your own without our support? Is that going to be in the near future?

And they said: No, no--which broke my heart when I heard this. Then I found out, in the Iraqi language, ``yes'' means ``na'am.'' So they are saying, ``Yes, yes,'' and when they shake their head this way, it also means ``yes.'' Anyway, a little advice in case that happens to anyone.

These people are ready. They are so proud of the level of training they have had. Keep in mind, this is in the Sunni triangle. These are the Sunnis who are supposed to dislike us.

Several weeks ago, I was there and I met General Mahdi, who is in charge of the Iraqi security forces in Fallujah. He had been in charge--under Saddam Hussein he was a brigade commander. He hated Americans until he started working with the Marines. He said he learned to love the Marines so much that when they rotated them out, they all got together and they cried. That guy right now, General Mahdi, is now over the eastern one-third of the entire city of Baghdad. We do not have our military there. It is all under Iraqi security. We have half of the city under security now. It is going to be up to 75 percent in a very short period of time.

I think, when we see the successes--and even if that were not true, if one stops and realizes the bloody regime of Saddam Hussein, yes, the targets for the terrorists right now are not Americans, they are Iraqis, and they are killing some of the Iraqis, but when one stops and puts it on a chart, during the 10 years that Saddam Hussein had his bloody regime, on a monthly basis he was torturing to death more people than the terrorists are killing today. When one looks at the way that they have done it, the forms of torture, include gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, electric shocks--there is a testimonial here about a 3-month-old baby girl who was taken, and they gouged her eyes out in front of the father, smashed her head and broke it open against a concrete wall.

There is a lot of talk on the other side of this issue about prisoner abuse. We do not have prisoner abuse. The documentation is right here about what they do with their prisoners. They will put them in shredders. If they are lucky, they will shred their head first. If they are unlucky, they will put their feet in there. This is what has been happening over there, but it is all over now, and they are in charge of their own destiny.

I have enjoyed so much visiting with the members of Parliament who were going to be up for election. This would have been on Wednesday, and they were going to be up the next day. One lady was quite outspoken and quite negative in terms of what her people were saying to her. I said: Did it ever occur to you 5 years ago that there would be an opportunity for a woman to serve in Parliament, let alone to talk the way you are talking? She stopped and said: You know, I think that is right.

So we are seeing such a change now in the attitudes. The polls look so good. The polls are showing that 70 percent of the people in Iraq are appreciative of the Americans being there. They want them to stay and get out when they are able to stand up on their own.

I met with the election commission, and to handle the election the way they did was totally unprecedented. We could never have predicted how smoothly things would go. We talked to the people, and I want to particularly pay tribute to IFES, the International Foundation of Electrical Systems. They have done a great job. They had people on the ground, and they have truly been able to conduct an election that is actually comparable and better than many other mature countries, maturing democracies. It has been a great success. I am rejoicing with all the people of Iraq today and with the people of America.

Lastly, I pay tribute to the brave people of Iraq who for the third time this year have gone to the polls in record number to vote for a brighter and more democratic future in Iraq. The early reports indicate that across the 18 provinces of Iraq, Iraqis again turned out in massive numbers to vote

in favor of a democratic Iraq. In doing so the Iraqis demonstrated to us all the importance of voting.

Earlier this week I was in Iraq and had the opportunity to see first hand the preparations for the historic election on December 15. I even had a chance to witness some of the early voting that took place in Iraq. It was a moving experience and one that demonstrated that the great sacrifice that America has made in Iraq helped to free people from tyranny and start them on the road to a democratic future.

While in Baghdad, I met with the Chairman of the Independent Election Commission of Iraq, IECI, Isadin Al Mohamaady and the members of the commission. I had an opportunity to see first hand the extensive preparations that were being undertaken by the Iraqis. I was impressed by the sacrifice made by the members of the commission and their staff, many of whom have paid the ultimate price for democracy with their lives. However, the spirit that I found in Baghdad, Fallujah, and everywhere I went, was one of determination, professionalism, and a dedication to making sure that Iraqis could freely select their future leaders at the ballot box.

It is important also to recognize the work of the International Foundation for Election Systems also known as IFES that has played a critical role in helping advance free and fair elections in Iraq and in 120 countries around the world. With the support of U.S. taxpayers, IFES was able to provide critical assistance that helped to make these elections possible.

I stand here to salute the brave Iraqis who at great personal risk sent an important message to the world about the triumph of the ballot over the bullet. Iraqis of all ethnic groups have joined together with unity and determination to freely choose their leaders in a free and fair election. They have sent a message around the world that the best way to defeat tyranny is at the ballot box, the source of power of the people, by the people and for the people.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 2117, which is a bill engaging our Nation to fight concerning our right to control entry. It is legislation that covers many aspects of the problem we are having on our very porous borders. One part of this is utilizing retired law enforcement officers. As many people know, national law enforcement officers have to retire at age 57. We learned of their availability after 9/11 when the Transportation Safety Administration and our office was inundated with calls from these brave law enforcement officers who are retired, saying that they wanted to participate in this activity, and they are willing to do it for costs. The legislation I have introduced does include the very sophisticated type of a fence that goes along the border between Mexico and the United States and also with an army of people who can join those who have already demonstrated very clearly that if we have enough people down there, we will be able to secure our borders.

I am cautioning any of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue not to be tempted to use military because right now our military is stressed. We have an OPTEMPO that is unacceptable as it is right now. It should not be taking on other duties. Besides that, with the enactment of S. 2117, that would not be necessary.

Illegal immigration is at an all-time high, with around 1 million illegal aliens infiltrating our borders each year.

My legislation focuses on empowering our citizens and law enforcement officers to fight this flood of illegal immigration.

First of all, I want to make it clear that I honor the millions of immigrants that have come to this Nation, waited their turn, and gone through all the requirements to become American citizens to make our great country what it is today. I have spoken at many naturalization services and seen what these people have gone through to become American citizens.

I agree with the 1997 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform that measured, legal immigration has ``led'' 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 uncontrolled illegal immigration.

Roy Beck, Executive Director of Numbers USA, a non-profit 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.''

My bill, the ENFORCE Act, works to solve the illegal immigration problem in several ways. It will provide a way for more civilians and retired law enforcement officers to help the Border Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings and reduce the illegal immigration rate.

Through the creation of the National Border Neighborhood Watch Program, NBNW, retired law enforcement officials called the Border Regiment Assisting in Valuable Enforcement, BRAVE, Force agents, will come and work alongside Border Patrol agents. Civilian volunteers, much like the now well-known Minutemen, will be able to report immigration violations to assigned BRAVE Force agents.

The NBNW Program is modeled after the National Neighborhood Watch program, a collaboration between law enforcement, businesses, and concerned citizens who watch for and report suspicious criminal activity in neighborhoods to the local police.

The Neighborhood Watch Program has proven effective in reducing the crime rate in areas where it is implemented. I am hopeful that the National

Border Neighborhood Watch Program will have the same effect in reducing illegal border crossings as the Neighborhood Watch Program has had in reducing crime.

I also believe that the BRAVE Force will provide significant assistance to the Minutemen, who are sacrificing their time and energy as they work to preserve our liberties and enforce our laws.

Another provision of the ENFORCE Act will make it a felony to be illegally present in the U.S.

Under current law, it is only a misdemeanor to be unlawfully present in the U.S. This means that if illegal aliens are caught in the U.S. today and are deported, most of the time, they can turn around and come right back into our country legally, without consideration of the fact that they were previously in our country illegally.

By making unlawful presence a felony under the ENFORCE Act, when caught, illegal aliens will be entered into the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, database, a computerized index of criminal justice information (i.e., criminal record history information, fugitives, stolen properties, missing persons), available to Federal, State, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. They will also be banned from legally entering the U.S. for 5 years.

My bill will also establish another Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, office in Tulsa, OK.

We only have one ICE office in the whole State of Oklahoma and this is not enough to do the job of enforcing our immigration laws. For example, in September 2004, 18 illegal aliens were riding in a van in Catoosa, OK. The police pulled them over and found several illegal minors, as well as cocaine in the van. When the police called the ICE office in Oklahoma City, ICE authorities told the officers to let the illegals go because ICE did not have the resources or manpower to take them into custody. So Catoosa police let them go.

This is outrageous.

This year alone, 12 agents of the Office of Investigations of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement served the 3,500,000 people residing in Oklahoma.

Additionally, Highway I-44 and US-75 are major roads through Tulsa that are used to transport illegal aliens to areas throughout the country.

We must provide our States and communities with the tools to arrest and detain illegal aliens. Creating a second ICE office in Tulsa, one of Oklahoma's largest cities, will help improve the lack of immigration enforcement in Eastern Oklahoma.

I would also like to note that my colleague, Congressman John Sullivan, has introduced similar legislation to create an ICE office in Tulsa. Not only do I believe adding another ICE office in Tulsa will help local and Federal law enforcement, I also believe providing specific immigration training for law enforcement officers will help solve our illegal immigration crisis.

Our State, local, and tribal law enforcement are experiencing increasing encounters with illegal and criminal aliens during routine police duties. The typical officer often does not know the law, policy, and procedures for determining immigration status or violations--apart from or in conjunction with other offenses--concerning alien lawbreakers.

As immigration continues to affect interior communities, a key to addressing situations that intersect with other law enforcement involves providing State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers with basic training in immigration law and policy. Rather than expending millions of dollars on traditional classroom training, this basic training can be cost-effectively accomplished using the Internet.

Knowledge of basic immigration enforcement can complement law enforcement's core mission; should a local officer have strong reason to suspect other law violations without sufficient evidence to hold or charge the alien on other offenses, immigration violations may constitute sufficient grounds to hold a criminal.

This requires basic familiarity with immigration matters; therefore, this provision authorizes $3 million for a demonstration project to establish such an on-line training program through Cameron University in Lawton, OK. These funds will be used to develop and facilitate on- line training in basic immigration enforcement for up to 100,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers in 6 to 8 States, similar to the 4 hours of classroom training provided to all of Alabama's state troopers in 2003.

This system will also provide, at the end of the demonstration project, a ``return on investment'' study documenting the project's cost-effectiveness.

Not only are illegal immigrants increasing by crossing the border and dodging law enforcement officers, they are having ``anchor babies'' in rapid numbers.

Anchor babies are born to illegal aliens who come to our country and have a baby who is then treated as a citizen because it was born on U.S. soil. 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.

Furthermore, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, a non-profit immigration reform organization, 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 represents about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002.

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 which says: ``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.''

These anchor babies are being used to enable their parents to skirt the law, cross our borders, and bring in additional, illegal aliens. As the law currently stands, because these children are considered citizens, it creates an incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country.

My bill will end this incentive by clarifying that only children born to citizens or legal permanent residents are considered citizens and ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''

The ENFORCE Act will also address several issues including clarification of acceptable identification documents, verification of Social Security numbers and benefits, clarification of the rights of local and state law enforcement officers concerning illegal immigration and construction of a fence along our southern border.

There is a growing problem regarding fraudulent identification, identity theft and foreign-issued consular cards in our country. Illegal aliens often steal a person's identification, such as the birth certificate of a deceased person, and use it to gain employment and other benefits.

My bill will help eliminate this fraud by establishing birth and death registries for localities to have the ability to check a person's identification to ensure they are truly who they claim to be. It will also require independent verification of birth records of people applying for a Social Security number.

The ENFORCE Act will clarify which identification documents can be used for official identification within the United States--such as driver's licenses, passports, etc.--eliminating the use of consular cards for identification.

Often, foreign embassies, within the U.S., will issue consular cards to their citizens who are in the U.S. These cards are unnecessary because the U.S. government either recognizes foreign passports or issues its own identification documents to foreigners who are legally in the U.S. The majority of consular cards have been found to be used as identification for illegal aliens and have been called an insecure document by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

Another provision in my bill will address Social Security benefits for work performed by illegal aliens.

Under current law, former illegal aliens, who gain legal status, are able to receive Social Security benefits for the work they performed while they were illegal.

My bill will end this practice by not allowing anyone to collect Social Security benefits for work performed while they were illegally present in this country. Our Social Security system is already strained and faces bankruptcy. Allowing work performed by illegals to be counted and used to further drain our Social Security system must stop.

The ENFORCE Act will also address fraudulent use of the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, ITIN.

The IRS created the ITIN in 1996 to improve tax administration because it needed a more efficient way to identify and track the tax reporting of non-citizens, such as foreign investors, who could not obtain a Social Security number when filing tax returns and other tax documents. ITIN applications can be mailed to the IRS, submitted at an IRS walk-in, taxpayer assistance center, or submitted through an acceptance agent.

A GAO testimony by Michael Brostek before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Social Security in March 2004 revealed that IRS controls for the ITIN could be easily bypassed and that it could be used for non-tax purposes, such as general identification. Mr. Brostek went on to testify that the ``IRS concluded that most resident aliens who have ITINs and earn a wage income are not legally employed in the U.S.''

This creates many concerns about use of the ITIN by illegal aliens, which is why my bill will make the ITIN look physically different than a Social Security number and not allow it to be used to obtain tax credits.

Another issue my bill addresses is building a fence along our southern border.

It is known, according to government reports, that foreign nationals from countries such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia have crossed our southern borders, not to mention the high number of illegal aliens from other countries.

According to We Need a Fence, an organization dedicated to ensuring a fence is built along our southern border, a CNN poll has shown that 87 percent of its respondents support building a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The ENFORCE Act will direct a high security, state-of-the-art fence to be built along our southern border to prevent illegal border crossings. This fence will actually consist of two fences separated by a patrol road, ditches, barbed wire, and surveillance cameras. While the initial cost to build the fence is considered high by some, I firmly believe it will result in savings in the long run by preventing illegal border crossings and eliminating the cost of finding, arresting, detaining and deporting illegal aliens.

The ENFORCE Act will also make it illegal to establish day-laborer centers and to assist illegal aliens in finding employment, much like the sites that are set to be built for illegal aliens in Fairfax County, VA.

Earlier this year, the Fairfax County's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to provide $400,000 in taxpayer funds to be used to build three day laborer sites to assist illegal aliens in finding employment. It makes no sense to not only ignore the large numbers of illegal aliens gathering in one place, but to enable them to continue to break the law by working in the U.S. and encourage others, such as employers, to break the law by helping illegals obtain jobs.

Another problem we face is educating illegal aliens.

Some states, such as Oklahoma, allow illegal aliens to receive in- state tuition at colleges and universities. This is a slap in the face to out-of-state students who must pay higher tuition than illegal aliens who have broken the law and do not even belong in our country. My bill will address this problem so that illegal aliens will not be able to receive this benefit.

I would like to conclude by sharing 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. After he shot Jeff, the illegal fled to Mexico, where he is hiding today.

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

I believe the ENFORCE Act will not only help prevent these criminals from coming across our borders, but is a good start to ending our rampant problem of illegal immigration in general.

I ask my colleagues to join me in solving our immigration problem by cosponsoring the ENFORCE Act.

Mr. President, both subcommittee Chairman Thune and I recognize the importance of oversight of the Superfund program. To that end, and consistent with Senator Boxer's request, Senator Thune's subcommittee will be holding an oversight hearing of EPA's Superfund program once Susan Bodine, the President's nominee to head EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, is confirmed by the Senate with Ms. Bodine testifying on behalf of EPA. After Ms. Bodine is confirmed, we will begin to work on scheduling this hearing with a targeted time frame of the first quarter of 2006, but no later than the Memorial Day recess. Senator Thune will work closely with Senator Boxer in scheduling the hearing.

I expect EPA to be forthcoming in this hearing about the program and look forward to Ms. Bodine's confirmation so that she may help ensure that the EPA is responsive to the Senator's requests for information about the management of the program and the impacts on communities throughout the country.

With this week's consideration of the tax reconciliation act, the United States Senate engaged in a heated exchange over the reinstatement of the windfall profits tax on American oil. The key question in this debate, which my colleagues have not been able to answer, is how can a tax increase on oil and gas production reduce prices? It can't and history proves it.

First enacted under President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production called the windfall profits tax. The result was inevitable. According to a 1990 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter's WPT were hugely counterproductive: ``The WPT reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent . . . This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.''

The stakes for Oklahoma are huge considering that oil and gas production is our largest single industry. During debate, Democrats filed amendment after amendment, nine in total, to penalize and to increase taxes by billions of dollars on one of America's most vital industries. To Oklahoma's good fortune, and that of the American consumer, each of these amendments was either soundly defeated or withdrawn.

Over the past few months, Democrats have fired a barrage of unfair rhetoric maligning all those who work in the oil and gas business. With one breath they demand Congress reign in the recent high oil prices, with the next they insist on tax increases to punish those who they claim are responsible. With so many friends, acquaintances, and constituents in the business, I find these reckless demands and accusations unfair and dangerous for Oklahoma.

As a teenager, I worked as a tool dresser on a drilling rig for a man by the name of A.W. Swift. Many in Oklahoma know his name, but few in this Chamber would. Like many who have operated in oil and gas, he ran a thrifty and tight operation but was eventually taxed out of business. This same man lost his son, Burt Swift, after a rig explosion claimed his life but spared mine. Sacrifices, such as his, are often a part of the harsh realities faced by many in the oil business.

Oklahoma would be especially hard hit by a WPT. Currently, well over two-thirds of the State's oil production comes from marginal wells. A marginal well is typically defined as one which produces less than 10 barrels of oil or 60 mcf of gas a day. They are called ``marginal'' because their profitability is at times just at the margin, depending upon production costs and current market prices.

As oil prices decrease many of these wells become uneconomical and are increasingly ``shut in'' or ``plugged and abandoned.'' However, as oil prices increase, Oklahoma's independents increasingly drill for and produce from marginal wells. The added cost of a windfall profits tax drastically harms the economic viability Oklahoma's marginal wells.

Outside of the damage a WPT would inflict upon Oklahoma, this tax would only further harm our Nation's shrinking energy independence. America's major oil companies already pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. How are they to compete internationally with an additional WPT tax? How could Conoco Phillips or Chevron Texaco compete with Total (French), BP (British), and Royal Dutch Shell (British/Dutch) not to mention government owned and operated oil giants like Saudi Aramco, NIOC (National Iran Oil Company), Petro China, CNOOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation), Gazprom (Russia), and dozens more. With enactment of a WPT, American companies would be hard pressed to effectively compete in the competitive global market for exploration and production. The WPT gives all foreign owned oil companies a strong competitive advantage.

With more than 2,100 firms and 60,000 people the oil and gas industry is the most critical component of Oklahoma's economy. Many of those in the business have in the past lost their business, their savings and their livelihood. The industry is cyclical with booms followed by busts as we saw most poignantly in the 1980s. For the jobs in Oklahoma and the consumers at the pump, let's reject WPT.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I may want to ask for a couple more minutes.

First of all, let me state to the junior Senator from Oklahoma that I was not aware of this debate coming up. However, I don't have to practice for a debate; it comes from the heart.

Let me also say to one of my best friends in the Senate, Senator Voinovich, that he is doing his job. We may come to a different conclusion on this particular issue, but I know he is in a real situation. You have shared that with several of us.

Let me suggest to you, Mr. President, that there is something sadly lacking in this debate; that is, in the State of Oklahoma. There are only two of us in the Chamber from Oklahoma. We know what Oklahomans want. It is kind of interesting because Senator Coburn and I have kind of the same philosophy--we want to keep it the same place. We have different styles when we talk about trying to reduce the size of government. He talks about projects, and I talk about reducing appropriations. We both want to get to the same place. He has been an advocate and has talked about term limitation. I believe that everyone, if they don't want to go along with term limitations, ought to have to go out like I did and serve in the real world for 30 years, get beat up by the bureaucracy, and then you can come here and speak from the heart as a citizen back home.

But when you look at our State of Oklahoma--and I read this section out of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 4, which says the time, places, and manner of holding elections for the U.S. Senate preside in each State. That is what it says. That is what the Founding Fathers said--that we should make that determination from our own States. So here we are from the State of Oklahoma. We made the decision. And I have to say this: I know what people in Oklahoma want.

One other thing Senator Coburn and I have in common is we go back every weekend. He may deliver a few babies while he is back there. But I would suggest to you, ask the question. A lot of people stay here in Washington all the time. Would you rather have your U.S. Senator staying in Washington and playing golf all weekend or going back to the State from which he came? We made a decision to go back.

I have to say also that I have a bigger dog in this fight than most people think. I had the honor of going out many years ago and recruiting this

bright young doctor to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. And he did. He came in and agreed to do that. He got an exception to allow him to work hard and still keep up his practice. He did that very successfully.

I have to say this: When the Senator from Connecticut referred to a part-time Senator, which we hear now and then, let me tell you that there is no part-time Senator in Senator Coburn. I know this because we go back every weekend. I go around the State. I know what people want. The State of Oklahoma is not a Republican State or a Democrat State, it is a swing State. For him to come along and get in the race late--he got in the race so late for the U.S. Senate that I was already supporting another Republican. But when he got in and worked hard and went out, he won by 12 points. It wasn't a squeaker it was a landslide. And he was outspent by the other side.

This is what we think in Oklahoma about Tom Coburn.

You can talk all you want to about the rules in the Senate, but I can tell you right now that the Constitution is right when they say in article I, section 4, that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the State for the office of Senator is within the State.

I am here on behalf the State of Oklahoma, unlike anyone else who has spoken saying this is the right thing to do to carve out this exception, if you want to call it that, for Senator Coburn, he is a hard-working Senator, and he is doing what we in Oklahoma want him to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding. On rollcall vote No. 307, I was recorded as voting yea. I voted no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. President, I have addressed this Chamber several times on the subject of global warming. Many times, over and over in the past few years in those speeches I have presented well-documented facts regarding the science and economics of the global warming issue that, sadly, many of my colleagues in the public heard for the first time.

Today, I will discuss something else--scientific integrity and how to improve it. Specifically, I will discuss the systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective scientific assessment in the world on the subject of climate change--the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. I will conclude with a series of recommendations as to the minimum changes the IPCC must make if it is to restore its credibility.

When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, one of my top three priorities was to improve the quality of environmental science used in public policymaking by taking the politics out of science. I have convened hearings on this subject and the specific issue of global warming science.

I am a U.S. Senator and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics. And the more I have delved into the issue, the more convinced I have become that science is being co-opted by those who care more about peddling fear of gloom and doom to further their own, broader agendas than they do about scientific integrity.

I am committed to shining a light on their activities. Global warming alarmists will undoubtedly continue to accuse me of attacking the science of global warming--that is part of their game. But nothing could be further from the truth. I support and defend credible, objective science by exposing the corrupting influences that would subvert it for political purposes. Good policy must be based on good science, and that requires science be free of bias, whatever its conclusions might be.

As nations meet again next month in Montreal to discuss global warming, the pronouncements of the IPCC leaders will gain renewed attention as they continue their efforts to craft a fourth assessment of the state of global warming science. If the fourth assessment is to have any credibility, fundamental changes will need to be made.

The flaws in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the first assessment, but did so in earnest when the IPCC issued its second assessment report in 1996. The most obvious was the altering of the document on the central question of whether man is causing global warming.

Here is what Chapter 8--the key chapter in the report--stated on this central question in the final version accepted by reviewing scientists:

No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of

the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes.

But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in 15 sections of the chapter were deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities are having a major impact on global warming.

It removes these doubts that were specific in the study.

In the Summary for Policymakers--which is the only part of the report that reporters and policymakers read--a single phrase was inserted. It reads:

The balance of evidence suggests that there is a

discernible human influence on global climate.

The lead author for chapter 8, Dr. Ben Santer, should not be held solely accountable. According to the journal Nature, the changes to the report were made in the midst of high-level pressure from the Clinton/ Gore State Department to do so. I understand that

after the State Department sent a letter to Sir John Houghton, co- chairman of the IPCC, Houghton prevailed upon Santer to make the changes. The impact was explosive, with media across the world, including heavyweights such as Peter Jennings, declaring this as proof that man is responsible for global warming.

Notably, polls taken shortly afterwards showed scant support for the statement. The word ``discernible'' implies measurable or detectable, and depending on how the question was asked, only 3-19 percent of American scientists concurred. That is the very best scenario--less than 20 percent.

In 2001, the third assessment report was published. Compared with the flaws in the third assessment, those in the second assessment appear modest. The most famous is the graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann and others. Their study concluded that the 20th century was the warmest on record in the last 1,000 years, showing flat temperatures until 1900 and then spiking upward--in short, it looked like a hockey stick. It achieved instant fame as proof of man's causation of global warming because it was featured prominently in the summary report read by the media.

Let us take a look at this chart. This is the blade of the hockey stick, and this is what Michael Mann tried to show. Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible practices.

This chart starts the year 1000, 1200, and so forth. If they had included the three centuries prior to that, that was the time called the medieval warming period. In the medieval warming period, you would find another blade such as this where temperatures were actually higher than they are in this exhibit.

Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible practices. Dr. Hans von Storch, a prominent German researcher with the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research--who, I am told, believes in global warming--put it this way:

Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.

In fact, a pair of Canadian researchers showed that when random data is fed into Michael Mann's mathematical construct, it produces a hockey stick more than 99 percent of the time, regardless of what you put into it. Yet the IPCC immortalized the hockey stick as the proof positive of catastrophic global warming.

How can such a thing occur? Sadly, it is due to the institutional structure of the IPCC itself--it breeds manipulation.

First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support the efforts of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the basic mission of eliminating the threat of global warming. This clearly creates a conflict of interest with the standard scientific goal of assessing scientific data in an objective manner.

The IPCC process itself illustrates the problem. The Summary Report for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists and economists who contribute to the report.

In other words, the Summary Report for Policymakers is the one for policymakers and for the press. That is how people pick up their impressions as to what was in the report. However, the scientists and the economists who contributed to the report never did approve the Summary Report for Policymakers. It is approved by intergovernmental delegates--in short, politicians. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to realize that politicians will insist the report support their agenda.

A typical complaint of scientists and economists is that the summary does not adequately reflect the uncertainties associated with tentative conclusions in the basic report. The uncertainties I identified by contributing authors and reviewers seem to disappear or are downplayed in the summary.

A corollary of this is that lead authors and the chair of the IPCC control too much of the process. The old adage ``power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'' applies here. Only a handful of individuals were involved in changing the entire tone of the second assessment. Likewise, Michael Mann was a chapter lead author in the third assessment.

One stark example of how the process has been corrupted involves a U.S. Government scientist who is among the world's most respected experts on hurricanes--Dr. Christopher Landsea. Earlier this year, Dr. Landsea resigned as a contributing author in the upcoming fourth assessment. His reason was simple--the lead author for the chapter on extreme weather, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, had demonstrated he would pursue a political agenda linking global warming to more severe hurricanes.

Trenberth had spoken at a forum where he was introduced as a lead author and proceeded to forcefully make the link. He has spoken here in the Senate as well, and it is clear that Trenberth's mind is completely closed on the issue. The only problem is that Trenberth's views are not widely accepted among the scientific community. As Landsea put it last winter:

All previous and current research in the area of hurricane

variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the

frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the

Atlantic or any other basin.

When Landsea brought it to the attention of the IPCC, he was told that Trenberth--who as lead author is supposed to bring a neutral, unbiased perspective to his position--would keep his position. Landsea concluded that:

Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process

on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our

climate system has been subverted and compromised, its

neutrality lost.

Landsea's experience is not unique. Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT researcher who was a contributing author to a chapter in the third assessment, among others has said that the Summary did not reflect the chapter he contributed to. But when you examine how the IPCC is structured, is it really so surprising?

Second, the IPCC has demonstrated an unreasoning resistance to accepting constructive critiques of its scientific and economic methods, even in the report itself. Of course, combined with my first point, this is a recipe for delegitimizing the entire endeavor in terms of providing credible information that is useful to policymakers.

Let me offer a few examples of what I am talking about.

Malaria is considered one of the four greatest risks associated with global warming. But the relationship between climate and mosquito populations is highly complex. There are over 3,500 species of mosquito, and all breed, feed, and behave differently. Yet the nine lead authors of the health section in the second assessment had published only six research papers on vector-borne diseases among them.

Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a respected entomologist who has spent decades studying mosquito-borne malaria, believes that global warming would have little impact on the spread of malaria. But the IPCC refused to consider his views in its third assessment, and has completely excluded him from contributing to the fourth assessment.

Here is another example: To predict future global warming, the IPCC estimated how much world economies would grow over the next century. They had to somehow tie this into the economic activity. Future increases in carbon dioxide emission estimates are directly tied to growth rates, which in turn drive the global warming predictions.

Unfortunately, the method the IPCC uses to calculate growth rates is wrong. It also contains assumptions that developing nations will experience explosive growth--in some cases, becoming wealthier than the United States. These combine to greatly inflate even its lower-end estimates of future global warming.

The IPCC, however, has bowed to political pressure from the developing countries that refuse to acknowledge the likelihood they will not catch up to the developed world. The result: Future global warming predictions by the IPCC are based on a political choice, not on credible economic methodologies.

Likewise, the IPCC ignored the advice of economists who conclude that, if global warming is real, future generations would have a higher quality of life if societies maximize economic growth and adapt to future warming rather than trying to drastically curb emissions. The IPCC turns a deaf ear.

This problem with the economics led to a full-scale inquiry by the UK's House of Lords' Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The ensuing report

should be required reading. The committee identified numerous problems with the IPCC.

In fact, the problems identified were so substantial, it led Lord Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a member of the committee, to recently state--in fact, he was here and testified before the committee I chair here in the Senate--Lord Lawson said:

I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the

institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it

would be far better to thank it for the work it has done,

close it down, and transfer all future international

collaboration on the issue of climate change. . . .

To regain its credibility, the IPCC must correct its deficiencies in all of the following areas before it releases its fourth assessment report. Structurally, there are four ways we suggest changes be made.

The first is to adopt procedures by which scientific reviewers formally approve both the chapters and the Summary Report for Policymakers. Government delegates should not be part of the approval process.

The second thing is to limit the authority of lead authors and the Chair to introduce changes after approval by the reviewers.

The third is to create an ombudsman for each chapter. These ombudsmen should consult with reviewers who believe valid issues are not being addressed and disseminate a report for reviewers prior to final approval which is made part of the final document.

Fourth is to institute procedures to ensure that an adequate cross- section of qualified scientists wishing to participate in the process is selected based on unbiased criteria. The ombudsmen should review complaints of bias in the selection process.

That is structurally what the IPCC should do.

Now, there are many specific issues that the IPCC must address as well. For instance, the IPCC must ensure that uncertainties in the state of knowledge are clearly expressed in the Summary for Policymakers. When you read the Summary for Policymakers, which is not approved by the scientists and the economists, it does not say anything about the fact that there are doubts in these areas. That should be a part of it.

The IPCC must provide highly defensible ranges of the costs of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. They have to talk about how this is going to be done.

They must defensibly assess the effects of land-use changes in causing observed temperature increases. In other words, there are a lot of things we hear about, we are aware of; that is, the heat island effect that takes place in a lot of the major cities, the various agricultural changes where trees are cut down and crops are planted. These need to be considered.

Fourth is to provide highly defensible ranges of the benefits of global warming. If we know the cost that is going to be incurred, as we learned in the Wharton econometric survey--that for each family of four in America, it would cost them about $1,715 a year in the cost of electricity, the cost of fuel; everything just about doubling--then people need to know what kinds of benefits the global warming will produce.

The fifth thing is to examine the costs and benefits of an adaptive strategy versus a mitigation strategy.

Sixth is to adequately examine studies finding a cooling trend of the Continental Antarctic for the last 40 years, as well as increases in the Antarctic ice mass.

Seventh is to adequately explain why the models predict greater warming than has been observed, avoiding the use of selective data sets.

Eighth is to ensure an unbiased assessment of the literature on hurricanes.

Ninth is to ensure adequate review of malaria predictions by a range of specialists in the field, ensuring all views are expressed.

Going back to No. 8, I am reminded every time something happens--it can be a hurricane or a tornado--there is always somebody standing up and saying: Aha, it is due to global warming. It is a level of desperation that I cannot believe people are becoming subjected to.

There are dozens more issues, most of which are as important as the ones I have just raised. Instead of trying to list them all here, I intend to post on my committee's Web site this winter a more exhaustive and detailed list of issues that must be addressed in the fourth assessment.

In conclusion, I quote from an article in Der Speigel by Dr. von Storch and Dr. Nico Stehr, who is with Zeppelin University. They wrote:

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism

almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. . . . Silencing

dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically

worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more

well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the

supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite

of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both

science and society will have missed an opportunity.

It is my solemn hope that the IPCC will listen to the words of Dr. von Storch and Dr. Stehr and not miss the opportunity to reestablish its credibility, which I believe is totally lost at this time. Only then will its work product be useful to policymakers. If the IPCC remains committed to its current path, however, then Lord Lawson's solution is the only viable one--the IPCC should be disbanded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks not be charged against the time on the CJS appropriations conference report.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Harry Christy and Bob Lester of the State Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee be granted the privilege of the floor during considering of the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies conference report.

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

Mr. President, may I ask what the regular order is right now, what the pending amendment is?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Ensign amendment, and I send to the desk my amendment No. 2440 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, even though the Founding Fathers were very clear and spoke of ``Nature's God'' and of the ``Creator'' in the Declaration of Independence, the Federal courts are increasingly trying to drive every vestige of faith from public life.

On April 30, 2003, came an example from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As the Boston Globe reported it:

Judges bar prayer at public colleges. In a precedent-

setting ruling against prayer at a State college, a Federal

appeals court has barred the Virginia Military Institute from

writing and reciting a prayer before cadets eat their evening

meals.

VMI and then the Citadel down in South Carolina have scrapped their prayers since that Federal court ruling, though Justice Stevens declared:

There is no injunction presently barring VMI from

reinstituting the supper prayer.

The Naval Academy in Annapolis has also been reviewing its policy. The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, is calling on the academy to review its practices of leading the students in prayer.

Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe who wrote in 1996:

Have you heard about the Virginia politician who wanted

references to God injected into the Declaration of

Independence? Or about the activist from Massachusetts who

urged making the Fourth of July a quasi-religious holiday?

These proposals were made 220 years ago. Today they would be

swiftly denounced by the ACLU, the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, and a slew of editorial pages.

It was just last year that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to have ``under God'' taken from our Pledge of Allegiance.

We go around, as I do in my State of Oklahoma, spending a lot of time talking to people. I know what we do up here is significant. We pass laws. We have a lot of rules and regulations coming out of the White House, out of the various committees, including the one I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, but when you are on the street, it is the legislating from the bench that bothers people more than anything else. And certainly taking ``under God'' out of our Pledge of Allegiance is right at the top of that list.

Now, I agree with my friend in the other body, Congressman Walter Jones, who has led this fight in the House of Representatives, when he asks the question:

How much longer will we stand by and allow others to ignore

the very God upon whom our Nation was founded?

I also agree with the position of the Concerned Women for America that:

Prayer is essential to the protection of our families, our

communities and our nation. We believe that the men and women

who put themselves in harm's way have the right to give

public thanks to God and ask for His blessings. But some are

trying to take this right away.

Ronald Ray and Linda Jeffrey of Concerned Women for America recap:

On July 11, 2005 the Marine Corps Times announced the Anti-

Defamation League's reissued call to cease the traditional

noon-meal prayer at the Naval Academy, and the Academy's

refusal to surrender. The ADL's demands echo the April of

2003 complaint by the ACLU, which could not find a

plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit.

This is kind of interesting. The ACLU was trying to find one cadet at the Naval Academy to act as a plaintiff. They couldn't find one.

Take a good look at this painting by Arnold Frieberg of ``The Prayer at Valley Forge.'' Since the time of George Washington and the founding of our country, there is unbroken historic precedent of leader-led prayer sustaining American fighting men on the battlefield through every American war. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last

solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of

our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and

those who have the superintendence of them into his holy

keeping.

On the 4th of July, John Adams of Massachusetts said:

It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by

solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.

The centrality of prayer for the protection of those in peril upon the sea and acknowledgment of divine providence is an official tenet of preparation of the American military. America's dependence upon prayer exhibits itself before, and in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Inaugural Address of every President. Congress opens each day with a prayer. The tradition of prayer continued on June 6, 1944, when President Roosevelt led the entire Nation in prayer during his radio address, lifting up our assault forces and the families of those who would give the supreme sacrifice in the D-Day invasion. The President did that before the invasion.

During World War II, GEN George Patton led the famous prayer for favorable weather during the crucial 1944 Battle of the Bulge, and the weather dramatically improved. Patton issued 3,200 training letters to officers and chaplains in the Third Army to ``urge, instruct, and indoctrinate every fighting man to pray as well as to fight.'' That is George Patton.

In one of the largest social science research projects in history, the Social Science Research Council reported after World War II that soldiers selected prayer most frequently as their source of combat motivation. From 1774 until today, more than 67 Armed Forces prayer books have been widely and efficiently distributed to our fighting forces during war, from the American war for independence to the war on terror we are fighting today.

A sampling of just two prayer books distributed during World War II and the Korean war contain recommended prayers from 34 senior uniformed military authorities, including Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall, and Patton.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Thomas Moorer, concludes:

Prayer for the common good and acknowledgment of Divine

Providence is a central, official and historic tenet of the

combat leadership preparation for the American Military,

particularly officer training and particularly in times of

national peril or war.

Our Constitution demands the freedom to worship freely, and our future leaders, our men and women in military academies across the country, may soon be denied that freedom for which many have died to ensure that freedom for all of us.

Last year, 2004, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the ACLU challenge to cadet-led prayers at Virginia Military Institute. VMI, that is where it all started. That decision allowed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to stand which prohibited VMI from sponsoring a daily supper prayer. Right after that, the Citadel followed their lead.

Supreme Court Justice Stevens pointed out in his decision for the majority not to hear the case that, in contrast, the Sixth and Seventh Circuit Courts have rejected challenges to nondenominational prayer at the college level, reasoning that ``college-age students are not particularly susceptible

to pressure from peers towards conformity.''

It is important to acknowledge here that the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, as well as the Fourth Circuit, all agree that there is not a problem in our colleges and universities. The VMI prayer was voluntary. Stevens states that there is no ``direct conflict among Circuits,'' relying on the factual differences between the cases in the different circuit courts.

Justice Scalia writes, however, that ``the basis for the distinguishing--that this was a separate prayer at a state military college, whereas other cases involved graduation prayers at state nonmilitary colleges--is, to put it mildly, a frail one.''

Scalia continues:

In fact, it might be said that the former is more, rather

than less, likely to be constitutional since group prayer

before military mess is more traditional than group prayer at

ordinary state colleges.

That is the state of the law today. Currently, they are not praying at VMI and at the Citadel. There is some problem at the Naval Academy.

Frustrated by the failure to find anyone in the Naval Academy to serve as a plaintiff, the ACLU now asks the Armed Services Committee of the Congress to take action. My amendment is designed to send an unsubtle signal to any court that entertains an ACLU suit against the military academies. It will stand as an indication of congressional intent on the matter. That is important. A lot of times congressional intent is not. However, when it is stated, when a decision is being made on a matter like this, it is significant. It is that intent that we want to have as an amendment to the bill today.

Judges inclined to back mealtime prayer will be able to point to this legislation as an argument for judicial deference to the will of Congress and the executive branch.

My amendment's language was in the House-passed version of last year's National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. This year I want to see a recorded vote in the Senate to make clear exactly who agrees with this provision and who does not and to show the strength of support for this provision. While debating this National Defense Authorization Act, and hereafter, let us honor our heroes and those who have returned home and those who sacrificed their lives by standing against those liberals who would seek to challenge their God- given right to pray to a living Lord.

What I would like to do is yield the floor. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I understand Senator Warner, our distinguished chairman, wants to speak, as well as Senator Brownback.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, let me ask the author of the request what the intention is because I want to continue with my discussion. About how much time does the Senator want to take for consideration of the amendment?

I have no objection.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I don't know of anyone who is going to be wanting time to speak against this amendment. I inquire of the ranking member if he knows of anyone who is going to be speaking in opposition to this amendment?

Or another first-degree amendment. That is fine. In opposition to this amendment, though.

I understand there is 8 minutes remaining; is that correct?

In that there is no one on the floor right now, if it is all right with the chairman and ranking member, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. President, I have always enjoyed one-sentence amendments because one can't misinterpret one sentence. I had one the other day that had to do with the appropriations process. I did one in 1994 that ended up being a major, significant reform in the other body.

I will read this so people don't misunderstand it:

The superintendent of a service academy may have in effect

such policy as the superintendent considers appropriate with

respect to the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational

prayer at an otherwise authorized activity of the academy. .

. .

Some people asked a question about denominational prayer. Let me share with you--and I think I can read it in this period of time--an entire piece by John Adams. John Adams was the first Vice President of the United States and the second President of the United States. This is what he said on this subject:

When the Congress met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it

should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of

New York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were

divided in religious sentiments, some Episcopalians, some

Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Congregationalists, so that

we could not join in same set of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams

rose and said, that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer

of any gentleman of piety and virtue, and at the same time a

friend to his country. He was a stranger in Philadelphia, but

had heard that Mr. Duche deserved that character and

therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman,

might be desired to read prayer to Congress to-morrow

morning. The motion was carried in the affirmative.

Accordingly he . . . read several prayers in the

established form, and then read . . . the 35th Psalm. You

must remember this was the next morning after we had heard

the rumor of the horrible cannonade of Boston. It seemed as

if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read that morning.

After this, Mr. Duche, unexpectedly to everybody, struck

out into extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every

man present.

Here was a scene worthy of a painter's art. It was in

Carpenter's Hall, in Philadelphia. . . . Washington was

kneeling there, and Henry, and Randolph, and Rutledge, and

Lee, and Jay; and by them stood, bowed in reverence, the

Puritan patriots of New England, who, at that moment had

reason to believe that armed soldiery was wasting their

humbled households. It was believed that Boston had been

bombarded and destroyed. They prayed fervently for America,

for Congress. . . .

I think that is very significant.

I read an article the other day that was very interesting. It was an article by a military historian who said that the Revolutionary War could not have been won. He goes back and talks about the same thing that John Adams was talking about, about this tremendous army, the greatest military force on the face of this Earth marching up to Lexington and Concord. Our soldiers at that time were not really soldiers; they were hunters and trappers, and they were armed with just basic and crude equipment. We remember the story that most of them couldn't read or write.

So in training, I say to my friend from Texas, they put a tuft of hay in one boot and a tuft of straw in another boot, and they marched to a cadence of ``hay foot straw foot.'' As they stood there and heard the ground shaking as the greatest army on the face of this Earth approached Lexington and Concord, they knew by resisting they were signing their own death warrant. They knew when they heard the shot heard round the world they were going to win in spite of these odds, not even knowing that a tall redhead stood in the House of Burgesses and made a speech for them and for us today, when he asked: How could this frail group of patriots defeat the largest army on the face of this Earth? He made a very famous speech, but there are three sentences people have forgotten. They are:

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means

which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three

millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in

such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by

any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir,

we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who

presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up

friends to fight our battles for us.

And they fired the shot heard round the world, and we won.

We were a nation under God, and we depended upon God to win that fight and every fight since then. That is why I think it is so important today, as a part of this reauthorization bill, that we reaffirm our ability to train our people at our academies to look to Almighty God in the way they deem appropriate, in a way to use that power to defend America in their careers.

I retain the remainder of my time, Mr. President. I understand there is 3 minutes remaining.

If the Senator will yield, I inquire of the Senator, he has used some of the time in opposition speaking to this amendment. Is the Senator's desire to have another amendment on the same subject to be introduced separately from this?

Mr. President, we have a problem.

Mr. President, I understand I only have a couple of minutes left, so let me very quickly say right now: There is a problem. In the Air Force all they have is a 20-second period of silence. I don't call that a prayer. At West Point they do not even have a period of silence. They say you can pray, but everyone else is talking. This is not a prayer. I think a problem is there.

I think the argument that this might raise the profile is not a valid argument. I have heard it before. In 2003 the ACLU requested specifically that the prayers stop. In 2005 the Anti-Defamation League did the same thing. The attack is there.

This is a very simple, one-sentence solution to the problem. At the appropriate time, in fact, right now, I urge the adoption of this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

It is not my intent to proceed until we start several votes at a later time, I say to my good friend from Rhode Island.

I would say to the chairman, I think the allocation of time has already taken place. I have used my time. I have not yielded back the remainder of my time. I probably only have 30 or 40 seconds left. It is my desire to get a vote on this amendment, if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment that we get a vote on his amendment, and whatever the allocation of time is at that point, we will exercise that.

Would the Senator please repeat that course of action?

My preference would be to go ahead and have this as a first-degree amendment, offering the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island as a first-degree amendment, and if he desires to have a vote on his first, I would have no objection.

Would that satisfy the Senator from Rhode Island?

There would be side-by-side amendments.

I object to that course.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have read the suggested change that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has to my amendment. If it is his intention not to offer another amendment on this subject matter but merely to amend mine, I will accept that. I would yield the remainder of my time, and we would have one vote to take care of it.

Madam President, that seems very acceptable to me.

I will read the modification on page 2 of the amendment. On line 2, insert the following: ``the United States Constitution and . . . '' I have no objection to that.

Amendment No. 2440, as Modified

I send this amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be so modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday November 9, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. in SH-216, Senate Hart Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to discuss agricultural transportation and energy issues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 9 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this joint hearing is to receive testimony regarding energy pricing and profits.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 to receive testimony and identify issues regarding a comprehensive and integrated approach to meet the water resources needs of coastal Louisiana in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including storm and flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and navigation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 10 a.m., to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Avian Influenza.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, `` `Always Ready': The Coast Guard's Response to Hurricane Katrina.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Cameras in the Courtroom'' on Wednesday,

November 9, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Chuck Grassley, United States Senator, [R-IA].

Panel II: The Honorable Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Portland, OR; The Honorable Jan E. DuBois, Judge, District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Panel III: Barbara Bergman, President, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington, DC; Peter Irons, Professor of Political Science, Emeritus, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA; Seth Berlin, Partner, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P., Washington, DC; Brian Lamb, Founder & Chairman, C-SPAN Washington, DC; Henry Schleiff, Chairman and CEO, Court TV Networks, New York, NY; Barbara Cochran, President, Radio-Television News Directors Association & Foundation, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2005 at 10 a.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2005 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Agenda

I. Bill: S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 3 p.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 9, 2005, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense business transformation and financial management accountability.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending order?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to present a second-degree amendment to the Harkin amendment number 2438 for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. President, I would be happy to accommodate that. However, our time has expired so it would take unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we have heard some discussions, some debate by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, on his amendment No. 2438. I oppose this

amendment, and I have prepared and have filed a second-degree amendment that I will offer after all time by Senator Harkin has expired.

I guess I would ask the question as to why should the Senate mandate what programming our troops can listen to or deny their opportunity to choose. Currently, under this system, our troops communicate with their local radio stations by offering feedback that shapes the local programming.

Simply put, if the troops do not like what they are hearing, they call the radio station and ask that the programing be changed. It seems to be fair to me. It is called the market. If there is no market for it, why should we be doing it?

Now, as Senator Harkin himself has stated, fair and balanced programming options are offered to all 33 radio stations worldwide. It is the individual radio stations that establish the programming based on its audience's preferences. The stations decide what programming is in the greatest demand.

Worldwide, the second-largest audience request is to play all 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh. Only 1 hour is currently made available through the AFRTS. However, some stations choose not to carry his program at all, even for the 1 hour of availability. That is their choice to make based on the troop feedback.

You might say at this point, if the troop feedback is that they want all 3 hours, and some stations do not play any, and the most that any stations play is 1 hour, then if any change should be made in terms of complying with the market, it should be that.

Now, Senator Harkin and his charts would have you believe the only program on the radio is Rush Limbaugh. But what about the 24 hours of National Public Radio or DOD's commitment to begin airing liberal talk shows by Al Franken and Ed Schultz? Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh currently represents only 3 percent of the weekly scheduled programming. That is 3 percent. I don't know why they are so worried about 3 percent.

Now, the liberal talk radio--this is important as to having a benchmark of 1 million listeners. It is important to know there is a reason why they choose programming. One is, they do not choose any at all unless it has 1 million listeners.

Let's put that chart up. It is kind of hard to read, but I will explain it in a minute. Prior to this fall, no liberal talk shows had over 1 million listeners. Rush Limbaugh has approximately 15 million listeners weekly. AFRTS's policy is to ``provide a cross-section of popular programming.'' To this point, there have been no significant audience demands to rationalize adding progressive programming or liberal programming.

For the record, Limbaugh was added to the programming menu after troop listener demand had been heavy and sustained for many years. At the time, Limbaugh's audience had grown so large that failure to include his show would have violated AFRTS's policy of providing a slice of domestic talk radio.

There is no truth to the minority's assertion that liberal talk radio has been kept off of AFRTS for political purposes. That is a pure fabrication. The truth is, as this chart shows, the minimal market demand that exists for liberal talk shows did not meet the listenership requirement for programs to be played on AFRTS.

The AFRTS standard is a ``national syndication and one million listeners per week.'' It has to be a nationally syndicated program, and it has to have a million listeners per week. That goes for all programming, as this chart clearly shows.

Now, two liberal talk shows have achieved 1 million listeners in 2005. If we look at this carefully, we will see that in 2004 there were no liberal talk shows on AFRTS because none of them had an audience of 1 million listeners. There is a change between 2004 and 2005 and that is Ed Schultz and Al Franken both were able to get a million listeners. Therefore, we changed the programming. We are responding to the demand out there. If there are a million people who want to listen to them, we will give our troops a chance to do the same thing.

As it turns out, right now, the AFRTS stations will have access to the two top conservative and the two top liberal shows. The conservative ones are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And the liberal ones are Al Franken and Ed Schultz.

Still, Senator Harkin is not satisfied. Senator Harkin claims conservatives are propagandizing AFRTS's programming. Well, I only ask, which sounds more like propaganda, programming which is freely chosen by listening troops or programming mandated by the Government? Furthermore, if there are significant numbers of letters from troops decrying the current AFRTS programs, I know my office has not received one.

In my travels visiting troops, I have not heard of one. In fact, I know I have been, by count, to Iraq, into those areas where we have our troops stationed, more times than any other member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. When I am over there, I have yet to have one person come up to me or have one letter in our office saying they are dissatisfied with the programming and that they demand more liberal programs.

All I see here are Senators trying to subsidize liberal talk radio because they do not have anyone to compete with popular conservative radio talk shows.

Now, the amendment also calls for an ombudsman, as if the amendment is not bad enough in trying to dictate what our troops should listen to against their will. The Harkin amendment would establish an ombudsman of the American Forces Network who would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.

The amendment is based on the premise that the programming decisions of the American Forces Radio and Television Service have improperly excluded liberal political radio programming and would give the ombudsman the duty of identifying circumstances under which the AFN ``has not adhered to the standards and practices of the Network in its programming, including circumstances in which the programming of the Network lacked integrity, fairness, or balance.'' I am quoting now from his legislation. The ombudsman would be required to submit an annual report.

Now, what this ombudsman provision does is it allows Members of Congress the opportunity to obstruct an already fair and functioning process by getting in between the troops and what they choose to listen to. Listed as one of the ombudsman's duties in this amendment is to initiate and conduct, upon the request of Congress, reviews of the programming of the network, AFRTS.

The creation of an ombudsman is another example of wasteful Government redundancy. But, moreover, the creation of this post would empower Members of the Senate to choose what entertainment our troops listen to. This is an attempt by the minority to impose unpopular message-driven content on AFRTS to a captive audience. The requirement for a report, et cetera, is to intimidate the 33 stations that are trying to serve our service men and women into serving special interests in Congress.

We do not need a political officer to make sure our troops get the daily dose of a certain media personality. Today, these decisions are based on the input from the servicemember and their ratings by the American people. Our troops deserve the right to choose what they listen to on the radio. What they do not deserve is their Senators taking away the right. Who are we to do this? How arrogant it is we are putting ourselves in a position where we claim to know more than the troops as to what is in their best interests. I do not believe that should be the case.

Finally, preserving the programming integrity of AFRTS must be paramount. There is another reason totally unrelated to what we talked about so far. AFRTS is a vital link between military command and troops and their families throughout the world. What we are saying is, if we have commanders in the field who are trying to communicate messages to our troops--they currently can do this. And they can do this under the Harkin amendment. However, there would be much fewer people listening in the market by adjusting the market, and these messages would not get out.

Important messages are broadcast on this network, and if the programming becomes a political football and is no longer based on what the troops want

but what Congress wants, then listenership would certainly dwindle. Maintaining popular programming ensures that AFRTS remains a reliable communications link to our troops in the field. We cannot afford to play politics with such an important asset.

Now, I have a second-degree amendment, and I will be offering this at the expiration of the time of the Senator from Iowa. The second-degree amendment to the Harkin amendment describes how programs are selected for the American Forces Network, including reliance on ratings and popularity, as demonstrated by the numbers of listeners, and notes that reliance is placed on 33 local programming managers at military communities around the globe.

It would express the sense of the Senate that:

(1) the men and women of the American Forces Radio and

Television Service and the Armed Forces Network should be

commended for providing a vital service to the military

community worldwide; and

(2) the programming mission, themes, and practices of the

Department of Defense with respect to its television and

radio programming have fairly and responsively fulfilled

their mission of providing ``a touch of home'' to members of

the Armed Services and their families around the world and

have contributed immeasurably to high morale and quality of

life in the Armed Forces.

Finally, the language in my second-degree amendment provides that the Secretary of Defense may--may; it does not say he has to, that he must have an ombudsman but he may appoint an ombudsman at AFRTS to serve as--this is the way we have it in the second-degree amendment--``an intermediary between the staff of the American Forces Network and the Department of Defense, military commanders, and listeners to the programming of the American Forces Network.'' You will find that this conforms to the description used to define the ombudsman at Stars and Stripes, our military print media. It is very similar to Stars and Stripes.

I find, when I am making my trips over there, they will tell me they have two ways of communicating with the outside world other than their communications with their family; one is through Stars and Stripes, and one is through the radio programming on these 33 stations.

Now, I would want to, at the appropriate time, go ahead and offer this amendment. It is my understanding the Senator from Iowa will be returning momentarily. But for a minute, I might say to the distinguished chairman, let me give an observation.

The other day I was in the elevator coming up to the floor to cast a vote. I was with two of our Democratic colleagues whom I respect very much, two very liberal Democratic Senators. They were complaining about the fact that all the talk shows are conservative and they don't have successful liberal talk shows. And they said--these were their words in the elevator--there ought to be a legislative fix to this. I said: What you guys don't understand is, this is market driven, and there is no market for your liberal trite. And for that reason, it is much more of the conservative talk shows. It is called the market, and that is what makes America work.

I yield the floor at this time.

No.

No, we cannot have--well, actually, the Harkin amendment would impose a censorship to a degree; that is, it would change the criteria that, No. 1, it has to be a syndicated network, and, No. 2, it has to have 1 million listeners.

We have shown clearly that they have lived up to that. When the two liberal talk shows, Ed Schultz and Al Franken, reached a million, they started including them. They are including them just as they are the conservative talk shows. If you impose upon them that you are going to have somebody out there watching and making sure that Congress tells them what is best for them, yes, that does impose a restriction on what our troops in the field are able to hear.

I respond to the distinguished chairman of the committee that I am prepared to have it market driven.

To have it purely market driven so that these kids who are out there, our troops risking their lives, would be able to determine what they wanted to listen to rather than having something imposed upon them. Ideally that is what I would prefer in a second- degree amendment. But in trying to accommodate a system that has worked pretty well, that criteria is acceptable to me. Let's don't talk about liberal and conservative. Let's talk about just programming. Forget about what is liberal and what is conservative. If a concept is popular enough that it has 1 million listeners, then that should qualify for consideration for our troops to listen to. That is my point.

I agree.

I would respond to the Senator from Virginia that the only reason I used these two charts, the accusation was made that there somehow is a mechanism here that would exclude that more liberal philosophy in terms of programming. This demonstrates clearly that it doesn't because once they have reached that criteria, they are able to be heard.

I think that is right. I believe that is the case. The 33 stations have program directors. Their goal is to maximize their audience. If they hear that something is in demand that might not be consistent with what is in demand throughout the United States, I can assure you, under the current system, they will have that program.

That is exactly right.

That is correct.

Yes.

Yes, they are.

In my statement, I commented that it is a very disordinate amount that has been historically given to NPR in terms of listening audience because they have that on for 24 hours. So certainly that is already there, and that is more than the market would justify if we were going by the justification that the market dictates.

It merely makes it optional. If the Secretary of Defense wants to pursue the ombudsman as a practice, then he may do it. It doesn't say he shall. It says he may. It is not mandated. It is just optional at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.

That is correct. The only difference is, it is optional.

It is my understanding that under the underlying amendment by the Senator from Iowa, it is very prescribed as to how this person is going to be chosen. In my amendment, it leaves it up to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. It could be someone who is already existing within that Department or another department.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I inquire as to the regular order and the time remaining on both sides.

On both sides.

All right, then. And the second-degree amendment No. 2439 to amendment No. 2438 is the order?

Amendment No. 2439?

Mr. President, I had an opportunity prior to the break to talk a little bit about my amendment to the Harkin amendment. There is criteria that has been used, and used successfully, for a long period of time. There are two criteria. One is, it must be a syndicated type of a program. The program has to be syndicated. No. 2, it has to have at least a million listeners by the ratings.

Now, there are some other exceptions, when they are extreme things. Obviously, there are some things that anyone making any evaluation would not want to have our people subjected to. But by and large that is the way it has worked.

Now, for a long period of time it just happens that the conservative programs have been asked for by our troops over there, so they have received them. However, if I were to stand here and say I am happy with the programming as it has been, I would not be.

Right now I guess the name you hear more often than anybody else is Rush Limbaugh. His is the second most highly requested program. They want all 3 hours, although only some of the 33 stations give him 1 hour. No one gives him more than 1 hour. So that is not as much as I would like to have them go and as much as I think the market demands.

I think it has worked well. I would think it would be very bad policy for us to believe we should sit here in this august body of the Senate and make the determination as to what we think--what we think--our troops should be watching and listening to.

I believe this is true: I have been to Iraq more than any other Member. I have gone just about every month. I have yet to hear the first complaint over the programming as it has been, nor have I ever received a communication in any of our offices either in Washington or in the State.

I retain the remainder of my time.

That is the policy they have been using. It is not mandated. It is a policy they have stated has been their policy, and the programming has reflected that that is the case.

No. This has been the policy. By the way, I remind the Presiding Officer, this is on the time of Senator Harkin.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I believe this policy has been adhered to--on his own time, if the Senator from Iowa knows of any time it has not been adhered to, I would be glad to listen--the criteria of having to be syndicated and, No. 2, at least 1 million listeners, which has been the policy all along. If he questions that this should be the policy or believes it should be in the future, I would be glad to change my amendment just to say that it should be based on those two criteria. That is not a problem at all. It is not necessary because it has used that criteria in the past.

To clearly demonstrate that 1 million listeners is one of the criteria, when the time came that Franken and Ed Schultz reached 1 million, all of a sudden they were programmed. It further demonstrates it is something that has worked in the past for liberal or conservative messages.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are trying to find out something specific that Howard Stern has said or promoted on his programs. The problem is, there is nothing I can say on the Senate floor because it is so basically lewd. It is the type of thing that if the Muslim world were to listen to, it would be something very bad. There is not a Senator on this floor who would want that type of language used, profanity. I said this in my opening remarks. There are some cases where programming could be so extreme, whether it is liberal or conservative, it would not be acceptable.

As far as Al Franken and Ed Schultz, the liberal programming, it was published on the Web site of American Forces that states which ones meet the two criteria. It was not on their Web site in 2004. It is on their Web site currently.

I can't spoon-feed them and go up and say: Are you aware? You need to read the Web site. They should have been aware of that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

Let me say that I think with any program, in the case you mentioned of Rush Limbaugh, you mentioned two things you found to be offensive and you questioned whether they were appropriate. The service people requested all 3 hours every day. They ended up with some stations giving them 1 hour, nobody giving them more than 1 hour. So if you take 1 hour for some of these stations every day and you can find two instances of something that in, your interpretation, is lewd, and you compare that to Howard Stern whose programming is based on this type of thing--the profanity and the things that we find offensive and would not want to be throughout the world, the Arab world, or the rest of the world--then I think that is a real stretch.

The bottom line is, we have an opportunity. Right now it is working well. As I say, I don't know how many times the Senator from Iowa has been to Iraq. In his last 20 seconds, he might mention how many times he has been there. I have been there almost every month. I carry on a dialog with these people. I know they tell me the type of programming they want, the complaints they have. We have yet to receive any complaints saying they think the current system of programming is wrong in any way.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 2438

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment 2432. I send to the desk the modification and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, we have spent quite a bit of time talking about this amendment. This does amend sections 1201 and 1204 of title XII, to provide our Government with new authorities to fight the global war on terror. We have initially had some concerns, both from the other side and from a couple of the other committees. We have worked out the compromise, and that is what this modification is.

In an effort to accommodate my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee and my colleagues across the aisle, we have made some modifications to our original amendment. These modifications provide a sunset for this authority on September 30, 2007. They provide for some limitation of DOD authority in section 1201, subject to existing law in the foreign relations and foreign appropriations act.

With these modifications, I think that it is going to be a great help to the administration.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lugar be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

I thank the ranking member and the chairman for those comments.