Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss America's national security and the need for American independence from Middle Eastern oil.

America's chronic dependence on foreign oil is a critical national security issue. It not only affects citizens and businesses nationwide, but also has a direct impact on our Nation's ability to fight and win wars. As we prepare to engage in military operations in Iraq, it is important to understand that our forces are highly dependent on foreign oil, much of which comes directly from Iraq. In other words, we are dependent on oil from Iraq to fight a war against Iraq.

During the 1970s energy crisis, America was 36 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are 56 percent dependent, and by 2010, we are headed for well more than 60 percent. For the military, it now takes eight times as much oil to meet the needs of each U.S. soldier as it did during World War II. The Department of Defense today accounts for nearly 80 percent of all U.S. government energy use. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, our 582,000 soldiers consumed 450,000 barrels of petroleum products--four times the daily amount used by the 2 million Allied soldiers that liberated Europe from the Nazis in World War II. Since World War I, the outcome of every war has been influenced by the control of the energy. We are talking about a serious national security issue.

As a result of military operations in Iraq, we must prepare ourselves for the possibility of disruptions in the flow of oil from the Middle East. Iraq has been the fastest growing source for United States oil imports. Shockingly, in the year 2000, $5 billion of American money went to Iraq to buy oil. After September 11, when asked how U.S. dependency on foreign oil relates to our national security, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that U.S. dependency on foreign oil ``is a serious strategic issue. . . . My sense is that [our] dependency is projected to grow, not to decline. . . . it's not only that we would, in a sense, be dependent on Iraqi oil, but the oil as a weapon. The possibility of taking that oil off the market and doing enormous economic damage with it is a serious problem.''

It is critical that we develop our own resources and establish our energy independence. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has reviewed our national energy policy. He has warned that unless we act now, we will threaten our national security, damage our economic prosperity, and harm our quality of life. Likewise, in both 1995 and 1999, the Secretary of Commerce acknowledged, pursuant to a law directing his assessment, that our oil deficit poses a threat to national security. This threat has been acknowledged by both sides of the aisle.

According to Secretary Abraham, consumption of energy has risen sharply yet production continues to decline. In a report released by the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy estimates that oil and gas reserves totaling 1,166 trillion cubic feet are recoverable in the lower 48 states and Alaska. The oil we could recover from three square miles of Alaska alone would allow our Nation to replace the oil we buy from Saudi Arabia for 30 years.

The time to act is now--not for some immediate quick fix, but for the long-term security of America in the years and decades ahead. Our lack of an adequate long-term national energy policy is not a partisan matter. It is a supreme national challenge that cannot be continually ignored without posing an increasing danger to our security and our way of life. Sadly, our Nation has failed for three decades to address this issue properly.

The tired refrain that ANWR ``will destroy the environment'' is so out of date and out of touch with reality when we have the technology and the know-how to affirmatively protect the environment while meeting an important long-term national security challenge. Additionally, I wish it were required for everyone who is going to be voting on ANWR to take a trip up to the North Slope of Alaska to see what we are really talking about. It is not a pristine wilderness. We are only talking about a very small, a minuscule part of that area up there, and we are talking about an environment where the Eskimos, the local people, are begging us to come in and open it up.

They have estimated that between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil will be found in ANWR's Coastal Plain--up to 16 billion. That equates to over $300 billion worth of American oil. The American people want our country to comprehensively rebuild our military, our defenses and our future security on all fronts. This was true before September 11. It is only more true today. It is time for the Senate to vote, for the Congress to act, and for America to move forward towards true and lasting energy independence.

Mr. President, earlier today I submitted a request to the Senate to be considered with respect to the referral of the nomination of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for the 108th Congress.

The order reads as follows:

Ordered that, when the nomination for the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is received by the

Senate, it be referred to the Committee on Armed Services,

provided that when the Committee on Armed Services reports

the nomination, it be referred to the Committee on

Environment and Public Works for a period of 20 days of

session, provided further that if the Committee on

Environment and Public Works does not report the nomination

within those 20 days, the Committee be discharged from

further consideration of the nomination and the nomination be

placed on the calendar.

This order has been closely coordinated with both the chairmen and

ranking members of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. As chairman of the EPW Committee and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for working with Senator Jeffords and myself.

Mr. President, I hereby introduce, by request, the Clear Skies Initiative to reduce harmful air pollutants.

I am pleased that Senator Voinovich and I and our counterparts in the House have the opportunity to work with the President on one of his top legislative priorities. Clear Skies demonstrates the President's serious commitment to providing strong environmental protections for the American people. It is the most aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant emissions.

Clear Skies will build upon the remarkable environmental progress we've made over the last 30 years. Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 the nation's gross domestic product has increased 160 percent, energy consumption has increased 45 percent, and population has increased 38 percent. At the same time we've reduced emissions by 29 percent.

President Bush understands that achieving positive environmental results and promoting economic growth are not incompatible goals. Moving beyond the confusing, command-and-control mandates of the past, Clear Skies cap-and-trade system harnesses the power of technology and innovation to bring about significant reductions in harmful pollutants.

I look forward to working with the Administration on crafting a sound bill. I believe Clear Skies represents a good starting point for moving forward with the legislative process.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I can relate to the remarks of the Senator from Ohio. He and I had the honor of sharing the same position of mayor of a major city. It happens I started--maybe you did--the first Hispanic commissioner in the city of Tulsa. We had a sister city in Mexico, Ciudad de San Luis Potosi. They would come up there once a year for this big exchange program. I can remember standing there in front of all of our citizens, our Hispanic citizens of Tulsa, saying: Como Acalde de la ciudad de Tulsa, yo quiero decir Bien venidos, bien venidos a la ciudad. Creemos la Ciudad de San Luis Potosi es la ciudad mas hermosa de todas las ciudades del mundo.

Their faces shined and they realized we were participating in their culture and they in ours. They asked me the question last week, and I asked the distinguished Senator from Utah, What do we say to them when we go back and talk to them? Why won't they give us a chance, give one Hispanic a chance at a high office?

They asked me that question and I did not have a very good answer for

them. But they said, You know, there are a lot of us out here who really do care. They said, Why don't you kind of visit with us a little bit.

Muchos Hispanos estan eschuchando ahora. . . Y Yo Quiero Decir.

Por desgracia, hay personas en el senado que no quieren escuchar a ni una palabra de la verdad.

Yo invito a la comunidad hispana para llamar a sus senadores para insistir en los derechos de Miguel Estrada y en la confirmacion de Miguel Estrada como juez.

Llame los senadores, todos los senadores, especialmente los senadores, de los estados de CA, FL, NY, LA, AR y NM. Llame ahora y preguntalos, > Es su mision. Llame ahora! Los Estados Unidos necesitan un hispano . . . y eso hispano es Miguel Estrada.

Vaya, vaya a llamar imediamente. Los hispanos quien estan escuchando ahora pueden hacer la diferencia.

Gracias Mis Amigos.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been listening to these brilliant legal minds asking questions.

Yes.

I thank the Senator from Utah.

I was trying to get across with just a prelude, if you will accept that. There are several of us here who are not attorneys and who are certainly not great legal minds. As we look at this, I recall, though, another hearing, the origin of filibuster dealing back with the days of civil rights. And what comes to my mind is, as I have been listening to these questions being asked and the objections to Miguel Estrada by the minority--correct me if I am wrong--that the filibuster was created and maintained for some civil rights legislation in the first place. Is that correct?

Will the Senator share with those of us who are not attorneys the origin for filibuster?

I thank the Senator.

Will my colleague yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is a sincere last question. It is very important because I just got a phone call that I am going to be asked a question. First of all, I want to inform the Senator from Utah that in Oklahoma, our fastest growing population has been Hispanic for 25 years. I used to be a commercial pilot in Mexico. I know Hispanics.

When I was the mayor of Tulsa, we appointed the first Hispanic commission anywhere in the Southwest. It is still there today.

Now, the question is this, and I am going to be asked this question this weekend: Why was this Hispanic man, when nobody could question his qualifications, rejected? I have to answer this to the Hispanic commission of Oklahoma Saturday. What shall I say?

One last question. You have answered it already, and this is not whether or not we want to vote for or against Miguel Estrada, but does he deserve a vote, a public vote, on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. President, in accordance with the rule XXVI (2) of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, adopted by the committee today, January 29, 2003, be printed in the Record.

The Environment and Public Works Committee has had Price- Anderson reauthorization bills referred to it in three consecutive Congresses now--my bill, S. 2292, in the 106th Congress as well as Senator Voinovich's bills, S. 1591 and S. 1360 from the 107th Congress and S. 156 in this 108th Congress. I laud Senator Voinovich's diligent and effective work on this legislation. I would also like to thank Environmental and Public Works Committee staff and associated staff who have worked on this legislation, especially Andrew Wheeler, Lewis Renjel, Marty Hall, Brian Mormino, and Aloysius Hogan.

It is quite appropriate that the passage of this legislation be one of the first actions of the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, I had scheduled the passage of Senator Voinovich's bill S. 156 for my first Environment and Public Works Committee mark-up as Chairman in this 108th Congress. Moreover, in the Environment and Public Works Committee I look forward to further productive oversight and legislation regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, control of nuclear energy, infrastructure, and continued environmental enhancement for our flora, fauna, air, water, and soil.

I support the opportunity to enact this legislation promptly on this omnibus appropriations bill in lieu of Environment and Public Works Committee action. By fostering the clean-up of our soil and water and by fostering clean air energy sources, the legislation we pass in this bill is good for our environment. The sooner we enact this legislation, the better for our environment.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment. I look over and see both Senators from Louisiana here. I can assure you that money is not just the answer. I remember at Bossier City there was a site that the Federal Government was going to clean up. It was going to cost X dollars. I don't remember the exact amount, but I didn't know this amendment was going to come up. After we spent quite a bit of time, we found that the responsible parties were willing to do it under State supervision. All of the parishes agreed to it. All of the citizens, neighborhood groups, agreed to it. Yet they were still going to do it. We ended up forcing this through and cleaning it up for one-half the amount of money and in one-half of the time.

We need to reform the Superfund system. I would argue with my good friend from Idaho, I think we have the largest Superfund problem in Tar Creek in the State of Oklahoma.

I will not yield to my friend because I think I need my time.

But I would say this: We have spent about $100 million on it over the last 15 years, and it has not resolved the problem. We want to reform the system. We need to reform the system. And, of course, there are no offsets. So I know that will mean something to some of the people.

But let's go ahead, give our committee a chance, give Senator Chafee, whose subcommittee has the jurisdiction, a chance to go in here and do a better job rather than pouring money on a system that is not working today.

Now I will yield----

One minute to the Senator from Idaho.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Idaho because we do have two of those devastating sites.

I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Missouri.

Yes. We are in the process of making some major changes. You heard from the Senator from Idaho the improvements that have been made there. And this is one of the main agenda items.

So I urge the defeat of the Lautenberg amendment and yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Sure.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does the Senator from New Jersey have remaining?

Mr. President, I have to argue with my good friend from New Jersey. If he wants to use the Superfund Program as an example of a program that has been working, then we don't have any problems around here because it hasn't been working. We have been working on making major changes. We are going to make major changes.

I yield back the time and move to table the Lautenberg amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Let me acknowledge this is a little different than it was yesterday. Yesterday, it was a second-degree amendment. To accommodate both sides, we will have two first-degree amendments that we will consider today.

Our leader talked about the unfinished business from last year. This first amendment falls into that category. It actually was unfinished business from the Clinton administration. I have a letter from Bob Perciasepe, the clean air man, director for the Clinton administration, saying at the last minute they were unable to get this completed. What we are trying to do now is to complete this effort.

With that, I reserve the remainder of my time so we can hear from the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, let me make one point. The analysis that was referred to by the Senator from Vermont as not being complete is right here. It is 180 pages of analysis of all data that was available. If they were to try to have the NAS do a further analysis, they would have to go back and use this same data. This job has been done. This has been delayed now for 10 years.

At this point I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

We reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, how much time remains for both sides?

First, let me comment that this amendment enjoys the embrace and the support of virtually every organization of business or labor unions in America. It was unanimously approved by the National Governors Association, the Environmental Council of the States, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, et cetera, and virtually every labor union in America.

At this time I recognize the chairman of the clean air subcommittee, the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, to clear up a couple things, first, this does not apply to coal-fired plants. The Senator from North Carolina has been talking about that. I have a letter from the administrator saying that. Second, this is not something that came out of the Bush administration. It is something that came out of the Clinton administration. In listening to some of the comments made by some of the Senators on the other side, I think they have lost sight of that fact.

Third, it is hard to find anyone who is not supporting this. People want these plants to be able to go ahead, make the improvements, clean up the air, and do a better job for the environment. We have the National Conference of State Legislators, Governors, the environmental councils of the States, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, virtually every labor union; they are all listed. The list is on the desks. I would encourage Members not to delay this effort. All this amendment would do is delay it for 6 more months. It has already been delayed for 10 years. It is time to go ahead. I urge Members to vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield, I thought I would get to the floor at 2:15.

Mr. President, as many of you know, in March of 2001, Senator Breaux and I wrote the first congressional letter on the New Source Review Program to Vice President Cheney in his capacity at that time as chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Our letter stated that, unless reformed ``EPA's flawed and confusing NSR policies will continue to interfere with our Nation's ability to meet our energy and fuel supply needs.''

At this point in my presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I publicly thank the administration for being responsive to the concerns of Senator Breaux and myself. I know it took real courage to pursue the NSR reforms. It took courage because the President knew that many people would misconstrue these reforms as a ``sneak attack on the environment'' in an attempt to score cheap political points and fundraise.

Despite the rhetoric we will hear today and have heard today about NSR reforms and the process of developing these reforms, make no mistake: President Bush's decision will result in a cleaner environment and greater energy security.

The Clinton administration developed draft proposals and accumulated over 130,000 pages of comments on NSR reform. In fact, on his last day at work on January 19, 2001, President Clinton's air chief with the EPA, Bob Perciasepe, wrote a letter, No. 1, outlining NSR reforms which are similar to the Bush administration's NSR reforms and which are almost identical and, No. 2, calling for the Bush administration to consider finalizing the reforms.

At this point in the presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I very much look forward to seeing the fruits of the Clinton and Bush administrations' labors on this issue.

From my tenure as chairman of the Senate's Clean Air Subcommittee, I knew that New Source Review was a major issue for the energy sector. In fact, I held the very first congressional hearings on New Source Review in February of 2000 in Ohio. I could not believe my own ears. We heard from companies that were trying to make environmentally friendly modifications to their facilities being stopped dead in their tracks by, ironically, the Clean Air Act.

I was also shocked to hear that it took 4,000 pages of guidance documents to explain 20 pages of regulations. That is 4,000 pages of guidance documents just to explain 20 pages of regulations.

Since then, my shock at the absurdity of the NSR Program has not worn off. We, as a nation, need to rethink the manner in which we approach regulations. We all need to keep an open mind during the debates on various regulatory reform initiatives. I am sick of continually hearing that these are ``sneak attacks on the environment.'' In fact, just the opposite is true. If we rethink regulation, we could find ourselves in a place where we can have far greater environmental protection and more reliable and diverse energy sources.

Congress and the executive branch must also do a better job of understanding how the various layers of regulations impact sectors of our economy. I normally have a chart which shows all of the different regulations that are going to be hitting the various regulated sectors--a chart that shows the refiners that are currently working at almost 100-percent capacity are going to be simultaneously hit with a number of regulations in the next few years. NSR will make it close to impossible for refiners to make these environmental upgrades. Now is the time to work together on these and other regulations to not only achieve the environmental goals but also ensure no disruption in fuel supply which would cause the price spikes that we know are inevitable.

Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of energy rises, that means the less fortunate in our society must make a decision between heating their home and keeping the lights on or paying for other essential needs.

During a recent EPW Committee hearing last year, Senator Voinovich's constituent, Tom Mullen, articulated this concern. Mr. Mullen stated that in a recent study--which is well known and very well expected--on Public Opinion on Poverty, it was reported that 23 percent of the people in America have difficulty paying for their utilities. That is one out of every four Americans.

I will not support policies, such as NSR, that will hurt the poor in Oklahoma and around the Nation. Additionally, the lower environmental performance resulting from the current NSR Program impacts Americans in every tax bracket. NSR reforms enjoy the support of a wide range of interests--from the State attorneys general to labor unions to business groups.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers in support of NSR reform.

Mr. President, the environmental community does not have to answer to the American people when energy prices go through the roof. But the President of the United States does, and we do, too. I think the President is doing the right thing, and we should support him for it.

So, in summary, this is one of the rare things that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have proposed which enjoys support by virtually all the labor unions as well as the business organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations, and the American people who want lower cost energy.

Mr. President, I am offering a second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' rider on the New Source Review. In his amendment, Senator Edwards asks the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the impacts of implementing the NSR reform package and to delay the reforms in the interim.

In our judgment, there is no reason for this delay. We have delayed already for 10 years. We have been living with this thing for 10 years. We need reforms now.

Therefore, I am offering a second-degree amendment to allow the NSR final package to move forward, but to allow the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study. When the NAS completes its study, the EPA can then benefit from its results. I suggest that the National Academy of Sciences will be getting their information from the EPA because they are the ones who have accumulated all the data to date, and there is no more data that is available. There is nothing to be lost by offering this as a second-degree amendment. You would have the benefit of the NAS study as well as moving along the time for implementation.

There is simply no reason to delay the implementation of the final NSR package. The Edwards amendment calls for a study before the final New Source Review rules go final. I guess the Senator from North Carolina has not read the administrative record on the regulations. If he had, he would see that the EPA conducted a thorough environmental analysis of the final NSR proposals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to read from the EPA's own environmental analysis:

The overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit

to the environment.

My second-degree amendment calls for a NAS study to look at the impacts of the regulation after implementation of the final rules while allowing the regulations to go forward, thus allowing cleaner and more efficient technologies to be installed in our Nation's manufacturing centers.

Delaying these regulations would delay projects to create safer workplaces. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, a member of the AFL-CIO, has recently opined against the proposed delay in the final package on the New Source Review. I would like to read just a small part of their letter and then will have the rest of the letter printed in the Record. This letter is a current letter dated today from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. It says:

We have encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to

clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose efforts

in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and

competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our

workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue

for millions of American workers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, some supporters of the Edwards rider in its current form suggest that delay is justified because State officials seek it. Nothing could be further from reality. Two years ago, a unanimous resolution of the National Governors Association was passed. It says:

New Source Review requirements should be reformed to

achieve improvements that enhance the environment and

increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy

efficiency, fuel diversity and the use of renewable

resources.

The Nation's environmental commissioners passed a subsequent amendment, stating:

The Environmental Council of the States adopts the

provisions of the NGA [the National Governors' Association]

policy. The Environmental Council of the States encourages

the United States EPA to reform the New Source Review

Regulations into a workable regulation that is easily

understood and effectively implemented.

These positions reflect the true direction of the majority of States. I think there is a propensity in this body for us to think that wisdom in Washington is greater than that of the States. That is not true. So you have a unanimous resolution from the Governors as well as the Environmental Council of the States.

The bottom line is this: My second-degree amendment allows the EPA and the States to benefit from the wisdom of the National Academy of Sciences on the important issues of clean air policy. However, my amendment does not create potential dangers inherent in delaying the onset of the important and thoughtful administrative reforms of the NSR program.

So I offer a second-degree amendment to the Edwards first-degree amendment No. 67 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am glad to withhold.

Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

First, this has nothing to do with tuna, dolphins, drilling, snowmobiles in the Tetons. The record of this President has been very good. We passed extensive brownfields legislation with the help of the Senator occupying the chair. My amendment included over 200,000 petroleum sites. The record has been good.

It is important, when you are talking about this issue, to talk about the Bush administration. This essentially came from the Clinton administration, not from the Bush administration. With the exception of a few technicalities which have been worked out to everyone's advantage, this is the Clinton administration's program.

Here is the statement made at the last day of the Clinton administration by Bob Perciasepe:

Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop

improvements to the New Source Review program. As I have

discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this

program have greater incentives for companies to employ the

most effective emissions techniques voluntarily and give

greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary

actions.

And so then we had this study. Look at this study. It is 180 pages. The study comes to the conclusion that the overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit to the environment. This is going to benefit the environment, not hurt it.

When the Senator from Nevada says, what do we say to senior citizens, I say what do we say to senior citizens when their energy costs go up, when they already have to decide whether to heat their homes or have food to eat.

We have studied this matter for 10 years. We don't need 6 more months.

However, we are willing to have the NAS do a study, and they will use the same data the EPA used in coming up with the conclusion that this is not harmful, but it is good for the environment and health.

I will be joining my friend from Nevada in asking for a recorded vote on this second-degree amendment at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

First of all, I thank the Senator from Ohio for the time he has spent in setting out this issue. Not many people are aware of the fact that Senator Voinovich was the head of the National Governors Association Clean Air Committee and has been working on it for a long time.

I only add to his comments and ask him if he is in agreement that we have 180 pages here, and almost all of this was done during the Clinton administration. All the data that would be available for the NAS is found in the results that are very positive in this report. So I certainly hope this is an accommodating way for the Senator from North Carolina to say, yes, we want the input of the NAS; we don't want to wait 6 more months.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield?

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for yielding.

Let me first of all say, to clarify the understanding that I have in listening to his presentation, that his request would not necessarily be binding unless the President were to include this as something which he would interpret as an emergency; that is, the funding that is requested by the Senator. Is that correct?

If the Senator will yield further, I can't quite see the Senator's map of the continent. My understanding is that most of that is in sub-Saharan Africa. Is that correct?

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further, let me just make a comment. I perhaps have had maybe even a conflict of interest in this case. But that conflict has made me very sensitive to the plight they have in sub-Saharan Africa. As the Senator from Florida knows, I have been there many times. I am very familiar with that whole region. But in the case of Ethiopia, which seems to be one of the first areas the Senator is addressing, a drought is taking place there right now. In fact, I have and I will hold up a picture of a little girl we found during that drought. She was abandoned. She was 3 days old. We were able to get her back into good health. I am very proud to say that this little girl--Zegita Marie Rapert--happens to be my granddaughter. She is now officially adopted.

By the way, in case you are wondering why she is wearing a crown, that was her first birthday. She has three older brothers ages 4, 5, and 6. It is a pretty typical family. Anyone from Ethiopia is considered royalty: Queen of Sheba--anyone from Ethiopia is royalty. So they gave her this crown for her first birthday.

I would suggest that there is no area that is having a more difficult time right now. I know there is a lot of competition for funds. But I think the way the junior Senator from Florida has structured this amendment, that would allow the administration to make some of these determinations and some of these priorities.

I strongly support the idea of giving some aid to that area because of the drought that has been unprecedented for about 12 years. Hopefully, this will happen, and it will become a reality for these people.

We do a lot of talking around here about poverty; we do a lot of talking about problems; but until you see some of the poverty and some of the effects of the drought that has taken place right now in the sub-Saharan, Africa, it is really one that we don't understand.

I yield the floor.