Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object.

The unanimous consent agreement was to set aside the quorum call. I wanted to find out if the Senator is going to be offering it now. I wanted to get the floor if he is. If not, I will not object.

I will not object.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, OK as the ``Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office''.

Dewey Follett Bartlett, former Governor and distinguished alumnus of this Senate body, emulated the Oklahoma spirit of innovative leadership, hard work, and public service. In his honor, I proudly seek to name a post office in his hometown of Tulsa, OK. We commemorate an outstanding public servant so that posterity will be challenged by his example, just as we have been.

Although he was not actually born in Oklahoma, Dewey Bartlett naturalized as fast as he could. While studying at Princeton University, he came home during summers to work in Oklahoma oil fields just as I did. He moved to my hometown, Tulsa, in 1945 to assume a managing role in his family's business after his military service during World War II.

Dewey Bartlett shared my dedication to a strong national defense. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a pilot myself, I appreciate Mr. Bartlett for his military service to our country. He was awarded the Air Medal for his distinguished efforts in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Not only did he serve in the U.S. Marine Corps as a combat dive-bomber pilot, he championed the military during his service in the Senate.

During his tenure in the Senate, Bartlett was more than once deemed the most conservative member of the Senate. It is an Oklahoma distinction that I have sought to uphold. Last year, the American Conservative Union ranked me as the most conservative member of the Senate. I share his vision of advocating common sense Oklahoma values including less government bureaucracy, less regulation, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.

Dewey Bartlett's political philosophy was consistent with the Constitutional intention to not encumber Americans with layers of bureaucracy, but to promote individual liberty, freedom and justice. I am pleased that we can honor albeit in a small way, his service to our country by naming a post office in Tulsa, OK after him.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding citizen so that future generations will be challenged by his example.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, OK as the ``Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office''.

Dewey Follett Bartlett, former Governor and distinguished alumnus of this Senate body, emulated the Oklahoma spirit of innovative leadership, hard work, and public service. In his honor, I proudly seek to name a post office in his hometown of Tulsa, OK. We commemorate an outstanding public servant so that posterity will be challenged by his example, just as we have been.

Although he was not actually born in Oklahoma, Dewey Bartlett naturalized as fast as he could. While studying at Princeton University, he came home during summers to work in Oklahoma oil fields just as I did. He moved to my hometown, Tulsa, in 1945 to assume a managing role in his family's business after his military service during World War II.

Dewey Bartlett shared my dedication to a strong national defense. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a pilot myself, I appreciate Mr. Bartlett for his military service to our country. He was awarded the Air Medal for his distinguished efforts in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Not only did he serve in the U.S. Marine Corps as a combat dive-bomber pilot, he championed the military during his service in the Senate.

During his tenure in the Senate, Bartlett was more than once deemed the most conservative member of the Senate. It is an Oklahoma distinction that I have sought to uphold. Last year, the American Conservative Union ranked me as the most conservative member of the Senate. I share his vision of advocating common sense Oklahoma values including less government bureaucracy, less regulation, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.

Dewey Bartlett's political philosophy was consistent with the Constitutional intention to not encumber Americans with layers of bureaucracy, but to promote individual liberty, freedom and justice. I am pleased that we can honor albeit in a small way, his service to our country by naming a post office in Tulsa, OK after him.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding citizen so that future generations will be challenged by his example.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, we had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee where we had testify the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers; we had General Casey, who is in charge of the battles that are taking place over there in Iraq at this time; we had General Abizaid, and we had Secretary Rumsfeld.

About that time, we learned that, at the behest of the ACLU, a Federal judge in New York by the name of Alvin Hellerstein has ordered the Government to release more pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse. This is despite the fact that General Myers said if you do this, it will cost American lives. Apparently, Hellerstein missed the Newsweek Koran debacle, where 15 people were killed immediately after a bogus report by that publication, Newsweek, inciting impulsive violence that is done on a case-by-case basis.

I think sooner or later we are going to have to do something about it, try to at least do all we can to make the American people aware of the bias we have in the media.

I have had occasion, since I am on the Armed Services Committee, to probably be over in Iraq more than anyone else. On one trip, the Presiding Officer was with me. All of us who have been over there will remember that every time we arrive the first thing the troops say to us is: Why is it the American people don't understand what we are doing? Don't they realize our country is under the greatest threat it has ever had throughout its history? And don't they understand the resolve we have and the fact that we know we are risking our lives? And I say to them: They do know it, in spite of the fact that the media is wrong.

There is a lieutenant colonel by the name of Tim Ryan. He was in the 1st Calvary in Iraq. He actually led a group into Fallujah. I am going to read one quote he made. He finally could not take it any longer. He said:

The inaccurate picture they paint [talking about the media]

has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq.

The result is a further erosion of international support for

the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the

insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening

our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced

reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq

are aiding and abetting the enemy.

They are aiding and abetting the enemy. And to have this thing revived on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse--by the way, I have to say this: Long before the public was even made aware of it, the military had gone in, taken the necessary precautions, and had prosecuted those who were guilty. That was done long before this came out in public.

Now, as far as the war is concerned, I think it is very important for people to know we are being very victorious in the areas. It is a tough asymmetrical type of threat, an enemy we have never had before.

But I would suggest that on one of the trips when I went there, we spent

the entire time in the Sunni Triangle. The Sunnis are supposed to be the ones who do not like us. I can recall a general in Fallujah who at one time had been the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans. Then, when he became the brigade commander for the Iraqi security forces, he started embedded training with our Marines. He became so affectionately involved with our marines that he looked me in the eyes and said: When they rotated me out, I cried. He loves Americans now. He loves the freedoms we are bringing to that country. He is joining in that fight.

Do you ever hear about this in the media? No, you do not hear about it.

At the same time, I was in Tikrit. Tikrit is the home of Saddam Hussein. At that time, I think most of us remember, the training headquarters in Tikrit for the Iraqi security forces was blown up, and there were 40 either killed or seriously injured. Those were all Iraqis. For every Iraqi who was killed or injured, their family replaced that Iraqi trainee with another member of their family. Do you hear about that in the media? No, you do not hear about that in the media.

I can remember being in a Black Hawk helicopter, going some 50 feet off the ground, all throughout the Sunni Triangle, over almost every square foot, and seeing the kids down there. Something people do not realize is how close our troops have become to these people. A lot of times, when you send candy and cookies to your troops, you think they are eating them and all that. Do you know what they are doing? They are repackaging them, putting them in small packages, and when they go over an area in helicopters, they throw the packages down to the kids below. Those kids in the Sunni Triangle are waving American flags and jumping up and down and cheering. But you do not see that from the media.

I have to say, I do appreciate the fact that Bill O'Reilly, last night, did draw the public's attention to this judge who is wanting to release more pictures of prisoner abuse. But I am critical of Bill O'Reilly because he said no one in Congress wants to do anything about it. No one wants to touch it. I want to remind him--and in doing so, I am not going to talk about what I did--but back in February of 2004, I did complain about the fact that we were doing a great disservice to our troops by giving the Iraqis, giving the terrorists, giving the Middle East, giving the American people the wrong picture of what is going on there.

I said I was not outraged. Let's keep in mind, in Abu Ghraib these prisoners were terrorists, these people killed Americans. And here we were worrying about: Are we treating them properly?

I remember Zell Miller defended me. Nobody else would do that at that time. I will read to you what he said, Zell Miller. You know all about Zell Miller from the State of Georgia. He said:

Mr. President, here we go again, rushing to give aid and

comfort to our enemies--pushing, pulling, shoving, and

leaping over one another to assign blame and point the finger

at ``America the terrible,'' lining up in long lines at the

microphones to offer apologies to those poor, pitiful Iraqi

prisoners.

Of course, I do not condone all the things that went on in that prison, but I for one refuse to join in this national act of contrition over it. Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly for heads to roll over this seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that someone's head has rolled, that of another innocent American brutally murdered by terrorists.

Why is it there is more indignation over a photo of a

prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a

young American with no head at all? Why is it some in this

country still do not get it, that we are at war, a war

against terrorists who are plotting to kill us every day,

terrorists who will murder Americans at any time, any place,

any chance they get?

Yet here we are, America on its knees in front of our

enemy, begging for their forgiveness over the mistreatment of

prisoners, showing our enemy and the world once again how

easily America can get sidetracked, how easily America can

turn against itself.

Yes, a handful of soldiers went too far with their

interrogation. Clearly some of them were not properly trained

to handle such duty, but the way to deal with this is with

swift and sure punishment and immediate and better training.

There also needs to be more careful screening of who it is

we put in these kinds of sensitive situations--and no one

wants to hear this, and I am reluctant to say it, but there

should also be some serious questioning of having male and

female soldiers serving side by side in these kinds of

military missions. Instead, I worry that the . . . ``hand

wringers of America,'' will add to their membership and

continue to bash our country ad nauseam and, in doing so,

hand over more innocent Americans to the enemy on a silver

platter.

So I stand with Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma who stated that

he is more outraged by the outrage than by the treatment of

those prisoners.

I appreciated the fact that he came to my aid and made that statement back on May 13, 2004. The truth is out there. The media is not giving an accurate picture.

I will hold this up. This shows the number of editorials from the New York Times and the Washington Post: The number of editorials that covered the some 400,000 people tortured to death, put in mass graves in Iraq, a total of three editorials were written. The number of editorials since March of 2001 about the beheading of hostages by terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, including Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, was eight. Yet the number of editorials since March of 2004 about U.S. detainee policies, including Abu Ghraib, was 90. If that isn't bias.

We need to do something to stop this. This needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court. I am going to be advising the Secretary of Defense of my feelings. Hopefully we can save some American lives by not reliving the pictures and this issue that has already cost many American lives. If we actually show these pictures and revive it again, it will be aiding and abetting the enemy, and American lives will be lost.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, by design, politicians are largely a reactive bunch--our constituents voted us in to our offices to represent their interests, and when they are unhappy we too are unhappy. One issue that certainly makes all constituents unhappy or even angry is high fuel prices. Therefore, policymakers at all levels of government have been struggling with ways to address high prices-- some have advocated for repealing fuel taxes, the Administration reacted in many critically important and helpful ways such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. After Hurricane Katrina disabled a large portion of our refining capacity and Rita threatened an additional 27.5 percent, several members have talked about the need to build new refineries.

In May 2004--Before the hurricanes, and before EPACT 2005 (The Energy Policy Act of 2005), the Environment & Public Works Committee, which I chair, considered the challenges facing the refining industry. At that hearing, we learned how the industry has been struggling to balance the public's increasing demand for cheap transportation fuels while also meeting legal and regulatory requirements to produce cleaner fuels.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated in a May 2005 speech that, ``the status of world refining capacity has become worrisome. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.''

Make no mistake, significant investments have been made to achieving environmental objectives--however, investments into increasing capacity have been inadequate to meet demand, and no new domestic refinery has been built since 1976.

A critical hurdle to constructing anything these days, especially refineries, is overcoming the ``Not-In-My-Backyard'' or NIMBY interests. The President recognized the need to build new refineries while overcoming local opposition when he recommended that policymakers consider constructing on BRAC sites.

Building upon what we learned in our hearing while balancing potential local opposition to refineries and answering the President and the public's call, I rise today to introduce the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. This Gas PRICE Act seeks to address fuels challenges in the short, mid and long-term range in several key ways.

First, the bill encourages communities who are about to lose jobs as a result of BRAC to consider building refineries on those properties. The legislation directs the Economic Development Administration to provide additional resources to communities considering new refineries on those sites. Refineries are not just a good source of high paying jobs, but they are an area of national interest so those communities acting in that interest should be benefited.

Second, States have a significant if not dominant role in permitting existing or new refineries. Yet, States face particular technical and financial constraints when faced with these extremely complex facilities. Therefore, the Gas PRICE Act establishes a Governor opt-in program that requires the Administrator to coordinate and concurrently review all permits with the relevant State agencies to permit refineries. This program does not waive or modify any environmental law, but seeks to assist States and consumers by providing greater certainty in the permitting process.

Third, the Gas PRICE Act answers the call for increasing efficiency. Today's recent reports show that natural gas prices this winter are projected to increase 75 percent. This bill requires the EPA's Natural Gas Star Program to provide grants to identify and use methane emission reduction technologies.

Further, it requires the Administrator to conduct a series of methane emission reduction workshops with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission to officials in the oil and gas producing states.

Fourth, the supply disruptions caused by hurricane Katrina required

EPA to issue fuel waivers to allow the use of conventional fuel in special or boutique fuel areas. The bill provides that States acting pursuant to an emergency will be held harmless under the law. Additionally, some members have called for the reduction of the total number of fuels used to increase the overall fungibility. In principle, I agree with my colleagues, however the special or boutique fuel blends address environmental and health needs of each region. Therefore, I have proposed a more cautious approach that will allow for the reduction of fuel blends pursuant to the environmental and consumer preferences in each State.

Fifth, policymakers, businesses, and the public have struggled to balance increased demand for transportation fuels against preferences for ever more stringent environmental quality all while preserving low prices at the pump. Most ``solutions'' have focused on technologies that may not be realized for decades or other measures that would hurt U.S. manufacturers.

Fischer-Tropsche fuels are the likely answer. F-T fuels use petroleum coke, a waste product from the refining process, or domestic coal to produce ultra-clean, virtually sulfur free diesel or jet fuel, and are price competitive at $38/barrel of oil.

The Gas PRICE Act requires EPA to establish a demonstration project to use Fischer-Tropsche, diesel and jet, as an emission control strategy; and authorizes EPA to issue up to two loan guarantees to demonstrate commercial scale F--T fuels production facilities using domestic petroleum coke or coal.

Of course, Congress should have taken many actions in anticipation of the current refining capacity crunch over last several years. Yet, as I indicated earlier, elected officials in large measure react to the will of their constituents. The good news is that we are not too late to make sure that the economy-wide stifling high prices are only temporary.

The Gas PRICE Act that we are introducing today can go a long way in addressing the nation's short, mid, and long-term fuels challenges. Furthermore, it does so by empowering local communities and States, establishing greater regulatory certainty without changing any environmental law, improving efficiency, and establishing a future for the use of ultra clean transportation fuels derived from abundant domestic resources.

Mr. President, by design, politicians are largely a reactive bunch--our constituents voted us in to our offices to represent their interests, and when they are unhappy we too are unhappy. One issue that certainly makes all constituents unhappy or even angry is high fuel prices. Therefore, policymakers at all levels of government have been struggling with ways to address high prices-- some have advocated for repealing fuel taxes, the Administration reacted in many critically important and helpful ways such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. After Hurricane Katrina disabled a large portion of our refining capacity and Rita threatened an additional 27.5 percent, several members have talked about the need to build new refineries.

In May 2004--Before the hurricanes, and before EPACT 2005 (The Energy Policy Act of 2005), the Environment & Public Works Committee, which I chair, considered the challenges facing the refining industry. At that hearing, we learned how the industry has been struggling to balance the public's increasing demand for cheap transportation fuels while also meeting legal and regulatory requirements to produce cleaner fuels.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated in a May 2005 speech that, ``the status of world refining capacity has become worrisome. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental requirements.''

Make no mistake, significant investments have been made to achieving environmental objectives--however, investments into increasing capacity have been inadequate to meet demand, and no new domestic refinery has been built since 1976.

A critical hurdle to constructing anything these days, especially refineries, is overcoming the ``Not-In-My-Backyard'' or NIMBY interests. The President recognized the need to build new refineries while overcoming local opposition when he recommended that policymakers consider constructing on BRAC sites.

Building upon what we learned in our hearing while balancing potential local opposition to refineries and answering the President and the public's call, I rise today to introduce the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas PRICE Act. This Gas PRICE Act seeks to address fuels challenges in the short, mid and long-term range in several key ways.

First, the bill encourages communities who are about to lose jobs as a result of BRAC to consider building refineries on those properties. The legislation directs the Economic Development Administration to provide additional resources to communities considering new refineries on those sites. Refineries are not just a good source of high paying jobs, but they are an area of national interest so those communities acting in that interest should be benefited.

Second, States have a significant if not dominant role in permitting existing or new refineries. Yet, States face particular technical and financial constraints when faced with these extremely complex facilities. Therefore, the Gas PRICE Act establishes a Governor opt-in program that requires the Administrator to coordinate and concurrently review all permits with the relevant State agencies to permit refineries. This program does not waive or modify any environmental law, but seeks to assist States and consumers by providing greater certainty in the permitting process.

Third, the Gas PRICE Act answers the call for increasing efficiency. Today's recent reports show that natural gas prices this winter are projected to increase 75 percent. This bill requires the EPA's Natural Gas Star Program to provide grants to identify and use methane emission reduction technologies.

Further, it requires the Administrator to conduct a series of methane emission reduction workshops with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission to officials in the oil and gas producing states.

Fourth, the supply disruptions caused by hurricane Katrina required

EPA to issue fuel waivers to allow the use of conventional fuel in special or boutique fuel areas. The bill provides that States acting pursuant to an emergency will be held harmless under the law. Additionally, some members have called for the reduction of the total number of fuels used to increase the overall fungibility. In principle, I agree with my colleagues, however the special or boutique fuel blends address environmental and health needs of each region. Therefore, I have proposed a more cautious approach that will allow for the reduction of fuel blends pursuant to the environmental and consumer preferences in each State.

Fifth, policymakers, businesses, and the public have struggled to balance increased demand for transportation fuels against preferences for ever more stringent environmental quality all while preserving low prices at the pump. Most ``solutions'' have focused on technologies that may not be realized for decades or other measures that would hurt U.S. manufacturers.

Fischer-Tropsche fuels are the likely answer. F-T fuels use petroleum coke, a waste product from the refining process, or domestic coal to produce ultra-clean, virtually sulfur free diesel or jet fuel, and are price competitive at $38/barrel of oil.

The Gas PRICE Act requires EPA to establish a demonstration project to use Fischer-Tropsche, diesel and jet, as an emission control strategy; and authorizes EPA to issue up to two loan guarantees to demonstrate commercial scale F--T fuels production facilities using domestic petroleum coke or coal.

Of course, Congress should have taken many actions in anticipation of the current refining capacity crunch over last several years. Yet, as I indicated earlier, elected officials in large measure react to the will of their constituents. The good news is that we are not too late to make sure that the economy-wide stifling high prices are only temporary.

The Gas PRICE Act that we are introducing today can go a long way in addressing the nation's short, mid, and long-term fuels challenges. Furthermore, it does so by empowering local communities and States, establishing greater regulatory certainty without changing any environmental law, improving efficiency, and establishing a future for the use of ultra clean transportation fuels derived from abundant domestic resources.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to apply the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for a State for fiscal year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 through 2014. Oklahoma is one of the hardest hit States receiving a 2.27 percent reduction in our FMAP funds for 2006, resulting in a loss of approximately $65 million, along with 21 other states that will suffer more than a 0.5 percent reduction. I would like to introduce with unanimous consent the text of a chart created by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority that lays out the 2006 FMAP reduction.

Federal law states that the FMAP is based on the three most recent calendar years with acceptable data available from the Department of Commerce. Every four to five years the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis performs a comprehensive revision of its calculation of per capita income. They performed a revision in 2003 which revises the data for the previous years as well. Therefore, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) calculated the FMAP for fiscal year 2006, they used the revised data from 2001, 2002 and 2003. A reduction of 2.27 percent would be disastrous for the state of Oklahoma.

My legislation purposes to keep the fiscal year 2005 percentage levels for 2006 through 2014, while we take an in depth look at revising the formula so states do not continue to get hit with such drastic reductions. Please join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to apply the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for a State for fiscal year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 through 2014. Oklahoma is one of the hardest hit States receiving a 2.27 percent reduction in our FMAP funds for 2006, resulting in a loss of approximately $65 million, along with 21 other states that will suffer more than a 0.5 percent reduction. I would like to introduce with unanimous consent the text of a chart created by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority that lays out the 2006 FMAP reduction.

Federal law states that the FMAP is based on the three most recent calendar years with acceptable data available from the Department of Commerce. Every four to five years the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis performs a comprehensive revision of its calculation of per capita income. They performed a revision in 2003 which revises the data for the previous years as well. Therefore, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) calculated the FMAP for fiscal year 2006, they used the revised data from 2001, 2002 and 2003. A reduction of 2.27 percent would be disastrous for the state of Oklahoma.

My legislation purposes to keep the fiscal year 2005 percentage levels for 2006 through 2014, while we take an in depth look at revising the formula so states do not continue to get hit with such drastic reductions. Please join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I would like to stand in honor of a great Oklahoman. CWO2 Stephen Shephard gave his life in the battle for freedom in Iraq. Steven is a true American hero who joined the war against terrorism after he witnessed the September 11 attacks on our own country. He was truly an admirable soldier and a great man.

Chief Warrant Officer Shephard was born in Stillwater, OK, in 1974. His family then moved to Purcell, OK, where Stephen attended Purcell schools until he graduated in 1993. Stephen played baseball and the saxophone in high school. His baseball coach remembers him as ``hardworking and dedicated.'' His friends remember him as having a great sense of humor. In high school, Stephen was voted ``most witty.''

Ever since he was a child, Chief Warrant Officer Two Shephard had a love for aviation. He got his pilot's license before he even graduated from high school. His sister says that ``being a pilot was his lifelong dream.'' After graduating from high school, Stephen earned a bachelor's degree in aviation from Oklahoma State University and then served as a flight instructor at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and at Kansas State University. Stephen was a wonderful teacher with patience and a sense of humor in the classroom. His students loved him and looked up to him.

In 1998, Stephen married Meleah, who is also from Purcell. Like many other Americans, Stephen felt a call to duty following the September 11 attacks, and he joined the Army in 2002 in response to that call. Stephen and Meleah were expecting their first child in September of this year.

Stephen was assigned to B Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Aviation Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division out of Fort Bragg, NC. He was killed on June 27, 2005, in Tija, Iraq, when enemy forces shot down the Apache helicopter he was flying. Stephen died doing what he loved-- flying--and fighting for our freedom.

For this soldier from Purcell, OK, there is no deeper honor than the memory he leaves behind. He gave of himself in life as well as in death, and stands out as an example to all of us. Today I honor a true hero, CWO2 Stephen Shephard.

marine sergeant james r. graham, iii

Mr. President, it is a great but solemn honor to rise today in memory of a courageous young man who recently gave his life in defense of his Nation and his fellow soldiers, Marine Sgt James R. Graham, III.

Sergeant Graham, 25, leaves behind a wife and two small children. He was known for his kindness and willingness to help others, often playing soccer with neighborhood children.

Sergeant Graham was assigned to 4th Tank Battalion, 4th Marine Division, Marine Forces Reserve, an antitank unit based in Broken Arrow, OK. He was deployed to Iraq with the 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force to provide support in the ongoing reconstruction and security efforts. While serving there he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal and the Selective Marine Corps Reserve medal. On Monday, August 1, he was killed as a result of a suicide bombing while conducting combat operations near Hit, a city about 85 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The soldiers, friends, and family who are left behind remember a true example of professionalism and patriotism. Sergeant Graham died a true hero, worthy of the respect and gratitude of every American. None among us can dispute the tragedy of plans unrealized and ambitions unfulfilled, and our thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Graham's wife and family. Though we are all grieved by the loss of this soldier, we will never cease to be proud of him. His sacrifice echoes across the world and in our hearts. He was a true Oklahoman, and a true American-- Sgt James Graham, III.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to acting and music legend Pat Boone.

While most of us remember him as one of the greatest singers of the 1950's, he is also known for his abiding Christian faith and strong moral standards which have sustained him throughout his life even during the height of his career in the entertainment industry.

Today, Mr. Boone is the spokesman for the 60 Plus Association, a nonpartisan senior citizens advocacy group.

He recently was interviewed by John Gizzi with Human Events. I ask to have printed in the Record an article titled ``Pat Boone on Politics, Porn, and the Death Tax''.

The article follows.

[From Human Events Online, Aug. 19, 2005]

Pat Boone on Politics, Porn and the Death Tax

(By John Gizzi)

Pat Boone, 71, is one of America's most beloved

entertainers. In the 1950s, he was the nation's second most

popular singer after

Elvis Presley. His hits, ``April Love'' and ``Love Letters in

the Sand,'' were No. 1 for six and seven weeks respectively.

He starred in 15 movies, including Journey to the Center of

the Earth and State Fair. Long an active conservative

Republican, Boone is currently spokesman for the 60 Plus

Association. Last week, Boone spoke with Human Events

Political Editor John Gizzi.

You have always been known in Hollywood as a conservative

and a Christian. In 1961, in fact, you, Ronald Reagan, Roy

Rogers and John Wayne addressed Dr. Fred Schwartz's all-

Southern California anti-Communist rally. Has it become more

difficult for someone [in Hollywood] to be a conservative and

a Christian today?

Pat Boone: I was not involved politically at that time.

Then, I felt so strongly about anti-communism and I did read

Fred Schwartz's book and then came his crusade at the sports

arena. What Schwartz said in his book [You Can Trust the

Communists--To Be Communists] made perfect sense to me. The

phrase, ``Better Red Than Dead,'' was sweeping college

campuses at the time.

When my time came to say a few words, I quoted that

sentiment. I said I've got four little girls and if it ever

came to that, although I pray it never will, I would rather

see my four daughters blown to heaven in an atomic blast than

caught in the hell of a Communist United States.

It impressed Reagan and he quoted that a number of times,

beginning by saying, ``I once heard a young father say.''

That's what occurred that night.

My activism and my being very outspoken never abated after

that and it has cost me as an entertainer. There is a

visceral antipathy that producers, hirers and firers have. I

feel myself in the other direction. I have feelings I have to

control of anger and total disregard for certain actors and

outspoken people in our business that I think are ruining

American culture.

Do you care to name any names?

Boone: When Norman Lear started People For the American

Way, he asked to meet with me. He wanted me to be the voice

of People For the American Way--its spokesman. He knew I had

considerable influence and a high-profile among Christians

and Middle America.

I said to him: ``Look, I understand why you have these

feelings. You want to promote your point of view. But your

main concern is with the Christian right, isn't it?'' He

said, ``That's right.'' I said, ``I know you've been openly

critical of [Rev.] Jerry Falwell. I know Jerry, although I'm

not a member of the Moral Majority. He feels that what you're

doing and saying and promoting is at least as harmful for

America as you feel his point of view is. So why don't we get

you two guys together? I have a feeling that so many of your

concerns are similar. Since I know him, I think he'd be

willing to meet with you.''

Lear said, ``No, I wouldn't meet with him.'' When I asked

him why, he said, ``He'll just quote Scripture and I don't

know anything about that. I'm not going to meet with him.''

When he left, he knew I wasn't going to be his spokesman.

I'm on the unpopular side in the entertainment community. A

number of entertainers, Jonathan Winters for one, say to me,

``Boone, I believe everything I ever hear you say. But I

don't dare say it.'' Now, here's a comedian who'll say

anything if it's funny, but when it comes to politics or

spiritual things, he knows that he's written off if he were

to express himself as emphatically as he would really like

to.

Why have you signed on with the 60 Plus Association, and

why do you believe its premier cause, abolishing the estate

tax, is so critical?

Boone: [60 Plus President] Jim Martin, a former Marine and

longtime friend of the President, contacted me and asked me

if I wanted to join him and his organization. I had been

asked to be a spokesman for a number of seniors' groups, but

I put it off because I wasn't ready or willing to be

considered a senior. Several years ago, in a 10K race here in

Los Angeles, I chose a very public moment in front of the

network affiliate cameras to come out of the closet and admit

I am a senior. Since then, I haven't been reluctant to let

people know that, yes, I am a senior and I do feel very

concerned about Social Security and the economy and medical

costs.

I have considered for many years that this estate tax is

absolute robbery. You already pay taxes, you save money,

you've been a good citizen and a responsible person, you save

up something, maybe it compounds, but you've already paid tax

on it. Now, when you have the poor judgment to die, the

government steps in and says, ``Thank you for doing that all

these years. We'll take half of that.'' And maybe your folks

have to sell the business and the house.

When Bing Crosby's [first] wife Dixie died [in 1952], going

back that far, he had to sell assets to pay the estate tax.

On top of losing his wife, he was losing assets on which he

already paid taxes. I read this was the case and asked him,

and he said, ``Oh yes. You can't get away from the long arm

of the IRS.''

Some say that hip-hop, acid rock and similar modern music

is destructive. Do you agree that a lot of it is harmful?

Boone: Oh, yes, I've been very vocal about that, too. The

culture is being dragged into the gutter, and the ones doing

it are not just the performers, but the record company

executives. It's calculated on their part because they

realize there's some fascination, as we used to be fascinated

with Jimmy Cagney in the gangster movies. But in the movies,

the criminals always got caught and punished.

The executives found some years ago that this ``gangsta

rap'' music was being bought and played by kids out in the

suburbs. These are the well-to-do kids, not the black kids in

the ghetto areas. They were not the ones subscribing to it

and making this music so successful. It was the kids driving

BMWs that their dads gave them that were playing it very loud

and rattling windows of the houses they were going by.

They've made a multi, multi-million dollar business out of

it.

What's the answer to this? Are you talking about

censorship?

Boone: I had a real head-to-head with Robert Blake one

night on the Merv Griffin Show about censorship. I said that

no society can survive without some form of censorship. He

said, ``You're crazy. We don't have censorship. That's bad.''

I replied, ``Wait a minute. The traffic light at the corner

is a form of censorship. It says you stop so that someone

else can go. And then you have your turn to go.'' We have

laws on the books that prevent you from standing up in a

theater and yelling, ``Fire,'' or from walking down the

street and opening your trench coat and exposing yourself.

There are laws that tell you that you can't do certain things

and that's what a society does to protect itself.

I believe we need censorship. I don't think the arts we

call the arts--literature, movies and certainly not the

airwaves--should be exempt from the rules society makes to

protect itself. It's the sensibilities of kids and the

females we used to call ladies we're talking about. Thanks to

``Sex and the City'' and this other stuff, they can be just

as profane and filthy as men.

I've watched segments of ``The Sopranos,'' and I just get

so sick of the glamour. Talk about Cagney and Bogart. We're

making national heroes out of gang bosses.

I do advocate censorship for a healthy society with three

provisos: that it be majority-approved, self-imposed and

voluntary. The ``voluntary'' and ``self-imposed'' may sound

like the same thing. The society agrees that we need to

protect ourselves, and there are certain bounds beyond which

we don't want the public to be exposed to filth. But we will

make the rules in a voluntary, majority-approved way. And

they can be changed by majority opinion.

I have felt that a healthy society should draw some lines

in the dirt and say, ``You cannot cross over this line. You

cannot say certain words on public television and cable or

anything that's going to reach sensibilities. We are going to

do something to defend our kids and our ladies and our

families.'' But it's something you just can't even talk about

in the entertainment industry. But I say, how are we going to

protect ourselves if we don't demand responsibility?

One final point--friends in California say that you were

urged to run for Congress as a Republican in 1968. Why didn't

you do it?

Boone: That was back when I had all of my kids at home. I

just knew that it would be totally time-consuming and if I

were elected, I'd have to do the job. I thought I could get

elected. But I also knew if I was elected, I would do my best

to be a good congressman. However, it would be very

disruptive of my family life because I would spend a lot of

time away from family. And also, I could never go back to

being an entertainer.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me suggest it has been the request of some of the people on the Judiciary Committee that we delay about 10 to 12, maybe 15 minutes, and that gives the Senator from Maryland an opportunity to be heard. Is that acceptable?

We will say 20 after.

Mr. President, I think we have now agreed by UC that we will begin our equally divided 20 minutes at 20 minutes past the hour.

That being the case, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, first of all, let me make 10 points and make them very succinctly and very quickly. I timed myself, and I can do it in this time.

So I start off with, in reality, this is a political exercise in futility. Every Senator in this Chamber knows it. Who in this Chamber would truly believe the President would sign legislation to repeal his own administration's rule? It is not going to happen. Yesterday, the President said he would veto it. That is a done deal. That is a no- brainer. We understand that.

Now, if you want political points with some of the far left environmentalist groups, sure, this might be your opportunity to get it. But you know it is not going to happen.

Secondly, overturning this rule would delay the rule that is already in effect right now. This President has a good rule. It is a cap-and- trade rule. Prior to this, nobody else was able to do it. But he is doing it.

Third--this is very important--the Senator from Vermont was commenting about some people giving false financial information. I think we know from the Energy Information Administration that the cap- and-trade rule--this approach to it--would cost about $2 billion. This is what is in place right now. This is what the President has done.

In the event they should substitute that for a MACT rule, the Energy Information Administration said it would cost $358 billion. Now, that is how much it would cost. But I think there is a lot more than that. You have to keep in mind if you pass this rule, if this were to take place today, that would have the effect of shutting down coal-fired plants. You would have to replace them with natural gas. That natural gas has already gone up in price.

I have here today, from Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Farmers Union. They can tell you, the cost of fertilizer has gone up 70 percent just in the last short period of time. If you start using natural gas in the plants, there is going to be far less of it available. We have driven 90,000 chemical manufacturing jobs overseas because of the problems they have been having with natural gas right now. So it would be that much worse.

The fourth thing is, they say this is not going to work. It has already been said. It was said yesterday and this morning that the cap and trade does not work. This is patterned after the Acid Rain Program. The Acid Rain Program is considered to be a success. Many Senators--and I do not blame them--have resisted the idea of a cap-and-trade program. They said all kinds of things were going to happen with acid rain, and it did not happen. Even the senior Senator from Vermont said--this is in 1999 when we had the acid rain proposal--

When we were debating controls for acid rain we heard a lot

about the enormous cost of eliminating sulfur dioxide. But

what we learned from the acid rain program is that when you

give industry a financial incentive to clean up its act, they

will find the cheapest way [to do it].

That is exactly what happened. That is what is going to happen in this case.

The fifth thing is that the sponsors of this resolution talk about the fact that a MACT program would give a 90-percent reduction in 3 years. I think it might be very interesting for these people to go back and research that 2 years ago, when we were developing the cap-and- trade proposal for mercury, they considered at the same time a MACT approach. Their modeling showed they could only cut mercury by 29 percent, not the 90 percent we are talking about now. It is all in the record. It is all there in the EPA. They have that information.

So it is not 90 percent. Even if you were to take this, it would be 29 percent as opposed to the mandated 70-percent reduction that is in the cap-and-trade proposal by the President.

The sixth thing is that U.S. powerplants contribute but 1 percent to the global total of mercury emissions. This is kind of interesting. Everyone is talking about powerplants now, that we have to do something about powerplants, when in fact powerplants are not the contributors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Norwegian Institute of Air Research did a long, involved study on this issue. They said, of all the release--you can see it in this chart right here--only 1 percent comes from U.S. powerplants. So we are talking about 1 percent of the mercury that is released. That is all, just 1 percent.

The next thing I would like to mention--I will use two charts for this--if we were to use, right now, the computer modeling, the first map shows the mercury deposits from all sources in 2001. That is where it is right now. We can see it over here in this area, I say to my good friends, Senator Jeffords and Senator Leahy. It is over 20

micrograms per square meter. That is what is happening today.

Now, the next chart shows what would happen if you did away with all powerplants by the year 2020. You can see it really is not that different. So it gets right back to that chart that only 1 percent is affected to begin with.

The seventh reason is that repealing the rule would be a rollback in the first ever mercury regulation to control powerplants. I hope everybody understands that powerplants have never been regulated for mercury.

It hasn't happened. It has never happened. They tried it in the Carter administration. Many of us wanted that to happen. I wasn't here at that time, but the Carter administration punted it to the Reagan administration. The Reagan administration didn't do it. They didn't regulate mercury. They punted it to the Bush 1 administration. He didn't do it. He punted it to President Clinton. The Clinton administration did nothing toward regulation of mercury. He punted it to the current administration and they are doing it. We are now regulating mercury for the first time in the history of this country. It is this administration that is doing it.

The eighth reason is, of the 144 tons of mercury deposited yearly in the United States, only 11 tons come from U.S. powerplants. With the new rule, that amount will drop down to 3.4 tons.

Then, No. 9, it is easy to scare people. We are really good at that, talking about how many people are going to die. It is very interesting. I want people who are scared because they have heard politicians talking about the doom and gloom of this thing to look at the NHANES study which shows that not a single woman or child has a blood mercury level approaching the level at which even the smallest effect was observed by the study.

Lastly, even if it worked, the technology is not there. If we should adopt this, the technology is not there.

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

Mr. President, let me address a couple things that were stated. First, let me inquire as to the time remaining.

First, it is the Energy Information Administration that came out and did the study on this. They said that there would be fuel switching. I only have to ask the question, if you are not able to use coal-fired plants, what are you going to switch to? Is it going to be windmills? There would be fuel switching, and it would have a devastating effect in terms of the problems that already exist in terms of the cost of natural gas.

The Senator from Vermont is passionate on this subject, and I don't want to be critical. But in talking about hotspots, that is the same thing that they said about acid rain--there are going to be hotspots-- and it didn't happen. Thirdly, the point that was brought up on being family friendly. When you look at the fact that they say studies show that not a single woman or child has a blood mercury level approaching the level at which even the smallest affect was observed in any study, where is the real problem there? If you want to be family friendly, let's be a little concerned about the cost of fertilizer, about the cost of heating our homes when winter comes.

This is an exercise in futility. The President has already announced if this thing should pass--they will feel good and rejoice--he will veto it, and you can't override a veto. It is a done deal. The current rule regulates mercury for the first time. The current rule's cost is $2 billion, as opposed to $358 billion, a huge difference. A vote for this rule is a vote to drive the remaining chemical plants overseas. A vote for this rule is going to be a vote to increase the cost of fertilizer for every farmer in America. The cap and trade worked on acid rain, and it will work accurately now. All the talk about U.S. powerplants. They only contribute 1 percent of the mercury that is in the system now globally.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Charities on the Frontline: How the Nonprofit Sector Meets the Needs of America's Communities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216.

Witness List:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 10 a.m. to consider the nominations of John R. Fisher to be Associate Judge, DC Court of Appeals; Juliet J. McKenna to be Associate Judge, DC Superior Court; Colleen D. Kiko to be General Counsel, Federal Labor Relations Authority; and Mary M. Rose to be Member, Merit Systems Protection Board.