Floor Statements

Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to speak in favor of the constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that amendment, and even though it failed by a vote of 66 to 34, I do not believe it is an issue that will ``go gentle into that good night,'' to use the words of poet Dylan Thomas. The flag is the unifying symbol of our country and all it embodies. Hundreds of thousands have died fighting to protect what it represents. It seems only logical that we, as a body, would continue to fight to protect it.

A few days after the Senate vote, I received a copy of a speech written by Alabama's state auditor, Beth Chapman. It was a speech she delivered to a meeting of the Alabama Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution--a group dedicated to promoting patriotism and preserving American history. I found it to be not only timely, but a beautifully written and passionate reminder of what the flag represents and why it should be protected. I ask that the full speech be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

Flag Day Speech

Alabama State Auditor Beth Chapman's address to The state meeting of

the Alabama Chapter of the Daughter's of the American Revolution

The red, white and blue, the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory,

our Standard, the Star Spangle Banner--the American flag--it

has heard the battle cry for freedom and has been the banner

for democracy--it is our sacred symbol of the heart and soul

of our country--our freedom.

It represents the fifty states and the blood of the men and

women who died carrying it--if not on their bodies, in their

hearts and souls as they fought for freedom of a nation--our

nation.

Though tattered and worn, it continued to wave as 6,000

patriots died in the Revolutionary War breaking off the

chains of tyranny from Great Britain.

It survived the Civil War and draped the caskets of many of

the 500,000 total (some brother against brother) who fought

and died defending freedom, though they disagreed on what

that freedom meant--the flag continued to wave in its

defense.

It soared at Gettysburg, unfurled at the Battle of the

Bulge, was blood stained at Kasson, stood watch in the final

hours at Pearl Harbor as hulls of ships and shells of men

floated on the burning waters. It was hoisted by brave

American soldiers at Iwo Jima.

Throughout history it was tested and tried on the beaches

of Normandy and was triumphant on the shores of Tripoli.

It stood for justice's sake though 116,000 Americans fell

in WWI and 405,000 in World War II.

It survived the numbness of frost bite in the Chosin

Reservoir of the Korean Conflict and heard the brassy bugle's

cry of Taps being played for more than 54,000 who lost their

lives.

It proudly but sadly waves today over a wall that bears

only etched names in stone of more than 58,000 faces, hearts,

souls and bodies of the fallen soldiers who died in the

jungles of Vietnam.

It flew for righteousness' sake mounted in the dirt of

Desert Storm as 293 Americans' bodies were killed but their

love for country was not captured, conquered or defeated.

Most recently it saw 1,672 Americans in Operation Iraqi

Freedom die and is has covered the bodies of 190 killed in

Enduring Freedom--yet the flag still endures. It still

waves--restoring the foundations on which America was built

and reminding us of the freedom with which we've been

blessed.

And today it continues to wave, somberly but surely over

the 260,000 brave and courageous veterans whose silent,

sleeping spirits remain in Arlington Cemetery. They defended

our freedom and determined our destiny and the destiny of our

nation. Now they rest in peace while we enjoy the symbolism

of the flag with as much passion as they once felt when they

were defending it.

Many have spit on the flag, buried it and burned it, not

realizing the freedom it represents is what allows them that

right, though no matter how obnoxious and disrespectful it

may be, it supposedly was right.

But what a pity they know not how much innocent blood was

shed so they could have that freedom to express the

bitterness, hatred and disrespect they appear to have for

their own freedom and anything it represents.

Over one million men and women of the United States

Military have died defending what our flag symbolizes, but

others have died simply by living the American Dream which it

represents--2,595 civilians at the World Trade Center on 9-

11, 92 on Flight 11 and 65 on Flight 175, 125 in the

Pentagon, 64 on Flight 77, and 45 on Flight 93--total of

2,986 died on that same tragic day--doing nothing but living

out in their daily lives what our flag stands for--freedom.

They were the innocent victims of evil people and a jealousy

and hatred that comes against such a beloved freedom as ours.

And on that day when our country was at its lowest level,

our spirits had plummeted; we had been wounded worse than at

any time in our great nation--in the very middle of that

ordeal, three exhausted New York Fireman had the foresight,

the vision and the inspiration which could only be fueled

physically by adrenaline, but spiritually and emotionally by

raw patriotism--love of God and country--to hoist an American

flag for all the world, friend and foe alike to see, so they

would know we had not been defeated.

Even in the ruin and rubble, Old Glory was raised and

proudly waved as she had so many times before in peace and

war. She rose up out of the dust, dirt and even fire to

restore the American spirit, which can not be snuffed out as

a burning candle by tragedy or hatred, but is only further

motivated to wave higher and further unfold to spread the

news of freedom and of victory.

It symbolized freedom, hope, and determination of the

American people and the strength of our spirit.

Some have purchased with blood the freedom our flag

represents, other have defended it--and by the grace of God

those of us in this room have been blessed to simply live

under it in the greatest country on the face of the earth.

And it costs most of us nothing and that's why it should

have our utmost honor and respect. For the same exact flag

many not have been through all the battles, but what it

represents has been, and that is more than anyone person can

say.

The flag has seen it all and survived it all, therefore,

the spirit and freedom which it represents has survived it

all. It is the epitome of the sacred symbol we know it to be.

It stands atop the United States Supreme Court building as

justice attempts to be served; it stands over the United

States Capitol in hopes of good laws being passed and bad

ones being killed.

It stands in schoolyards as children play, over Court

Houses and City Halls as good grassroots government is

hopefully being administered. It drapes the shoulders of our

country's finest athletes as they represent us at the

Olympics.

But let us not forget that it has also left this earth to

represent us, to fly into the Heavens and land on the moon.

It has flown into the wild blue yonder far into the majestic

skies reaching toward the very face of God, only to explode,

and quickly plummet into the sea with the Challenger and the

brave Americans in it.

There is little of our heritage that it has not seen; there

are fewer of our victories, triumphs, and tragedies that it

has not experienced first hand. It has waved at half mast and

at full mast, but it has never ceased to wave.

It is not to be burned or buried, but flown with great

pride and admiration. Some say it is not the flag, but what

it represents that we should honor--I say we cannot honor one

without a pledge of allegiance to the other.

The Pledge of Allegiance nationally debuted in October 1892

on Columbus Day when 12 million children across America

recited it for the first time.

The Pledge of Allegiance has had three major changes:

Originally it read: ``I pledge allegiance to my flag and to

the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.''

June 14, 1923, it was revised to ``the flag'' instead of

``my flag'' and the words ``United States'' were added.

One year later it was revised to read ``the flag, of the

United States of America.''

But the most significant change came on Flag Day, June 14,

1954, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added these two

simple, but profound words: ``Under God.''

And this is what he said about adding those two words: ``In

this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious

faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall

constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever

will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and

war.''

The Pledge of Allegiance as we know it today is only 31

words packed with pride, honor, loyalty and devotion.

Red Skelton, a brilliant comedic mind of another generation

shared this story on television many years ago. Little did he

know this story would be so poignant and prophetic today. He

shared the story of his teacher Mr. Laswell who came to think

his class was just saying the pledge of allegiance out of

routine so he made a drastic change in their schedule one

day. This is what he said to them:

``I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the

Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as thought it

is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and

try to explain to you the meaning of each word.''

I--me, an individual, a committee of one.

Pledge--dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without

self pity,

Allegiance--my love and devotion

To the flag--our standard, old glory, a symbol of freedom.

Wherever she waves, there's been respect because your loyalty

has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's

job.

United--that means we all have come together.

States--individual communities that have united into 48

great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride

and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary

boundaries, yet united to a common purpose and that's love

for country.

And to the Republic--a state in which sovereign power is

invested in representatives chose by the people to govern.

And government is the people and it's from the people to the

leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands, one nation--one nation meaning ``so

blessed by God.''

Indivisible--incapable of being divided.

With liberty--which is freedom--the right of power to live

one's life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation

And justice--the principle or quality of dealing fairly

with others.

For all--which means boys, and girls, it's as much your

country as mine.

Skelton later said since he was a young boy that two states

had been added to our country and that two words had been

added to our pledge--``Under God.''

Then he smiled and said, ``Wouldn't it be a pity if someone

said that (those two words ``Under God'') is a prayer and

they would eliminate it from schools too?

Little did he know that now, many years later, that very

effort has been discussed before the United States Supreme

Court.

Though the words to the Pledge of Allegiance have changed

its purpose, meaning and intent has not.

But the flag still waves and our nation is still one nation

under God and we still live under the banner of democracy and

the flag waves in our churches, school yards, state and

national government buildings and always in our hearts and

homes--because that's where freedom originated and that is

where it must remain.

When we pledge allegiance to our flag, we are making a

commitment, and what we are committed to is what we become as

individual people, and as a nation. The destinies of many

nations have been determined by what their people were

allegiant to--Rome is a good example of that. Let America

never become a Rome.

Our flag is more than three colors of cloth and millions of

pieces of thread sown by hand. It is more than Betsy Ross and

Francis Scott Key. It represents a message of hope and

freedom that is carried in the hearts and souls of the people

of a nation for generations.

I pray today that God will continue to bless this country

and that we may never divorce ourselves from the preservation

of that freedom for which our men and women have died and our

flag still boldly stands.

Now let us stand and with great pride, honor, humility and

resolve--with great enthusiasm, fervor, patriotism, passion

and respect to say our pledge of allegiance together as we

have never said it before.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Bond for dealing with this important issue. We have indeed

reached a point in this country where I think there is confusion about the absolute responsibility and legal requirement to maintain classified information in our Government. We need to be more serious about that. He can speak with authority. His son has served in Iraq and is a fine officer. We appreciate that. He understands these issues deeply. Again, I thank Senator Bond for that.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Bond for dealing with this important issue. We have indeed

reached a point in this country where I think there is confusion about the absolute responsibility and legal requirement to maintain classified information in our Government. We need to be more serious about that. He can speak with authority. His son has served in Iraq and is a fine officer. We appreciate that. He understands these issues deeply. Again, I thank Senator Bond for that.

Mr. President, one thing we are about to do today after many objections and difficulties over the years from the Democratic leadership is to pass a bill that will allow offshore production of oil and gas. It will absolutely positively affect the pocketbooks of American citizens.

This is a bipartisan effort, although as one can see from my colleague and his polemic--political polemic--that he just completed, even the Democratic leadership is not comfortable with making progress, but many of the Members are.

Before I talk about the energy bill, I want to take a moment to respond.

He talked about the war. We had a vote on withdrawal from Iraq. It was 93 to 6 against that. We voted a year later on it again and only 13 Democrats voted for it then.

We need to have more bipartisan work to accomplish issues that are important to the American people, and we can do it. But we are being driven by the politics of elections, and I don't think it is healthy for us. That is the way it goes around here, unfortunately. We will continue to proceed.

I just want to know how the Senator comes up with this number, 700- something billion dollars of costs for the partial repeal of the death tax. Who knows where that number came from? The Congressional Budget Office which, in my view, tends to overscore, making it higher than reality, said it was $260 billion over 10 years. I submit that even this is a high number. I submit also that we have voted in this body-- and it is now the law of the United States--that in 2010 the death tax will be completely eliminated. It phases out and goes to zero, but if we don't do something about it permanently, it will go back to 55 percent. Plus, if a State has another 5 percent, such as Alabama does, that is 60 percent of a person's net wealth confiscated by the Government. The polls show the American people are not happy with that. They don't think that is legitimate.

So we spend a lot of time here figuring out how to make this death tax law stable so that people know what they are facing and what they are going to have to pay and what their families will have to pay.

We looked at it, and we have come up now with a flat rate of 30 percent for estates that would qualify at that level. That would be the maximum rate--not 55 but 30, a compromise that deals with this extraordinary confiscation of wealth by the Government of people who have worked hard, have paid their taxes, made money, paid a third of it to the Government, saved something for their children, and then the Government comes in and takes 55, 60 percent of it.

We do not think that is fair. The American people do not think that is fair. Polling data shows they do not think that is fair. This is a matter we need to fix.

We have this zero rate out there at 2010, about a little over 3 years from now, that we need to fix--a permanent fix. We are on the verge of doing that. We will have bipartisan support for that despite the assistant Democratic leader's arguments against it. We need to work on these things. We can and will move forward with that proposal.

Also, our Democratic colleagues say they wanted the minimum wage raised, according to the Kennedy bill, and so as a compromise we proposed to do that and work that out. That is where the negotiations are going. Hopefully we will be successful in that.

Mr. President, I will talk briefly about some good news, for a change.

We have had, I have to say, Members of this body--almost entirely on the other side--who have blocked energy production in our country for a number of years. It has caused the cost of living and the price of gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil for Americans all over this country to go up.

What have we seen in the 10 years I have been here? We have seen this. We have seen the proposals to produce oil and gas from the vast Alaskan ANWR region blocked. A substantial majority of Senators have voted for it, but the Democrats have been able to block it with a filibuster each time.

We have had a long-term battle on nuclear power, and just this last fall that battle broke in the right direction. We have not had a nuclear plant for over 30 years in this country. We are burning a lot of natural gas to generate electricity when it could be produced for a fourth or a fifth of that cost by nuclear power with no air pollution. Also, it wouldn't drive up the cost of natural gas for heating our homes. We have had that nuclear power blocked. Finally, we passed a bill that gave us the opportunity for more nuclear power. We now have 18 different preliminary requests to develop new nuclear powerplants in America, all filed within a year of the bill's passage. The Tennessee Valley Authority in my home State--and we have two nuclear plants in Alabama--tells me that nuclear power comes in at 1.2 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 1.8 cents for coal--that is 50 percent higher for coal--and natural gas at 6 cents, five times as much. We need more nuclear power. Finally, under the leadership of President Bush and this Congress, we have moved forward in that direction. That is positive.

We have also passed an energy bill that enhances wind, solar, and ethanol, and included mandates that will cause us to utilize more of our domestically produced biofuels--something I support.

I have worked with Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Salazar, Senator Brownback, Senator Lindsey Graham and others on this issue. We have a bipartisan group to treat energy production as a national security issue. And we should.

It requires conservation. It requires efficiency. It requires biofuels. It requires enhanced production.

Nobody suggests our demands are going down. We can do better to contain the growth in demand, and we should do everything possible to do that, but the world is growing economically and more people are utilizing energy and it is causing shortages and driving up the price.

So let's celebrate a little bit. We had a vote yesterday. The opposition to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has broken. It was, I believe, 72 to 23 against the filibuster of this bill. So I believe we are heading toward passage of it, and it is a fabulous thing. We would be so much better off today had we passed this legislation 5, 6, 7, or 8 years ago. But we have had a moratorium on drilling in huge portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Around Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--off our shores, pretty far out in the gulf in most cases are some 4,000 producing oil and gas wells. But a few areas of the Gulf of Mexico, with very large reserves, have been under a moratorium. We have been blocked by law from having production in those areas. As a result, we have sent around the world huge amounts of American wealth, the wealth earned by American citizens--huge amounts of that to other nations, many of them not friendly to us. As a result, it has made the price of gasoline and natural gas for American citizens higher. It has resulted in many of my constituents and others around the country paying $50 or $75 more a month for gasoline so they can go back and forth to work--money they didn't have to spend on that a year or two ago. Prices have gone up.

We have ceased to expand our domestic production. We have had to buy it on the world market, 60 percent from foreign nations, many of those hostile to us politically and otherwise. It is not a good thing.

One of the things we need to do is to make a step in the direction of producing more at home. It is overdue. I am glad my colleagues on the other side have moved forward.

Once again, we had to reach a compromise. We talked with Senator Martinez and Senator Nelson of Florida and they have come around to this 125-mile buffer zone around Florida. That is far more than I think is necessary, but certainly there are strong feelings in Florida about it. Under all the circumstances involved, I think it is a good decision. I am prepared to go forward with that. I would like to see more, but this, certainly, with 8.3 million acres that could be produced, will provide an opportunity for us to get out there, prove these reserves exist, and have production there.

I want to say one thing here. I want to be clear. This is very important. It is not correct it is exactly wrong, in fact--and it must never be the policy of this Senate, this Congress, or this Government to conduct drilling anywhere for the purposes of helping oil companies. That must never be our mission. Our mission must be to study what is happening in our country and in our world and to take actions that will help reduce the cost of energy for American citizens. That is what our responsibility is. That is our duty.

Congress has created laws that put a moratorium from production on areas where large reserves exist. I don't know what oil companies may desire to produce there. Most of them out there, I understand, are independent firms doing the production, but regardless, whoever produces it, that is not whom I am trying to help.

If we produce more natural gas in our domestic system, we help drive down the cost of natural gas. In fact, this production could have a larger impact on natural gas than it is likely to have on gasoline. It should really have a positive impact on both.

Let me show this chart. I didn't realize this originally. I met a businessman in Alabama. He has a big chemical company, an international company. He was telling me how much his natural gas costs have gone up and he said it is hurting him. It is putting his business in a position where they might have to close it or cut back.

I said, Why? Aren't other places in the world paying more?

He said, No.

I suppose that is the first time I realized that fact. You know, for gasoline, we pay $3 a gallon here. It is $7 or $8, or more in Europe-- more in Japan, I think. So I have always thought we were cheaper.

But look at this chart. In the United States we are now at $8.85 per million Btus of natural gas. Lots of Americans heat their homes with natural gas. Lots of American electricity is generated by natural gas. Lots of businesses utilize great amounts of natural gas in their chemical and other processes that they need to be successful.

But look at these numbers. In Trinidad it is $1.60. Bolivia is $1.65. Even in England--the United Kingdom, it is $7. In Belgium, $6.95; in Russia, $1.20; Ukraine, $2.70. In the Gulf States, it is a little over $1. Even in China, it is $5.05. In Japan, it is $6.05.

If you are a business and you make fertilizer with natural gas--we make fertilizer, plastics and other things from natural gas--it is clear that our corporations and businesses that hire Americans are having to pay more, as are consumers of natural gas, than many areas around the world.

I say that to say this has a potentially significant positive impact for our economy if we can knock down the price of natural gas. Natural gas goes into pipelines. It is moved by pipelines throughout our country. We have the pipeline infrastructure. We have the pipelines on the coast. We have a pipeline right now that runs from Mobile, AL, across the gulf to take our natural gas that we produce--that Florida does not produce--to Florida so they can generate electricity or do other things with it in Florida. They can have their air conditioning running and live near the beach and be comfortable.

Somebody has been producing it. We have been producing it on the western part of the gulf. We need to produce it further toward the East.

Natural gas is not easily transported. Only 2 percent of our natural gas comes from LNG, liquefied natural gas. That gas is cooled tremendously, it becomes a liquid instead of a gas, it is put in a ship, and it is brought to the United States. Then it has to be heated up, returned to its gaseous state, and then put in the pipeline.

That is what we do. We do very little of that because natural gas is primarily a domestic product. So the more natural gas we can produce in the gulf, the more likely we will see these prices decline. If we have more nuclear power to generate our electricity with rather than natural gas, we could also see a decline.

What I am saying is that I am not here, and the people in support of this bill are not here, to say we want to help energy companies.

We want to create a market out there that would contain the rising cost of gasoline and natural gas.

I will note that it is a good thing for me that after all these years, some 40 years of production in the gulf, some 4,000 wells that are offshore, that for the first time the Gulf States that have been bearing the brunt of this effort will receive some funds from it, 37.5 percent--a little more than a third of the value. Two-thirds will go to the Federal Government, 63 percent will go to the Federal Government through either the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which will be spent all over the country on environmental matters, or for the General Treasury.

I think that is a good mix. I think it is fair. It will be limited, however, to be spent in the Gulf States for things that benefit the environment and the Nation. We have people from all over the Nation who come and enjoy our coast. The funds will be utilized for coastal protection, mitigation in damage to fish, wildlife, and natural resources, implementation of federally approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plans, and mitigation of offshore drilling activities through funding of offshore infrastructure projects.

Yes, for the first time there will be some sharing with the States on this offshore production, but it is not a huge amount, No. 1.

No. 2, the funds are to be used for conservation-type programs that will benefit the entire Nation.

In conclusion, I believe that what we are doing now is a direct response to the cries of Americans working citizens and middle-class Americans who are concerned about their high heating costs. They are concerned about their high gasoline costs. They are concerned about our wealth being transferred overseas--$200 billion a year is what we pay for oil and gas around the world. If we can produce more at home, we can help contain the cost of gasoline and natural gas, and maybe even reduce it. We can keep that wealth right here at home. We can create good, high-paying jobs here. And those citizens with those high-paying jobs will pay taxes to the Government so that we can have money in the U.S. Treasury instead of spending it in Venezuela and having it go into Hugo Chavez's treasury.

I am excited about it. It is historic. I thank Senator Landrieu, and I thank other Democrats on their side that are now coming around to support it. Senator Landrieu has been our most knowledgeable supporter on this issue for many years.

I believe we are going to make it happen today. It is going to be good for America. It will be a bipartisan act, and we need to do more of that around here.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am glad to hear the remarks of the Senator from Florida, and I am glad that he feels able to support this legislation. It is something I have worked on for quite a number of years and supported as a Senator from Alabama. We have a lot of oil and gas right off our coast. We believe this could be done safely and be great for the country economically. I am pleased that the distinguished Senator believes he can support this bill. We do have to work with the House of Representatives. They do have input in the legislation. But, hopefully, when all that is settled, we will have something we can pass. It is critical for our economy.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, 5 minutes would allow me to complete remarks I began earlier this morning when the majority leader and the Democratic leader appeared.

Mr. President, I think what the Senator from Kansas was asking is if I could sort of utilize his time for 5 minutes to complete my remarks and then go to the Senator from Washington.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak on the energy production bill that is on the floor. Is that appropriate at this time?

Mr. President, I am a resident of Mobile, AL, on the gulf coast. We drive down to the beaches periodically. What I would like to convey to my colleagues is that Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have always allowed production of oil and gas offshore. We even allow production very close inshore. The beautiful Mobile Bay, a fragile estuary, has a number of very large oil rigs in those estuaries that have produced very large amounts of oil and gas. We have never had a problem of any serious nature of an environmental negative impact.

As we begin to discuss this subject, we need to ask ourselves, what is the opposition to drilling in an expanded area of the deep Gulf of Mexico, 125 miles or so south of Alabama and Florida, and 200 miles west of Florida's western beaches of Tampa? What is the opposition to it? I ask that question.

Is it a sincere environmental objection or is it just a persistent opposition to the utilization of oil and gas that many people have in America today? Is it some sort of hostility to oil companies? Is that what is making people have a hesitation?

I would like to discuss those areas a little bit.

Let's talk about the environment. We have at this time 4,000 producing wells in the Gulf of Mexico--4,000. We have had one of the most devastating hurricanes ever to hit in Katrina last year. We had several other hurricanes that had very high winds--not quite as big, but their winds at times were nearly as

strong as Hurricane Katrina's--that came through the gulf.

Official reports have indicated that 3,000 of those 4,000 wells that are existing now in the Gulf of Mexico were in the direct path of one of those hurricanes last year, and we had not a single spill of any sizable amount. Several of the platforms, large as they are, were damaged. But they have, in ways that I am not able to fully explain, shut-in valves down under the water, at the ground, and it shuts off the oil from the well, and no matter what happens to the rig there is no spill of oil.

In fact, only about 2 percent of the oil in our waters around the U.S. come from oil production, or maybe less. But 63 percent comes from natural seepage. Most of it comes from runoff from storm sewers and things on the land. All that is really very small. It is not a huge impact in any way.

I would just say to my colleagues, when you go fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, as I like to do when I can, which isn't often, you tend to fish around these rigs. Just over Memorial Day weekend I was out with my brother-in-law and nephew. We went fishing around the oil rigs and had a little luck. That is where people fish. It provides a structure that allows growth of foods, sources that feed smaller fish, and larger fish feed around them, and that is where people fish. Nobody worries about that or expects any kind of problem with it. They have been there for decades now.

So the environmental question is not a real one, in my view. It has, to a degree, been settled more than we can imagine.

But I would say this: The same people who may be worried about drilling in the gulf don't seem to be very worried about drilling in the lake at Venezuela, or the Persian Gulf, or the Caspian Sea. These are smaller bodies of water, self-contained, in which a spill would be even more dangerous. That is where we are getting much of our oil and gas today, from those areas of the globe. Many of those areas that we produce oil and gas are far more subject to being damaged, perhaps, than if we had a spill in the vast Gulf of Mexico.

Then there is this argument: We don't like the oil companies. You are trying to help the big oil companies.

I want to dispute that and dispute that unequivocally. My goal is to serve my constituents. How do I serve my constituents? I help them receive the necessary, critical oil and gas that they need to carry on with their lives at as low a price as possible.

I don't think it healthy or justifiable to say to my constituents in Alabama: We are not going to let you produce oil and gas off the coast of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Florida.

We are not going to let you get any gas and oil from there. We are going to require you to buy it from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We are going to require you to buy it on the markets of the world where it may have come from Iran, and certainly Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or other countries. Some of those haven't been friendly to us. They charge whatever they can charge. A couple of years ago, it was $35 a barrel and now it is $70-plus a barrel.

What kind of sense is that? If some big oil company has a long-term contract with one of those foreign countries to buy oil at $35 a barrel that was signed 2 years ago, why would they want production in the gulf? In fact, they may not.

I don't see the oil companies demanding increased drilling in the gulf. This is coming from people who can add dollars and cents, people such as this Senator who travels the State, talks to our constituents, listens to what their concerns are, goes to church, and goes out on the street shopping, and people come up to you and they talk about the high cost of gasoline. That is what they are talking to me about. I look them in the eye, and I say I am going to do what I can to make these prices lower.

We tried putting in a law that sets prices, and that was a total failure. You can't fix prices by statute. It is a marketplace out there. And what do you do to make the marketplace work on your side? You increase production. Frankly, it doesn't require a huge increase in production to make a big price adjustment.

If the world demand is here but the supply is a little more than demand, surpluses build up, and all of a sudden the prices start falling. People have oil in their tanks. They cannot sell. So they cut their price to sell more. Somebody else has to cut the price, and it drops down. If you have a world supply here and demand is a little above the supply, and the world is out here and can't meet it, people have shortages, and they have to bid the price up to get more. Then you have a problem. Even small amounts can make a big difference in prices. That is all I am trying to say to my colleagues.

I emphasize again that the reason to produce within the Gulf of Mexico, as I believe ANWR and several other areas of this country, is because that money stays at home. It doesn't go to Hugo Chavez or others. It helps generate our economy. It creates jobs in our economy. People who make money pay taxes to our Government, not to some foreign government. The pipes and that kind of thing work. And the transportation costs are less because it is much closer.

These are factors which are relevant to any policymaker in our Nation.

We have artificially denied our Nation the right to produce this oil and gas that is right off our shore for far too long. It is time for that to end and to go forward with this production which will help our economy, help create jobs, help contain and actually reduce whatever the price of oil and gas may be in the future. It will be less cost to produce in the gulf than it would be otherwise. I have no doubt.

I see the distinguished majority leader. I will be pleased to yield to him, and at this point I thank him for his understanding of this critical issue. He has been steadfast and clear about it ever since I have been in the Senate, 10 years. And now we are at a point where we might get something done this time.

I thank him for his leadership, and I am pleased that both Senators from Florida are supporting the bill, so we have some cause for optimism.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I recently introduced a bill to preserve the cross that stands at the center of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, CA, that is under attack by the ACLU to remove the cross. This bill would preserve that cross by having the U.S. Government purchase the property, as it stands, from the city of San Diego. This acquisition is the action that the U.S. Department of Justice tells us is needed to preserve this cross as a part of a memorial that has secular monuments also.

Congressman Duncan Hunter has led the effort in the House. He is a San Diego Representative, chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House. It passed 349 to 74 in the House. So we are trying to pass that in the Senate. It was called up for clearance by unanimous consent recently--I believe last night--and there was an objection from the Democratic side.

It is time for us to move forward. I don't think there will be overwhelming opposition to it, as there was not in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5683, the House bill, which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I understand that. I know the Senator from Florida is a strong advocate of veterans. I am sure this represents an objection from the Democratic side somewhere else. I am urging my colleagues to look at this legislation. It is a time- sensitive matter because they have been sued. A Federal judge has ordered that, under California law, a $5,000 fine be imposed daily for failure to take this down, a symbol that has been up in the Mt. Soledad area for 54 years. Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed that penalty to give us a chance to do something like this. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I want to share a few comments about it.

In 1954, this 29-foot cross was erected by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association to honor veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean war. It has stood on Mt. Soledad in San Diego, CA. The memorial now serves to honor American veterans of all wars, not just veterans of World War I, World War II, and Korea.

Since 2000, the memorial association has added significant improvements to the property. The cross is surrounded by six granite walls. They are covered with over 1,600 plaques honoring individual veterans, with surrounding small pillars and brick pavers honoring veterans groups and supporters of the memorial, and community groups. A flagpole proudly flies the American flag.

It is very important that we as a nation understand that we are free today and have the liberties we have because people have sacrificed. Our Nation is still able--although some apparently around the world may not be--to call on its people to sacrifice for a common national good, and all over America veterans groups and community action groups have created memorials since the beginning of the Republic to honor those who place their lives at risk for the liberty we are so happy to have today.

It was not until 1989 that any person challenged the legality of this monument. At that time, Philip Paulson, a San Diego resident, sued the city, claiming that the cross display was unconstitutional and violated his civil rights.

In 1991, a Federal judge agreed with him and prohibited the display of the cross on city property as a violation of the California Constitution, which guarantees the ``free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference.'' That is different from the language we have in the U.S. Constitution. So the city attempted to meet the court's demand and protect the integrity of the memorial by selling or donating the property to a private party. But Mr. Paulson challenged every potential transfer of the property to a private party, revealing that his true objection was not to the city's ownership of the display but to the cross itself--something he personally did not like.

In 1992, 76 percent of the people of San Diego, CA, showed their support for keeping the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial by voting to support ``Proposition F'' to authorize the city to transfer the property to a private nonprofit organization, so it would not implicate public matters. What is wrong with that?

After Proposition F passed, the memorial association did successfully bid for the property. It chose to keep the cross up but also made $1 million worth of significant improvements to the memorial, including the granite walls, plaques, pavers, flagpole, and American flag. Even after the improvements were completed, Mr. Paulson was still challenging the sale.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the west coast-- considered the most activist circuit of all in the country and the most reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court--found that the method of the sale violated the ``no aid to religion clause'' of the California State constitution. They transferred it to a private, nonprofit, nonreligious organization, but they said this aided religion.

I believe this is something on which we can all agree. I know the Senators from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, have indicated they believe this memorial should remain. I think we will be able to work through these difficulties and get this legislation passed.

Mr. President, following up on the Mount Soledad Memorial legislation to deal with the court ruling that has imposed a $5,000 fine per day on the city of San Diego, a ruling stayed by Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, that ruling deals with the cross that was maintained by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on property originally owned by the city of San Diego. Some 35 years after it was placed there, someone objected, and the city sold the property to the memorial association, putting it in the hands of a nongovernmental, private entity.

As a result of that action, a lawsuit was commenced anyway and still said it was improper, and the court reached a ruling that was sort of breathtaking and said they still couldn't do it. I would note that in 1992, 76 percent of the people in San Diego voted to support keeping the cross there, and voted

in support of Proposition F to transfer the property to a private organization. But still they didn't stop, and we have continued to see the litigation go on and on. Some of it arises from the case law and the very strong constitutional provisions unique to California.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit had a ruling on it, and this is what they ruled: that the ``no aid to religion'' clause of the California Constitution prohibited California from transferring this property to a private association because any buyer who did not desire to keep the cross that was there would be required to pay for its removal, whereas an entity who wanted to buy and did not want to take the cross down would not have any expense; therefore, this aided religion. Now, that is the theory of it. I think that is not a sound analysis.

The Ninth Circuit is the most activist circuit in the country and we continue to have problems with them. They are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other circuit. Some years they have been reversed more often than all of the other circuits combined. One year it was 26 out of 27 cases the Supreme Court considered, they reversed. So that is what causes this problem.

A plan has been devised. Congressman Hunter, who represents San Diego, and Congressman Brian Bilbray, who represents the Mt. Soledad district, have worked hard to prepare legislation that would transfer it to the Federal Government, because this wouldn't be unconstitutional under Federal law. It passed in the House by an overwhelming vote of 349 to 74. We want to see that pass here. It has been called up and cleared on the Republican side of the aisle, and it is now being objected to by some on the Democratic side. So I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side to work through this thing and see if we can get it passed. It would allow the veterans to be able to continue to have the memorial on Federal property that has been in place for 54 years. It does not establish a religion. On Federal property, it is consistent with the wishes of those veterans and their families for over a half a century.

I would note we have Democratic support for this concept. I notice that in one of the news articles from the Copley News Service here, Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Senator, and one of the other Democratic Members, said:

[T]he monument is a historic memorial to our veterans and

should be allowed to stay.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the other Senator from California, has said:

[B]ecause of the history and significance of this monument

to so many veterans and San Diegans, it should be preserved.

So the Congressmen there, the people of San Diego, and the Senators from California are in favor of this. It is as a result of this complex history and the obsession by the courts, it appears, to just eliminate any reference, any expression of religion whatsoever from the public square, even if it is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution, in my view.

I believe this legislation is important and should be passed. We can make this happen. I ask my colleagues to review it. I will plan to come back and deal with it some more if we cannot get it cleared. We need to have a vote on it, if it cannot be cleared voluntarily. I hope we can avoid that.

Mr. President, I note there are other Senators here wishing to speak. We are on the drilling offshore bill in the gulf, and that is a very important piece of legislation.

I, again, note I have asked this morning that this be cleared. We have another objection. We will continue to persist with this until we get everybody's attention and maybe they can review it and see fit to clear it. I think they will. If not, I will be asking the leader to invoke cloture on the legislation.

I further add, Senator McCain has also offered legislation similar to mine. It would do the same thing. But the bill we are asking clearance on is the bill that came from the House, H.R. 5683.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the leader, and I join with him in his excitement in seeing the health care technology bill move. I know how much work he has put into it as a member of the HELP Committee. I have watched that bill for some time, and it would be a tremendous thing. It will save lives and reduce errors. Errors mean people stay in hospitals longer and become disabled more, and many of them die. So reducing errors is a great thing and will help us maintain this fabulous health care system we have, and at the same time, not have costs go through the roof. So I am excited about that also.

Mr. President, I asked the question earlier: What are people objecting to about this Energy bill? We went through the environmental concerns, and I pointed out that we have 4,000 wells which survived some vicious hurricanes, and we haven't had spills. The technology has increased incredibly well. There has not been a significant spill in 26 years, and that one was such that it did not reach the shores of the United States. The last spill that resulted at all from a well impacting the coastal areas was 37 years ago in California, and that ended the drilling off the coast. But we are so much better today. We have so many ways to avoid that, and it is just not happening.

Also, we dealt with the allegation that this is all for big oil companies.

That is exactly wrong.

All of the oil companies will not bid on the lands in the gulf that will be allowed for production under this legislation. Most of them-- probably most of them--won't even bid on it. A number will and a number won't. Those who don't bid already have reserves somewhere else, and sizable increases in production of natural gas or oil from the Gulf of Mexico will drive down the value of their reserves. They probably don't even want the oil and gas produced out there, if they already have substantial reserves. That is a bogus argument, the kind that I hope is beyond the Senate. But I hear it is still echoing a bit.

I think some maybe just hate fossil fuels, so they don't want us to have fossil fuels anymore in America. I would like to see us move to nuclear and do some other things, too. Why don't they object to us going down to Venezuela and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to Hugo Chavez for his oil that we bring over here or Saudi Arabia or Iran's oil or Middle Eastern oil in any number of areas or Russian oil and gas. We are not going to stop this. We are going to use oil and gas in America, so why don't we produce it on our lands and keep our money at home.

I would just note that last year, in the balance of payments deficit that we have, the record balance of payments deficit, $200 billion of that deficit was our money we spent in other countries for oil and gas--$200 billion. That is a lot. A big part of our trade deficit is on this one resource. So why in the world wouldn't we want to keep that money at home to produce jobs here, to produce incomes to Americans who will pay taxes to the U.S. Government instead of having to go to these other countries.

Oddly, I just have to note parenthetically that we have done something after many years of battling that is important. In the Energy bill we passed last year, we had some improvements in the law relating to nuclear power. Nuclear power can reduce our demands for natural gas significantly. There was a long battle over a number of years. Senator Domenici worked on it hard. We made those changes, we put them in the law, and at that time we had not a single preliminary request for building a nuclear power plant in this country. Since that Energy bill passed, there are now 18 out there--18 preliminary requests--to consider building a nuclear powerplant in America. We haven't built one in 30 years in this country.

What I am saying to the American people who may be listening tonight, and to my colleagues, is that our job is not to help nuclear power companies. Our job is not to help oil companies.

Our job is to try to provide safe and environmentally good energy sources to our people at the lowest possible rate. When the price of gasoline goes up substantially, people who are paying $150 a month for their gasoline now may be paying $225 a month. They may be paying $75 more each month out of their paycheck, money that they want to spend on their children, money they need to repair their vehicle, money they need to pay their rent. People are struggling. We need to be thinking of ways to reduce the cost of energy. Nuclear power is one of those ways.

I have just had a recent meeting with the people at TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, created by Government agents, created by Franklin Roosevelt. They are producing nuclear power at about 1.2 cents a kilowatt hour--1.2 cents. Coal is about 1.8 cents. That is 50 percent more expensive. Nuclear power is 50 percent less expensive than coal. And natural gas that is being used quite a bit is about 6 cents--five times as much. So we need more nuclear power and we need to burn a lot less natural gas for electricity and we can burn less coal also because it is not a very clean fuel. We are doing better with coal, but it is still not nearly as clean as nuclear power.

So I say there is a whole host of things we can do to meet the legitimate pleas of our constituents to do something about the high cost of energy.

Natural gas heats a great many homes in America. It provides the energy for all kinds of industrial production. I visited a chemical plant recently. They are exceedingly concerned about the additional costs they have sustained simply as a result of the doubling of the price of natural gas. Trust me. If these wells are producing in the gulf, as will be authorized by this bill, it will significantly impact the price of natural gas in the United States. So that is the kind of approach we are trying to bring to bear on producing more at home.

Then there is one other argument that people have complained about, and that is revenue sharing. They say that States should not get any of the money out of this. We have been trying to expand the gulf drilling for quite a number of years and had no success, really. It is time to get serious about it. I believe we can make a breakthrough this year. We got, now, both Senators from Florida to say they would support this bill. They studied it very carefully, as strongly as Florida is committed to environmental purity along their coast. I respect it, but I am telling you they are very committed to it. They want us to produce our oil and

gas off our coast and put it in that pipeline that runs from Mobile, AL, to Tampa, FL. That is what we are doing right now. They built, in 2002, an oil and gas pipeline right off our coast, and shipped it over there. But they do not want oil drilling 150 miles from their coast.

We are working this out now. We are giving them a guaranteed protection of 125 miles. The Governor, Jeb Bush, is on board now and Senators are on board so maybe we are making progress. I think we have more protection than is justified. But it will allow us, probably, to have as much territory available to drill in as we could drill in for the foreseeable future. So maybe that will be acceptable under all the circumstances.

But they object to revenue sharing so States get a little part of it. One of our Senators, Mr. Bingaman from New Mexico, has complained about it. We should not have any revenue sharing.

We had 4,000 wells out there, all these deep gulf wells, and the States don't get a dime out of it--not a dime. But a State like New Mexico that has a lot of oil and gas and a great deal of federally owned lands in those States, what do they get? They get 50 percent of that. This will be just a little over a third; 37 percent would be shared with the coastal States and would be earmarked for coastal funds--12 percent for the Land and Water Conservation Fund nationwide, and 50 percent to the Federal Government. These are moneys, new moneys coming into the Treasury of the United States that do not exist today. Until we get this approval and this moratorium lifted, we are not going to have any money. You know, until we reach accord here and lift this moratorium and allow the drilling to occur, we are not going to have any money.

So it is not a taking from the Treasury of the United States. It is an increase to the Treasury of the United States, and we should see it in that fashion.

The gulf coast has environmental problems of quite a large degree. We had severe hurricane damages on our coast. The whole area--whole areas in Louisiana are sinking, and we will have to spend large amounts of money to deal with that. So there are a lot of things that this money could be used for that benefit, not just the people of those States but all the many hundreds and thousands--millions, really--of visitors that come to the gulf coast areas every year. We will set up estuaries, wetlands, and things that will just make the area better. We would like to do that for the Nation and not just Alabama.

I think the objections are not substantial. I believe it is time for us to complete this step. We are at record prices for oil. How do we get our oil? Sixty percent of it we obtain from foreign sources. So we pay this world price, transferring $200 billion in American wealth out of our country to those countries when we could keep it at home by producing large amounts off our gulf coast.

Just to mention those amounts, they are quite huge. It is 1.3 billion barrels of oil that are projected to be in the Gulf of Mexico. That exceeds the proven reserves of Oklahoma and Wyoming combined, two of our largest oil-producing States. There are almost 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat and cool 6 million homes for 15 years, for example. These supplies are significant enough that they will impact prices. I can't say what the prices will be a few years from now when this oil and gas comes on line, but whatever it is, it will be less if this oil and gas is coming on line than if it is not.

That will redound to the benefit of the American consumers that we represent--the ones who have sent us here and asked us to do something about energy prices. All of us have told them we are going to do something about it. This is one vote about which you can have no doubt. If you vote to produce oil and gas off the coast of America, you will help reduce the price of oil and gas in America. Not only that, you will keep at home billions of dollars that might otherwise be sent to foreign nations, some of which are hostile to us. It is the right thing to do. We need to follow through on it.

I am optimistic more than I have been in quite a number of years. It is particularly thrilling to see Senator Martinez of Florida, who has worked so hard on this issue, and Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who earlier today said he would support the Senate bill.

So we are moving to make this a reality. It will be a positive step for this country. The only thing we have to fear is there will be some on the other side for what reason I can only imagine who will want to filibuster this legislation. Hopefully that won't happen. I hope not. We need to move it forward and pass it this year.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Fifteen minutes.

Mr. President, I just ask that my and Senator Shelby's time slots be reversed.

He has another appointment, and I would be glad to yield to him and take the slot you originally had for Senator Shelby.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as follows: Sessions, Menendez, Cochran, Landrieu, and Alexander.

Mr. President, I believe I had asked for 15 minutes. I will try to do it in 10. I ask that I be notified at the end of 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I travel my State, and I know that Senator Shelby, who spoke earlier, travels Alabama, also. We meet with people and talk with people. I see people back in my hometown in church and in other places, and I get asked about energy prices all the time. People are concerned about it.

I have studied some of the economic numbers in this country, and I am a bit troubled. I think it is a valid concern for our Nation that, while the country is doing well economically and unemployment is down, middle and lower income workers' salaries have not increased as much as we would like them to. In fact, the higher income salaried workers, wage and hour workers, are doing better percentage-wise than the lower income workers. That means the cost of energy impacts them significantly. They ask me to do something about it. I talk about what I have been trying to do since I came to the Senate 10 years ago, which includes voting and working to try to open up the ANWR region, where large reserves exist, and to support nuclear power and clean coal. I have been a supporter of ethanol, and I am hopeful that we will see ethanol, biodiesel and matters of that kind really advance as an option for America.

I have to tell you that the most certain and direct thing we can do is to increase domestic production of oil and gas in this country. That is what we are about to act on now. This legislation is a concrete, direct way that will make a difference in the price of oil and gas in our country.

One of my colleagues mentioned that some people like to use this phrase: Big oil companies. I want to make one thing clear: the reason we should open up production in the Gulf of Mexico is not to help big oil companies. We should open it up if, and only if, it is good for the American consumer and the American economy.

In fact, I am confident that many of the big oil companies will have no interest in producing oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico. They may be sitting on large reserves of oil and gas right now, and they may be very happy with $75 a barrel. Why should they want a competitor to go out and produce more in some other area if it might reduce the value of the oil and gas reserves that they possess? It is a myth and a falsehood that this has anything to do with oil and gas companies.

What it has to do with is increasing the supply of natural gas and increasing the supply of oil for American consumers, keeping our wealth at home.

One thing is obvious to us: We very much depend on natural gas. Eighteen percent of U.S. electricity comes from natural gas--18 percent--is generated from natural gas. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of our electricity. Nuclear power is the only source of clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. Nineteen applications for nuclear powerplants have been issued since we passed the Energy bill last year. Nineteen applications for new nuclear powerplants have been issued since we passed the Energy bill last year. It will make a big difference, but I have to tell you, I don't expect 18 percent of electricity that comes from natural gas to be reduced any time in the future.

Oil prices are at high levels. On July 14, 2006, the price of crude oil closed around $77 a barrel. Many Wall Street analysts say it may hit $80 if this Mideast crisis continues. By comparison, the price of crude oil 2 years ago was $35 a barrel. That has been an increase of 100-plus percent.

High energy prices, for all practical purposes, result in a tax on the American consumer. And to whom do we pay that tax? We pay it to foreign nations. Many of those nations are hostile to us diplomatically and politically. They are not our greatest friends. In fact, somebody has written an article stating that the more oil wealth a country has, the less friendly that country becomes.

Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in April of this year said:

Rising energy prices pose risk to both economic activity

and inflation.

On June 15, he said:

The steep increases in energy prices over the past several

years have had significant consequences for households,

businesses, and economic policy.

One article I saw recently estimated that higher energy costs have knocked down our growth in GDP by 1 percent this year.

The average price of gasoline has now hit $3.02. It is up from $2.28 a year ago. This hurts families. It hurts consumers. We know that. We hate to see that happen. We know there is a worldwide increase in demand for oil and gas. We know that China and India are growing. I was in South America recently. Almost every country I visited had been having a 5-percent or more increase in growth. That means they will use more oil and gas.

I will tell you it makes a big difference to a working Alabamian, a working man or woman anywhere in this country, who now has to pay an additional $50 a month for gasoline and maybe some more for heating as a result of natural gas.

Natural gas prices have risen dramatically. On July 14 of this year, natural gas in the United States was a little over $6.25 per million Btu's. Not too long ago it was $12. It has dropped about half, which is great news. But in Russia and Oman, for example, natural gas comes in at about $1.25 per million Btu. These higher costs do impact American businesses, particularly, as well as consumers.

The vice president of Nucor Steel in Tuscaloosa, AL, said recently:

The high price of natural gas significantly impacts our

ability to remain competitive and have a productive

manufacturing sector.

Some of the natural gas spike in prices is the result of speculation, it is the result of a fear of shortage, a fear that is out there. We have seen that prices have gone up and down in natural gas.

I would say this: Natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico is at a point where we need to expand our areas of drilling. Natural gas wells produce for a good long time, but they dry up faster than oil wells do. And if we don't constantly replace them, then we have a problem.

We have had a controversy in Alabama recently about LNG, liquefied natural gas. This is natural gas that may be produced in the Middle East. It is liquefied, frozen or brought to a point of liquid by reducing its temperature. It is brought to the United States. A plant is set up, probably offshore, to heat it up and put it into the American pipeline after we pay the foreign shipper, after we pay the people to produce it in the foreign country, after we pay the foreign country for this natural gas. That is what Alan Greenspan told us we will have to do more of, importing LNG. And we will be doing more of that if we're not careful.

How silly it is to do that when right off our own shores we have huge reserves of natural gas. We could keep all that wealth at home in our Nation. We could produce that oil and gas so it goes right into our American pipelines without having to be liquefied. It would go right to the consumers around the country.

Mr. President, 60 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources, including, 49 percent from OPEC nations in all, 14 percent from Saudi Arabia, and 12 percent from Venezuela--boy, they have been taking action recently to see if they can discomfort the United States--10.5 percent from Nigeria, and 6.4 percent from Iraq.

We paid $200 billion last year for foreign oil and gas--$200 billion, wealth that Americans would rather see invested in our country, hiring Americans to produce oil and gas. They would pay taxes and be able to raise their families, have high wages and good retirement plans and good health care plans.

A lot of people have wondered why these companies try to buy up our ports and are buying up American industries. Why are these foreign countries able to do it? One reason is, a number of them are oil- producing nations. These oil-producing nations have wealth they don't know what to do with. They want to invest it wherever they can, and the United States is a good, safe place. I think that is a factor. The transfer of our wealth to foreign nations, many of whom are not our friends or allies, impacts American jobs and American companies.

With regard to where we get our natural gas, less than 20 percent of it is imported. Most of it is imported through pipelines from Canada or Mexico, but only 2.8 percent represents liquefied natural gas. That comes in from Algeria, Egypt, and Trinidad.

So we are, in many ways, a self-contained natural gas community. If we have a real shortage, the price is going to go up. It means if you heat your home with natural gas--and many Americans do--or if your business depends on natural gas for operations--and many American businesses do,

their costs are going to go up significantly.

If we produce natural gas off our coast and put it directly in our pipelines, that will help in a dramatic way to contain the price of natural gas in America.

Alan Greenspan recently said:

Notable cost productions for both liquefication and

transportation of LNG--Liquefied natural gas--and high gas

prices projected in the American distant futures market have

made us a potential very large importer. Access to world

natural gas supplies will require a major expansion of LNG

terminal import capacity.

He has been warning about that for some time. That is what we are wrestling with in Alabama today: Do we want an LNG plant? We already produce a lot of oil and gas offshore that goes directly into our pipelines. People are comfortable with that. We have had no significant spills in our State. We are comfortable with that. But environmentalists and others are uneasy about this LNG terminal and whether we should go in that direction.

So for every argument, from the environmental argument to the American economy, to reducing the cost, we would do better to use oil and gas offshore.

Conservation, alternative fuels, and domestic production are all important things we need to work on. The Government has had moratoriums on producing from offshore areas. It is something I have been involved in since I have been in the Senate, almost 10 years. We have had debate after debate, vote after vote, but for a whole host of reasons, we have not been able to get around this moratorium. We have not been able to produce more oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico because of it.

The State of Alabama produces oil and gas in Mobile Bay. I live in Mobile. It is almost close enough to throw a rock at from Fort Morgan Peninsula and hit it. It is right off the coast. We have them in the gulf right off the coast. They produce a lot of oil and gas for this country.

In fact, I will show this chart. It is sort of amusing to me. I used to complain about it back in 2002. We were building a pipeline then. I see Senator Cochran from Mississippi is now on the floor. He has seen all this before. We have been producing oil and gas up in Mississippi and Alabama for quite a number of years.

In 2002, our good friends down in Florida, who want no drilling 125 miles or more offshore, objected to new natural gas exploration. But they were perfectly happy to build a pipeline to take our oil and gas down to Tampa, FL, so they can sit out on the dock and have their mint juleps and watch the sunset over the gulf before they go back in their big houses kept cool with air-conditioning run by natural gas. I understand their environmental concerns. But at some point, the producing States have to feel we have been taken here a little as chumps in this deal, getting not 1 cent from the 4,000 wells that exist in the gulf--4,000 wells.

By the way, we have 4,000 wells in the gulf, and this most powerful storm, Katrina, came through so did several other powerful hurricanes last year. Mr. President, over 3,000 of those wells were in the direct paths of those hurricanes, and we never had any significant spill of oil in the gulf. It goes to show how good the technology is, how hard they have worked scientifically to make oil and gas production safer. I think that is why Florida is beginning to reevaluate this and are being more amenable to the idea. Senator Martinez has worked hard to try to protect Florida's interest as much as he can but allow some additional drilling there. I think we have gotten past that. So I would say to my colleagues I have been in the Senate for 10 years and we have been trying to open up additional reserves in the gulf, and we should do that. But we haven't been successful. It hasn't worked. We have tried and tried and tried some more.

Now Chairman Domenici has worked his heart out, and Senator Landrieu, working on the Democratic side, has met him halfway, and they have worked and planned, and so many other Members of this body have worked on it.

So we have a proposal now which I think will clear this Senate, will open up huge areas, 8 million acres of gulf for production that can produce, and, as we heard from other speakers, large amounts of oil and gas. It will be done in a way that is bipartisan and in a way that we all can be happy about.

We can keep the oil and gas people busy for the period that the oil and gas moratorium on the other parts of the gulf remains in effect. So at that time we will see what happens. If there is a mess or if there is unhappiness--maybe nothing will change. Or, maybe at that point we can decide to open up more land in the gulf for production.

Mr. President, I don't know what my time was.

I have gone beyond the 10 minutes I was looking to speak--far too far. I will wrap up and say I thank each of the Members of this body who has worked hard to reach an accord that will have bipartisan support that should pass. Because this is important to the American consumer; it is important to the American economy; it is important to jobs in this country. It will reduce the transfer of American wealth to foreign nations where we are now sending it to buy the energy we must have.

This is not a little matter; it is a huge matter. Every now and then we have an opportunity to truly do something about an issue that our constituents have raised with us. They have asked us to do something about rising energy prices. This plan will work. It will produce large amounts of oil and gas for our Nation and it will keep us producing energy for quite a number of years.

This is what we should do to fulfill that obligation to our constituents.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am baffled that there would be any opposition to Jerome Holmes to be appointed a U.S. circuit court judge to the Tenth Circuit. I congratulate my colleague from Oklahoma for his leadership in promoting such a fabulous nominee. I believe that he would be just the kind of person we need on the bench. It's really, really baffling to hear any objection to him.

I want to talk about his background and record, and we'll begin to have a better understanding of the demand for ideological purity on the part of Democratic and liberal Members of the Senate when it comes to judges. It is unbelievable that there would be objection a man who articulates a view consistent with the Supreme Court majority in the Adarand case, an African American himself, who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream that people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

He is a fabulous nominee. I would just like to mention a few things about him. He was voted out of committee a few weeks ago, July 13, on a voice vote. If confirmed, he will be the first African American to serve on the Tenth Circuit. He has stellar academic credentials and legal credentials. He graduated from Wake Forest University--one of America's great universities--cum laude with honors in 1983. Then he attended Georgetown University Law Center, one of the Nation's great law schools. At Georgetown, he was editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. That's a great honor, to be part of a law journal at any law school, much less a great law school such as Georgetown. It's very competitive and difficult to get in Georgetown.

Recently, in 2000, he earned a master's of public administration from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Between college and law school, he worked briefly as a social services assistant with the D.C. Department of Corrections, dealing with criminals and the problems they have.

Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Wayne Alley on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the Honorable William J. Holloway on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In other words, he clerked for a trial court judge in the Tenth Circuit. By the way, it is a competitive process to be selected to be a clerk for a trial court judge. It takes a good law student to be selected for that. Everyone who applies is not selected. It is a very great honor. People compete for those few positions.

He worked at the trial bench, where he participated at the right hand of a U.S. Federal judge trying cases and participating in the trial of cases. Following that, he went to the Tenth Circuit, the very court he is now nominated to. If it is difficult to be a law clerk for a Federal district trial judge, it is far more difficult to be selected as a law clerk for a court of appeals judge. They have a stack of applications. They look at all competitors from around the country, and they select the best. He was an honors graduate from Wake Forest and a top graduate at Georgetown and editor of the Law Review, and he clerked for a Federal judge. He clerked and help Judge Holloway write opinions on the Tenth Circuit--the very thing he will be doing if he is confirmed to this position, which I trust he will be.

Following these clerkships, he spent 3 years in private practice as an associate with the well-regarded law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, one of the best law firms in America. They do not hire just anybody.

In 1994, Mr. Holmes began a distinguished career as a Federal prosecutor, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Oklahoma, the circuit area where he will be a circuit judge when confirmed.

I have served as an assistant U.S. attorney and as a U.S. attorney supervising assistant U.S. attorneys for almost 15 years. That is a great, great position because the assistant U.S. attorneys prosecute cases full time in Federal court before Federal judges. They learn everything there is to know about criminal law, which will be an important part of his duties as a Federal circuit judge. It is very good experience. Assistant U.S. attorneys get experience practicing before Federal judges, being involved in writing appeals to Federal judges, and understanding how the Federal system works. He did that for quite a number of years.

During that time, he prosecuted public corruption cases. Now that's a challenge. I have been there and done that. That is not easy. Politicians do not take lightly to being indicted. They do not appreciate it, and it is tough litigation. He prosecuted Federal criminal civil rights violations. Somehow, I guess they are saying this African American who has achieved so much is insensitive to civil rights because he does not agree with everything the left thinks about affirmative action or quotas. He was the U.S. attorney's office's antiterrorism coordinator, and he worked on the prosecution team that built the case against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing. That is a good background that shows a breadth of experience.

Since 2005, he has been the director of the prominent Oklahoma law firm of Crowe & Dunlevy, where he focused on white-collar criminal defense and complex litigation--another good background for the Federal bench.

Not only has he been a prosecutor, but he has defended criminal cases, giving him a perspective on both sides. I am a big fan of prosecutors, but I understand my colleagues on the other side of that debate, who defend cases, as I have on occasion, appreciate the fact that prosecutors have some defense work. He has had both.

Also, he chaired the firm's diversity committee, the committee committed to making sure that his law firm, Crowe & Dunlevy, did the things necessary to be a diverse law firm. He has

given back to the people of Oklahoma through taking leadership roles in a wide variety of important organizations. These include service as the director of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. That is an important committee outside the normal realm of what a lot of people do with their lives, volunteering and giving time to a group like that. He also has served as trustee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation, director of the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, chairman of the City Rescue Mission, helping people in trouble, down and out, people who need a hand to lift them up. I guess on occasion they minister to those people who are hurting, they minister to their souls. I think it is something to be proud of. He also served as vice president of the Oklahoma Bar Association.

He enjoys strong bipartisan support in Oklahoma. Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat in Oklahoma, recently wrote that the nominee ``is a highly qualified candidate, a superb lawyer, with a reputation for fairness, ethics, and integrity.''

He summed up his letter by writing:

In short, I do not think you could have a candidate more

highly qualified and regarded than Jerome Holmes.

That is the Democratic Governor of Oklahoma.

Daniel Webber, a Democrat whom President Clinton made the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma, wrote:

I have known Jerome Holmes for over ten years. . . . I

believe his intellect, experience, and character make him an

excellent choice for a position on the appellate court.

The American Bar Association has unanimously found him qualified for the position.

Why would we have an objection to someone who spent this many years of his life practicing in Federal court as an assistant U.S. attorney, who spent 3 years as a law clerk to Federal judges, practicing in one of the country's biggest law firms, and being not a partner--they use a different phrase there, something like a partner--with the Dunlevy law firm in Oklahoma, a firm with a great reputation in the State? What is it that causes the Senate to have a debate on this fine nominee?

Again, I congratulate Senator Coburn for offering this kind of nominee. He has been willing to express his personal views on matters that some on the left do not like. I guess that is it. Let's just be frank about it. I suggest that what he said is consistent with the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if he had a slightly different view than the Supreme Court, what is wrong with having him express that view? Why would anyone object to that?

This is what he said about the University of Michigan affirmative action case that many felt--and at least four Supreme Court Justices felt--was essentially a quota system. What is affirmative action? Everyone has a different view. What I think we in America tend to agree is that affirmative action, affirmative outreach, affirmative efforts to bring minorities into institutions and give them a chance to succeed is all right, but setting up quotas by which people, by the color of their skin, are given preference over someone else, therefore enhancing their ability and their rights over the rights of someone else simply because of the color of their skin, violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. So that is all that tension in there.

I guess we come down to it in what I say, this is not a perfect analysis, but we say affirmative outreach is good; quotas are bad. I guess when you have a case such as University of Michigan, you ask, was this a quota or was it affirmative outreach? They had a big case on it. He had expressed some concern about that case. Remember, it was 5 to 4. It was not as if the Supreme Court had taken a case that they all felt one way about. So he wrote an op-ed, an article in the Daily Oklahoman. The title is ``A Step Closer to King's Dream.'' He started off this way:

Perhaps the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be

realized: Children seeking educational opportunities no

longer will be judged by the color of their skin.

Is that something that is radical? I don't think so. We have Members of this Senate who believe that anybody who deviates the slightest millimeter, or centimeter beyond the ideological views of the left is somehow unqualified to be a Federal judge. From what I have seen, they tend to be more critical if that person happens to be an African American that criticizes leftist orthodoxy.

So he wrote an article. It was, I thought, a very thoughtful article. There was nothing extreme about this. He said:

There are other ways to get minority students on college

campuses besides handing out benefits based solely on skin

color--an accident of birth.

I think that is a thoughtful statement--a matter of real importance. He then goes on to talk about what you can do to help minority students succeed and have a better chance to enter universities, noting:

. . . a poverty-reduction approach that primarily focuses

on implementing race-neutral macroeconomic and labor-market

policies, even though its central goal is bettering the life

chances of the truly disadvantaged black and brown urban

poor.

He goes on to say:

Diversity proponents need to come up with race-neutral

policies that have the desired effect of boosting the number

of minority students. Politicians and educators in Florida,

Texas and California have attempted to do just that by

mandating that the top percentage of students (for example,

the top 10 percent) at every public school in the state be

guaranteed a place in a state university.

So what he is saying is that is a race-neutral way to have a more diverse student body. But what is dangerous and violates the Constitution is to say that every law school or every university must accept so many people, each based on race, regardless of their qualifications for the position.

He goes on to say that this high school proposal that Florida, Texas, and California have done is ``race neutral, yet their acknowledged goal is to increase the number of minority students on college campuses. Top students from predominantly minority schools will invariably be represented there.''

So, Mr. President, I would just say that I don't see anything extreme about those views. I don't believe my colleague from Oklahoma does. I see the Presiding Officer, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court. I don't think he would believe those are extreme views. In fact, they are consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Adarand. I think they are consistent with the Supreme Court opinion in the University of Michigan cases, very consistent with those cases, and respectful and understanding, as an African American himself, that we have to be careful that we are not moving to a situation in which people receive benefits as a result of the color of their skin only, unless there is a showing of a prior history of discrimination, which can be shown in a number of cases. Unless you have that, you should not create a legal system in America that advances someone simply because of the color of their skin and, therefore, puts at a disadvantage someone because of the color of their skin.

So he has made some thoughtful comments about it. I believe they are wise. I think he is correct. I am amazed that someone in this Senate would object to his confirmation based on these comments. But we apparently have that. I am sure we will have a good vote for Mr. Holmes tomorrow. I hope we will, and he will be confirmed. But it is rather odd to me that we have this objection, and he doesn't go straight through without any of this kind of debate.

I thank the Chair and the Senators from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn and Mr. Inhofe, for their commitment to this sterling nominee, a minority, with an outstanding record--went to Georgetown, clerked for the Tenth Circuit, clerked for a Federal district judge, an assistant U.S. attorney, worked for one of America's great law firms. He has every right to be rated qualified by the American Bar Association, as he was unanimously. He should be confirmed for this position.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am glad the majority leader has called up and allowed us to consider the Child Custody Protection Act today. I was involved, in 1998, when then-Senator Spence Abraham, later Secretary of Energy Spence Abraham, offered this bill. We had a press conference and made a number of efforts to pass it and always had a good deal of support but, frankly, to my frustration and surprise, it never became law. It has, in every respect, strong support among the American people and in the Congress.

I am pleased that Senator John Ensign of Nevada has taken up this piece of legislation. He has directed his considerable talents to pressing it forward. We now have it on the floor. We will soon have a vote on it. I believe it should pass. I expect it to pass. I think those who would object to it have a high burden to show what is unreasonable about the legislation that is before us today.

The Child Custody Protection Act deals with an important subject. It deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. Forty-five States have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is, in fact, effectively subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have with regard to being involved in the health care of their children, emotionally and physically. It is a very important issue, and I think it is one we need to continue to discuss.

This bill does not in any way deal substantively with abortion or the right to abortion. It does not really expand additional restrictions on abortion. What it does, though, is to stop an abominable practice by which someone--usually an adult, often an adult male who has gotten a young girl pregnant without wanting the parents to know about it--takes them across a State line to some foreign jurisdiction to seek an abortion without the parents' involvement, an abortion that could not be performed in their home State without the approval of the parent.

In fact, the abortion clinics in those States know that they must have a parent's consent. They seek that consent. If they don't have it, they don't perform the abortion--at least most of them don't. That is what the law is and that is what the situation is. But that is being subverted by moving them across the State line.

I submit this is a commonsense proposal. It is consistent with Federal prohibitions on interstate transportation, in violation of law, and it is something we should act on now. It is past due, in fact.

I submit the American people care about this issue. It is something that is important. And well they should because they love their daughters. They care about them. They will be involved with them medically, physically, and emotionally the rest of their lives. It won't be some abortion clinic in some distant State that will be involved with their emotional problems, their psychological problems, their physical problems, which arise from having had an abortion. The parents are the ones who care about their child and have the responsibility to raise her.

As we all know, a child cannot be given an aspirin in a school without parental consent. I have heard recently that you can't even give them sunscreen, in some schools, without parental consent. So we have this kind of legal procedure for a child's medical protection, but we have a circumstance in which a valid parental consent for a very serious procedure such as an abortion can be conducted without parental consent if you go across State lines and avoid the existing State law in the home State.

The Supreme Court, I hasten to add, has considered parental consent laws. They have considered a number of those cases. Parental consent laws have been enacted in many big States such as Pennsylvania and Texas. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld consent laws and said they are valid restrictions on abortion. This is not too much of a restriction or an undue burden.

They also say that if somehow the parent is a problem--if there is a question of incest or child abuse or dysfunctional parents--there must be a judicial procedure which allows a judge to bypass the parental consent requirement of that State. So all the State laws in existence that require parents to be notified have a judicial bypass option. If a child does not believe they could tell their parents for whatever reason, they can go to a court and seek court approval without telling that parent, if there is a real basis for it.

In fact, this legislation provides in unusual circumstances that judicial bypass would take place. It is responsible in that regard.

The ability of parents to be involved in the health of their children is a fundamental parental right. It is being undermined today--and we ought to strengthen that right and that responsibility.

In fact, one of the great threats to our Nation is legal undermining of parental rights and parental abdication of responsibility for their children and how they develop. We need to strengthen families, we need to strengthen the responsibility of parents, and we need to protect children. We need better involvement of parents with their children.

Some say this is painful, if we required young people to tell their parents that they are pregnant. But I submit to you that out of that pain can come healing, can come good decisions, can come a change in behavior, a recognition that a child is in trouble and has problems, a recognition by parents, perhaps, that they need to be more involved and more engaged in their children's activities.

How is that bad? How is it bad that a child would be required to engage with their parents once they get in this kind of serious trouble? We are talking about minor children, minor girls, often taken advantage of by much older men.

I think it is the right thing to do. But regardless of that, regardless of how you feel about parental consent, it is State policy by State laws that have been passed in States throughout this Nation that parents should be informed, and in some cases have consent. These constitutional State laws are being undermined in a real way. I will talk about that in a minute and show you some points on it. But it is a very real problem. It is not imaginary.

Let's look at some of the advertisements, fliers, and brochures that are

being passed out around the country to promote interstate transportation of minor children to promote abortion.

Here is one. Metropolitan Medical Associates is in New Jersey which does not have a parental consent law, but many States such as Pennsylvania and others nearby do. Here is the flier:

We accept all insurance and credit cards.

It goes on to say:

All calls and appointments are confidential. Parental

consent is not required.

They passed this out in the region to people in surrounding States which do have to have parental consent. The word gets out that they can come and avoid that requirement.

I think that is unhealthy. I think that is an attempt to undermine the laws of the States of this country.

Here is another one, South Jersey Women's Center. It mentions all of their promotions, their abortion procedures. I will highlight this phrase: ``No 24-hour wait. . . .''

In some States, it is required that you wait 24 hours after being informed about the abortion procedures before you go forward. ``No 24- hour wait or parental consent required.''

That is in New Jersey.

Again, there is promotion in the other States to come into that State to obtain an abortion that would otherwise be illegal in the minor's home State.

Here is an advertisement in, I believe, a Pennsylvania phone book. Pennsylvania has a parental consent law. This one is from a clipping in Buffalo, NY. It is Planned Parenthood Women's Health Center. But they run an ad in the Pennsylvania phone book for a Buffalo, NY, abortion clinic. It says: ``No parental consent or waiting period.''

We have many of those. There are lots of those. I just show these ads to show that we are not talking about a rare or insignificant event. There is a studied policy to promote abortion in distant States where parental consent is not required to undermine existing law of the State where the child may have become pregnant.

The attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Kathryn Kolbert, stated:

There are thousands of minors who cross State lines for an

abortion every year and who need assistance from adults to do

that.

We see several examples of abortion clinics which openly place advertisements in phone books and otherwise.

I chair the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and I chaired a hearing in June a couple of years ago where we heard a number of stories that deal with this issue. One particularly moving story involved a young woman named Crystal Lane who exhibited a maturity beyond her years when she testified before the committee. When Crystal was just 13 years old, she was secretly transported across the State line by adults seeking to hide the fact of her pregnancy from her mother. Crystal was taken across State lines from Pennsylvania, a State which had a consent statute, to New York, a State which did not. Crystal testified that she suffered serious complications from this ``legal'' abortion that was botched and which resulted in ``the most terrifying time'' in her life.

Crystal's mother, Mrs. Joyce Farley, testified that her daughter was taken out of State for an abortion by one Rosa Marie Hartford.

Is this just a friend, Mrs. Hartford? Is this just a neighbor trying to take care of her? That is not really the pattern. Mrs. Hartford was actually the mother of a 19-year-old young man whose statutory rape of the then-12-year-old girl caused the pregnancy. In other words, the woman was trying to cover up the criminal activity of her son. The son later pleaded guilty to statutory rape.

Thus, the clinics are openly encouraging evasion of State laws. The Child Custody Protection Act would shut those practices down.

The question of parental notification and consent is an important one. The American people care about it.

I would like to show a chart which shows the depth of the feeling of the American people on this issue, which has remained strong for a decade or more. Just last year, in a Fox NEWS Dynamics Opinion Poll, the question was:

Do you think a female under age 18 should be required by

State law to notify at least one parent or guardian before

having an abortion?

Seventy-eight percent said yes. Only 17 percent said no.

How about this one, a Quinnipiac University poll of just last year:

Do you favor or oppose requiring parental notification

before a minor could get an abortion?

Seventy-five percent say yes; eighteen percent say no.

How about this one, a CNN-USA Today poll conducted by Gallop:

Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? How

about a law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent

for any abortion?

You see how they changed that language a little bit; you would affect the numbers a little bit. It did--73 to 24. But still three-fourths of the people say a parent should know and consent before their minor daughter can get an abortion.

How about this one. This is the Wirthlin Worldwide poll from several years ago:

Do you favor or oppose requiring one parent of a girl who

is under the age of 18 years of age to be notified before an

abortion is performed on the girl?

Eighty-three percent to fifteen.

Here is another one, the Los Angeles Times:

Should girls under the age of 18 be required to get the

consent of at least one parent before having an abortion?

Eighty-two to twelve.

Here is CBS News-New York Times:

Would you favor or oppose requiring parental consent before

a girl under the age of 18 could have an abortion?

Seventy-eight to seventeen percent. That one was 1998, 8 years ago.

The numbers have been strong. They haven't gone down. They remain so. Why? Because it is good policy.

For Heaven's sake, shouldn't a parent know if their child is having this kind of medical procedure? I think so. Some may think that a 13- year-old should just be allowed to be taken away by some 29-year-old, some 40-year-old man to have an abortion to cover up his statutory rape. They may think that is good policy. I don't.

But I would just say this: This law that we are considering today, the Child Custody Protection Act, really does not deal with that. It simply says that if a State of this United States passes a law, and someone takes a child across State lines to avoid that law, they would be implicated in a Federal violation. The Federal Government would simply be affirming and supporting the States that choose to have a parental consent law. It does not make any new law. It does not set any parental consent standard. It does not put any new constraints on abortion. It simply says that if you try to avoid the State law, the Federal Government will be of assistance.

I think the statute is drafted in a good way. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and very familiar with many of the questions that come up with regard to prosecuting Federal cases. We have had some recent federalism decisions by the Supreme Court. They basically raise concerns that we in Congress have become too careless in how we draft legislation by attempting to make criminal acts solely within a State that have no interstate connection.

When I was a young prosecutor, some of the first cases I got to prosecute were automobile theft cases. But it is not automobile theft in Federal court, it is interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. That is the crime--interstate transportation of that vehicle. If you just stole a car in Alabama, and you caught the person in Alabama, they never crossed a State line, it is not a Federal crime. It can only be prosecuted in Alabama.

The Supreme Court raised some concerns about that.

Theft from an interstate shipment is also a Federal crime. It is a Federal crime for people to steal from a railroad going through the community, if it is an interstate shipment. But if you steal from a farmer, and you don't get out of State with the produce, it is not a Federal crime. It is theft from interstate transportation of stolen property, ITSP. And that is a Federal offense.

So that is how this statute is written. This statute does not say we are going to micromanage what goes on within a State. What we are saying is, if someone travels in interstate commerce--because the Constitution of the

United States provides that this Congress, this Federal Government, has the authority to regulate interstate commerce--for the purpose of avoiding a State law to help a minor child get an abortion without the knowledge of their loving parents, who are raising the child and will have to raise them in the future, they are guilty a Federal offense.

I think that is perfectly sound constitutionally and something we should do. It is past time we do it. I would urge my colleagues to consider this. If there is one circumstance in which we should be most concerned about abortion, it is that of the young lady I described who testified at our hearing. Crystal Lane was impregnated and having sex with an older man when she was 12 years of age, and had an abortion at 13 years of age, and her parent did not know about it. How did it happen? The young man's mother and young man got together and secreted her across State lines to have an abortion, so he would not be found out, so he would not be prosecuted for statutory rape. This was not done out of any interest in the child's welfare.

That is a very real problem that should not continue. We have the ability to do something about it. I urge my colleagues to study this act and to make sure we stop those who would usurp State law, usurp parental rights, and damage children without the knowledge of their parents.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 21, 2006, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on the US-UK Extradition Treaty.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H.R. 9, the bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, is an important piece of legislation. I wish to take a few moments to express my thoughts on the great progress prompted by the Voting Rights Act in my State, as well as to express a few concerns.

My home State of Alabama--the site of the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march--had a grim history on voting rights. Before 1965, only 19 percent of African Americans in our State were registered to vote, and they were denied the right to vote through any number of tactics and strategies. Behind those tactics and strategies--the multiple ``tests and devices''--lay a ruthless decision to deny Black citizens the right to vote so that the majority of the White community could maintain political power.

The results of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were some of the best things that ever happened to Alabama. Before the Voting Rights Act, Alabama had fewer than a dozen Black elected officials. As of 2001, the most recent figures available, Alabama had over 750 African-American office holders--second only to Mississippi. These elected officials include a U.S. Congressman, 8 State senators, 27 members of the State House of Representatives, 46 mayors, 80 members of county commissions, school board members, town council members and the like.

Voter registration rates for Blacks and Whites in Alabama are now virtually identical. In fact, in the last Presidential election, according to the Census Bureau, a larger percentage of African Americans voted than Whites in the State of Alabama. Now, that was the goal of the act--to have this kind of progress occur. In fact, over the past 15 years, Alabama has not had a single court find the State guilty of violating the 15th amendment or the very broad protections afforded by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The same cannot be said of Arkansas; Colorado; Hawaii; Ohio; Maryland; Massachusetts; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Wisconsin; Chicago, IL; Hempstead, NY; Los Angeles County, CA; or Dade County, FL--none of which are covered by section 5's preclearance requirement.

The people of Alabama understand that these changes in our State are good, and they do not want to do anything that would suggest that there is any interest in moving away from the great right to vote. We want to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. How we reauthorize the act is something that is worthy of discussion, however. The witnesses we have heard in the Judiciary Committee over the past couple of months have had many different ideas, and after hearing from them, I am concerned that we should have listened more carefully to some of their recommendations.

My concerns stem, in part, from the extraordinary nature of some of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act particularly the ``preclearance'' requirement of section 5. Section 5 requires Alabama and other covered jurisdictions to ``preclear'' any change in ``any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.'' The preclearance requirement applies to ``[a]ny change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect.'' As a representative of the Department of Justice testified in the House of Representatives, ``There is no de minimis exception'' to the preclearance requirement.

In 1966, the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach upheld section 5's preclearance requirement ``as a necessary and constitutional response to some States' `extraordinary stratagem[s] of contriving new rules of various kinds for the sole purpose of perpetuating voting discrimination in the face of adverse federal court decrees.' '' The Court ``acknowledged that suspension of new voting regulations pending preclearance was an extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government,'' but ``held it constitutional as a permitted congressional response to the unremitting attempts by some state and local officials to frustrate their citizens' equal enjoyment of the right to vote.'' In other words, the preclearance requirement was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary problem--unrelenting efforts by some State and local officials to contrive new rules for voting and elections after each defeat in Federal court.

During the reauthorization process, we have been presented relatively little present-day evidence of continued ``unremitting attempts by some state and local officials to frustrate their citizens' equal enjoyment of the right to vote'' as was the case in 1965--especially the kind of change-the-rules-after-losing tactics that prompted the section 5 preclearance requirement. According to Richard L. Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles: ``In the most recent 1998 to 2002 period, DOJ objected to a meager 0.05 percent of preclearance requests. Updating these data, DOJ interposed just two objections nationwide overall in 2004, and one objection in 2005.'' These data suggest relatively isolated attempts to interfere with voting rights not widespread, ``extraordinary stratagem[s]'' to perpetuate discrimination in voting.

To be sure, there have been examples of misconduct, such as the cancellation of the June 5, 2001, city council and mayoral elections in the town of Kilmichael, MS, and I do not want to minimize those violations in any way. Such misconduct did not appear to be common or widespread, however, and it could have been remedied through ordinary litigation under section 2 of the act and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. In fact, a disturbing aspect of the Kilmichael incident is that the attorney general's objection to the cancellation of the election came on December 11, 2001 over 7 months after the election had been canceled. This was no doubt due in part to the town's failure to submit the change in a timely fashion, but it nonetheless appears that minority voters would have received justice more quickly through a lawsuit in Federal court, accompanied by a request for a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order.

In light of the dearth of present-day preclearance objections or evidence of violations that, due to their nature or number, cannot be remedied through litigation, I am concerned that reauthorizing section 5's preclearance requirement for 25 years as proposed in

H.R. 9 will not pass constitutional muster in the litigation that is certain to follow its enactment. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that when Congress enacts legislation to enforce constitutional guarantees, ``[t]here must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.'' The Court cited the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as an example of appropriate congressional enforcement legislation that it had upheld. The Court observed, however, that ``[s]trong measures appropriate to address one harm may be an unwarranted response to another, lesser one.''

I am worried because, in extending section 5's preclearance requirement for another 25 years, H.R. 9 does little to acknowledge the tremendous progress made over the past 40 years in Alabama and other covered jurisdictions. Today is not 1965, and the situation with respect to voting rights in Alabama and other covered jurisdictions is dramatically different from 1965. I would have expected Congress to recognize this tremendous progress in covered jurisdictions by modernizing section 5 to reflect present-day progress and remaining problems.

For example, Congress ought to update the coverage trigger in section 4(b) of the act. It is simply illogical--in 2006--to base coverage solely on registration and voter turnout data from the Presidential elections in 1964, 1968, 1972. What about the Presidential elections of 1996, 2000, and 2004? What about the 14 noncovered jurisdictions that Federal courts have found guilty of constitutional or section 2 violations in recent years? Those years and those jurisdictions could easily be added to the coverage formula in section 4(b), but H.R. 9 does not update the coverage formula to include them. Given the dearth of preclearance objections, it seems that some minor or de minimis voting changes ought to be removed from the preclearance requirement, as well.

Congress also needs to make changes to improve the ``bailout'' process in section 4(a) of the act. According to the Department of Justice, out of 914 covered States and political subdivisions, only 11 covered jurisdictions, all in Virginia, have bailed out from coverage, and thus preclearance, under section 4(a). It is obvious that bailout is not working properly, but H.R. 9 does not correct that problem. For example, even if a town in Alabama has a perfect record on voting rights and meets every one of the requirements for bailout, it cannot seek bailout because section 4(a) only allows a ``political subdivision'' to bail out, and section 14(c)(2) defines ``political subdivision'' to mean ``any county or parish'' but not any city or town. That should be changed, but this bill does not address it. I also think we should have given serious consideration to Professor Hasen's ``proactive bailout'' proposal to improve the bailout process.

I am also concerned that the Supreme Court will think that a 25-year reauthorization is simply too long to pass constitutional muster. In 1965, Congress only authorized the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 5 years. They have now been in effect for 41 years. I am worried that the Supreme Court will conclude that it is not ``congruent and proportional'' to require some States to preclear every single voting change, no matter how minor or insignificant, until the year 2031 based on data regarding voter turnout and registration from 1964-- 67 years earlier.

Finally, I am concerned about H.R. 9's language adding new subsections (b), (c), and (d) to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to alter the Supreme Court's decisions in Georgia v. Ashcroft and Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, Bossier Parish II. In its decision in Bossier Parish II, in particular, the Court warned that the interpretation of section 5 rejected in that case ``would also exacerbate the `substantial' federalism costs that the preclearance procedure already exacts perhaps to the extent of raising concerns about Sec. 5's constitutionality.'' Altering these decisions adds to the risks taken in failing to modernize and modify the provisions of the Voting Rights Act to address the voting rights problems of the 21st century. It is particularly important therefore, that these new provisions be strictly interpreted.

The ``ability . . . to elect their preferred candidates of choice'' language in new subsections 5(b) and 5(d) prevents the elimination of what the Supreme Court called ``majority-minority districts'' in Georgia v. Ashcroft, in exchange for the creation of what it called ``influence districts.'' Neither the language of new subsections 5(b) and 5(d) nor the ``any discriminatory purpose'' language of new subsection 5(c) requires the creation of or locks into place ``influence'' or ``coalitional'' districts, however. The concept of ``influence'' or ``coalitional'' districts is far too amorphous to impose as a requirement of Federal law. Imposing such new restrictions on the redistricting process would prove both unworkable and unconstitutional.

I agree with the comments made earlier this afternoon by Senator McConnell, Senator Hatch, Senator Kyl, and Senator Cornyn. We must remember that we are reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act not creating a ``gerrymandering rights act.'' The bipartisan support for this bill indicates that both Republicans and Democrats do not expect or intend it to be interpreted to advantage one party or the other.

Although the Voting Rights Act is now 40 years old, many of my constituents have vivid recollections of discrimination at the ballot box, and they have strong memories of the civil rights movement that led to the most historic changes that were encapsulated in the Voting Rights Act. These are wonderful people. They love America and are proud of the changes in Alabama and our Nation. They have a strong attachment to the Voting Rights Act. All Alabamians want to see the progress continue. In light of the wrongs that have occurred in the past and out of respect for those who placed their very lives at risk for change, I will vote in favor of H.R. 9.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4659.

Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, on May 17, my colleagues, by a vote of 83 to 16, approved

my amendment to the Department of Homeland Security immigration bill to construct at least 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of the United States. This was based on the statement of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, that this was what he believed was necessary to create a border enforcement system.

Of course, a fence is not a cure-all, but it is a very real and integral component of enforcement at the border. Many of the areas we have the greatest difficulty with are urban areas. You can't put a policeman at every single street corner where people can walk across. So a barrier is necessary.

We have a number of barriers in San Diego and other places, and they have worked very well. Crime on both sides of the border has decreased, property values have increased in those areas, and economic development has occurred.

So there is no doubt--and it is not something that is mysterious-- that a good fencing procedure will help us in many ways. It is something we discussed and debated, and then when we voted, we voted 83 to 16 to approve it--a bipartisan vote.

But what I wish to make clear is this was simply an authorization. It represented a promise, a commitment by the Senate that we would build fencing. We would build fencing, and that, in large degree, is a part of our dialog with the American people in which we told them we are getting serious about enforcement. We are not just talking anymore. We really mean this time to get serious about enforcement, and we are going to do the things that are necessary. We are not going to build a fence along the entire border, but we need a certain amount of fencing--370 miles--and that is what would be put in, and that is what this Congress, this Senate, voted for. The House has more. I think they have 600 miles in their bill. So this was where we were.

I have made this point for some time in the debate: We do a lot of talking, we do a lot of legislating. The things we do often sound very good. The things we say often sound very good. But we don't ever quite get there. The things which will really make a difference, which can be demonstrable in improving lawfulness at the border, somehow, some way, seem not to become law.

This fencing requires a sum of money. We are going to show an increase--an increase--in spending for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security next year or this year, this period, of over $100 billion. We are talking here about a cost of less than $2 billion, a one-time enforcement enhancement of having a barrier at the border.

The figure we have in here of $1.8 billion contemplates that it will all be done by private contractors at the higher prices for the better fence. I suspect as we move forward in conference the conferees may find that the National Guard, which were not part of the process at the beginning, were not being called out when we first voted on this amendment, could actually build this fencing for what we understand would be one-third the cost per mile. This might be a perfect thing for them to do and participate in. There may be other ways to keep this cost down.

We made a commitment as a body that we were going to take some real steps that would work to enhance enforcement at the border.

So I say to my colleagues, in many ways the vote we are about to take on funding this amendment is a test. The American people should look at us and evaluate us according to this test we are about to take. Were we serious on May 17 when we said we wanted to build this fence? It is not in this bill today. This is the legislation that is the appropriate vehicle to put in the spending for it. It is not in the President's request. It is not in the item that came out of the committee.

I know the committee had many challenges, but this matter is important. It represents a commitment we made to the American people. We need to follow through on that. If we do not, how could anyone say that the Senate has integrity in the commitment that it has made to the American people to create a lawful system of immigration in our country, to end the lawlessness at the border and create a lawful system?

That is what we need to do. We don't need to end immigration. We are going to maintain immigration. We are going to treat people fairly. We are going to allow people to come in and go from the United States. In fact, we can enhance that and make it much easier, but we need to have a lawful system. We need to end this unlawful system, and that is what I would say is so critical about this process.

The bill as presently written appropriates $288 million for necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to customs and immigration.

None of this $288 million is designated for any construction of new areas of border fencing on the Southwest border, as we voted to do by 83 to 13. The construction funding only includes money to continue land acquisition and construction for the San Diego fence--$30 million-- which is already under construction.

As for vehicle barriers that we have been told are important, especially out in the rural areas, barriers to stop the easy crossing of vehicles, 39 miles of new permanent vehicle barrier in western Arizona only are funded. That is for 39 miles, not the 500 miles that we authorized. It continues construction of vehicle barriers in El Paso for a few miles; $200,000 for vehicle barriers in the Swanton Sector.

Those amounts are the only amounts out of the $288 million that are designated specifically for fencing and vehicle barriers. That is not enough to fund what the Senate voted to authorize, 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.

I know there are ways to contain costs. Frankly, I think if we work at it we might be able to demonstrate this amount of fencing could be done for less than we have here. But I would say to my colleagues, the estimates we have had are these. This will meet the challenge. Unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, we need to follow through on our commitment to fund this.

This amendment appropriates the funds for the 370 miles of fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along the Southwest border that the Senate authorized in May. Although the Department of Homeland Security supported my amendment at the time to add these miles of fencing and barriers when we voted on those issues in May, funding for these miles of fencing is not included in the bill.

The advantages of fencing are numerous. It magnifies, it multiplies the effectiveness of our Border Patrol officers as they go about their work. They have a difficult job to do. They have to maintain a border that is 1,700 miles long. They need help. There is no way we could have enough Border Patrol agents to patrol that entire border. We need to make it more difficult for those who would come in to our country illegally.

Fencing has worked in San Diego, it has worked in Arizona, and it is going to work wherever we put it, to enhance the ability of our law enforcement officers to detain and stop and interdict those who would enter the country illegally, which is what we need to do if we are going to move from this lawless system of immigration to a lawful system of immigration.

These are the kinds of things the American people have been asking for. They are asking for us to demonstrate that business as usual is no longer in effect, that talk is no longer in effect. The American people are looking at us and they are going to be looking at us carefully to see if we are actually going to follow through on what might really work to reduce illegal immigration and to create a system that is lawful and decent and fair, so people who wait in line are not chumps and those who break the law and come across the border illegally are the ones who get rewarded.

We need to stop that. That is wrong. It undermines law and sends a wrong message to those people who come into our country.

I say to my colleagues that we need to do a better job. We have a serious problem with the American people. They are suspicious of us. They are cynical about what we have done. We have been talking about a lawful system of immigration for 30 or 40 years, and we have never produced it. We

passed a bill 20 years ago, in 1986, that was to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. We said we are going to do this one time and after this is done we are going to create a lawful system for immigration.

What happened? Amnesty became law just like that. The people got their amnesty. And there was a promise. As we made a promise on May 17 to build fences, they promised to do the things necessary to secure the border after 1986, and it never happened. It didn't happen in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000. We had a series of Presidents who did not follow through. We have had a series of Congresses that have sat over those years and they have not made this system work. Yet when we go back home to our borders we say we want no amnesty and we want a lawful system. It is time for us to make a decision.

This is a lot of money, you say. It is $2 billion. I say we spend $1,400 billion a year in this country. If you took a poll of the American people, would they say we ought to spend a couple of billion dollars to start making a real dent in the illegality at the border, that they would expect us to find the money somewhere? I think there is no other program in this country not worthy of being reduced to some degree so we could fund this.

My amendment would simply take an overall reduction in funding in this bill because that is what I am limited to, really, as an effective amendment at this point: to cut across all funding levels in the bill a sufficient sum to fund what we committed to do, which is build a fence.

I want to say to my colleagues, this matter is not going away. We are not going to be able to go back to the American people and tell them we have taken seriously their directive to us to fix this system if we don't put up the money necessary to do so.

As I have said for so many years--and recently we have talked about it a lot--you have to get to that tipping point in enforcement. You have to reach that point in which it is quite clear to those who would want to come to this country that the best way to do so is to come lawfully, to wait in line and take your turn.

I talked with President Bush about it on Air Force One. He agreed. He used the phrase ``tipping point.'' That is exactly correct. We want to establish a tipping point; a barrier, sufficient agents, sufficient detention spaces are key to that. It is not going to break the bank.

I am optimistic about our ability to achieve this. But you simply have to close the holes. You have a bucket with three holes in it. If you close two of the holes, you are still going to have the water run out. When we do what is necessary to close the holes in our legal system we can create a system that will actually work, create a tipping point where people wait in line and come legally according to the standards this country establishes for them.

I am very concerned that by not funding what we just so recently voted for, by not funding that we will be indicating, just like in 1986, we were really serious about moving forward with an amnesty but we are not serious about creating a lawful system of immigration in this country. Wouldn't that break faith with the people who sent us here? Wouldn't that undermine their respect once again? It is already at the lowest possible ebb.

They know we have not been serious about the border. Everybody knows that. Who can deny that? It has been an issue for quite a long time. It has been discussed and discussed.

They say we can have a virtual fence. A virtual fence will help a little bit. But I am not able to cash a virtual check at the bank.

I would like to see some real fencing. So we had a discussion about that and we voted. We voted to build a fence. It was a little more than half of what the House voted in size, but it was a significant step that will, in fact, multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol agents who are working their hearts out for us right now, today. It will absolutely do that. It will absolutely work.

That is why some people oppose it so steadfastly. Whatever you present in the matter of immigration, in my experience, that actually tends to work, gets objected to. Somehow it becomes very difficult to pass.

There was objection to this amendment, frankly, until the very end. I think the voices of the American people were heard and all of a sudden we ended up with 83 votes. Some people thought it would be a close vote. It wasn't so close when we voted because we were listening to our constituents, which is what we are supposed to do.

There are 2,000 miles on the border. Many of those are quite remote, not appropriate to build a fence on. Some say they want to build a wall along the border. What we need is strategic fencing. We need to use high technology. We need increased agents. We need enough bed spaces when someone is apprehended so that they can be detained pending deportation, particularly if they are other than Mexicans, because the Mexicans can be taken across the border right quickly, normally. But for those who are from other areas of the world, sometimes it is very difficult to effect a deportation.

As a result, people in our law system are forced to confront a problem. They don't have the bed space for them. They don't have a plane flying back to the Philippines or Brazil or Chile or wherever the people may be from that day, so they are releasing people on bail, called catch and release. They are released and they don't show up to be deported.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this?

Mr. President, that is where we are. What you need to do is reduce the number of people who are coming here illegally. You need to reach a tipping point. People who are coming here illegally, other than Mexicans, have been told correctly until recent months that if they are apprehended, they are not going to be put immediately on a plane back to Brazil or the Philippines or wherever they may have come from. They are going to be released on bail. One study showed that 95 percent of the people released on bail under these circumstances don't show up to be deported. Surprise, surprise.

You need bed spaces. We have some more bed spaces in our bill. You need more agents--not a huge number of bed spaces and not huge increases in agents, but you need more agents and more bed spaces. You need to multiply the impact and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents by barriers.

How much more simple can it be than that, that we have these barriers that multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol people?

The strategy among those who support this bill that passed the Senate--the Kennedy-McCain bill, or whatever we want to call it, which moved through the Senate--is that it become law. The strategy is that we will sort of have a conference with the House of Representatives in secret and we will come up with some deal that gives amnesty to everybody who is here. Check the future flow of immigration in the country forever, and we will talk about how to make enforcement work.

A lot of people said: Listen, we went through that in 1986. That is what we talked about in 1986. Remember? Don't forget that. That is what they said in 1986. They said in 1986: Give us amnesty today and we will take care of the enforcement tomorrow.

Senator Isakson offered an amendment to deal with that very specific matter. He said: I am worried about that, too. That is what happened in 1986. That is what I am hearing from my constituents back in Georgia. We are all concerned about that. We know it is a very real problem. Why don't we say amnesty doesn't become effective, or any relief that one may choose to give to those who come here illegally, whatever relief we give them doesn't become effective until we have the border secured. He offered that as an amendment. It was one of the most intensely watched amendments in the entire process.

I have to tell you, it was very discouraging to me and very discouraging, I think, to the American people to see that amendment fail. Why? Why was that amendment important? Because they rightly conclude from that that we never had or never intended to create a good enforcement mechanism. If not, why wouldn't we pass the Isakson amendment? Why wouldn't we pass it? Why wouldn't we pass it if we intended to actually create a lawful system?

It made you think that maybe what we are hearing is rhetoric--talk and

promises--but we are not going to deliver.

That is why I am saying to my colleagues that this border fence is more than just a little matter of $1 billion-plus, as much as that is. It is a matter for the American people to evaluate whether or not they consider that we are acting with integrity when it comes to creating a lawful system of immigration in America.

The Secretary of Homeland Security said it is necessary. We voted 83 to 16 to approve it. Now we have the Homeland Security bill where this project should be funded, and it is not funded.

I know we have difficult choices to make. But that is what they pay us for.

Are people not listening to their phone calls, and not reading their mail?

The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Louisiana, understands this issue. I have heard him speak articulately on it.

It is a matter of legitimate concern for the American people. The American people are not anti-immigrant. They do not want to punish immigrants. They believe in immigration. But they want a lawful system of immigration that serves the just interests of the United States of America--not a system that makes a mockery of the law. They have been asking for it to be fixed for 30 years, and no President and no Congress has responded to their cry.

I am going to tell you, they are going to be heard this November. There may be some people who will have to answer if they voted for this fence and then didn't vote to fund it.

Why not? Why shouldn't they be held to account on that?

We are facing some difficult choices. The American people are concerned about the issue. Fundamentally, the American people are correct. They have good and decent instincts.

This Nation is a nation of laws. And on immigration we can have laws that work. That is what we are looking to do.

I don't know of anyone else who wishes to speak at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are going to proceed with construction over 2 years. Since we don't know what will happen next year, the Congress voted to build a fence, and we ought to fund the fence, in my opinion, when we promised to build it. But we could build it over 2 years and split the money each year, I suppose. It would ultimately slow down completion. It would probably take some time to get it constructed. I don't know whether my colleagues would agree to cut that price in half and do it over 2 years, and whether it would gain their support. If so, I would be prepared to accept that reduction in the amendment.

Let me just say that we know what happened. Senator Gregg did his very best in the supplemental. Judd Gregg, chairman of our committee, is a fine Budget Committee chairman. He also chairs this Homeland Security Subcommittee. He was able to force into the supplemental additional money for border security which was not in the President's request. I salute him for that. But that is not getting us there. We are still talking about nickles and dimes. We are still talking about business as usual. Somehow we need to find this money. We spend over $800 billion a year in discretionary spending. We spend nearly $1.4 trillion a year in entitlement spending, entitlement increases--an increase of over $100 billion next year. So we can't find a couple of billion dollars to fulfill the commitment we made to the American people?

We know how the system works around here. There is no one way that

it works. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say.

We need a vote for this amendment. And that would send a signal to the Appropriations Committee and send a signal to the White House that this Senate is serious about fulfilling its commitments. Some way between now and then, some way they will find this money through whatever sources are appropriate to fund it. That is where we need to be. That is what we need to achieve.

If we allow it to go through without any money for this fencing, we will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we have made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we are not serious about. They do not respect what we have done in the past, and they should not; we have failed. It is time for Congress to try to fix it and do better. In fact, we must do better. The Secretary of Homeland Security has told us this kind of barrier fencing is necessary for his success.

Now, we build a bridge in immigration that goes about 8 feet across the 10-foot cavern, and we never quite close the loop. As a result, we never reach the tipping point where it becomes much more logical for someone who wants to come to America to come legally than illegally, so they continue to come illegally. They are rewarded for that. They get to the head of the line, and they get amnesty when they get here after a period of time. That is a bad signal. We need to stop that signal.

By building more barrier fencing, by following up on the President's commitment to call out the National Guard, those activities send a signal to the world that our border is no longer open. Isn't that the message we want to send? We do not have an open border. We have a generous immigration system, far more generous that any nation I am aware of in the world. More generous than Canada, more generous than England, more generous than Mexico. We have a generous system. Don't let anyone put us down that we are somehow an anti-immigrant Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are very generous, but we do need to have a system that is lawful.

About a million people come into our country legally. About 750,000 or 800,000 come into the country illegally. Almost as many come illegally. That is not right. It cannot continue. This is not an extreme position to take.

Let's build the fences that the Secretary of Homeland Security discussed. I don't know where the Senator would get the money for it and exactly how it would be worked, but I believe if we voted a strong vote to fund this fencing, somehow, some way, the leadership of the House and the Senate would get together and figure out a way to fund it appropriately.

I yield the floor.

I make one thing very clear: Fencing should not be a political gimmick. It should not be a suggestion that it would cure all of our problems, but fencing works.

Let me share some thoughts about it. It is proven with the establishment of the San Diego border fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen off dramatically. According to the FBI crime index, crime in San Diego county dropped 56.3 percent between 1989 and 2000. Vehicle drive-throughs--these are people who bolt across the border in a vehicle--vehicle drive-throughs through the immigration prohibited areas have fallen from between six and ten per day before the construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in all of 2004. And those four only occurred where the secondary fence was incomplete.

Fencing has reduced illegal entries in San Diego. According to numbers provided by the San Diego Border Sector Patrol in February of 2004, apprehensions decreased from 531,000 in 1993 to 111,000 in 2003. Let me repeat that, talking about tipping points: They had to arrest, in 1993, along the San Diego border, 531,000 people; after the fence was up in 2003, only 111,000 were arrested, one-fifth. How many hours, how much money was saved because people did not have to be arrested and did not come illegally? How many people did not successfully enter the United States because of this fence?

Fencing has also reduced drug trafficking in San Diego. In 1993, authorities apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across the border, but in 2003 the fence helped stem the tide of drug smuggling and only 36,000 pounds of marijuana were apprehended. In addition, cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to 150 pounds, about one-tenth.

I talked to Congressman Duncan Hunter, who chairs the House Committee on Armed Services. He is very familiar with the border. He explained to me it was an absolute wonder how much good that fence did. That is why the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, has spoken out and said this is what he needs: 370 miles.

I am quite aware there is a shortage of money, and we have to make choices. I repeat, in our discretionary budget, we spend about $870, maybe $900 billion in our entitlement program expenditure. It will increase 9 percent next year. It will increase by over $100 billion. We spend $1.4 trillion-plus on entitlements. That is $1.4 trillion on entitlements. We cannot find $2 billion to deal with the fencing that we voted a few weeks ago to approve? I think we can. I know it is difficult.

I know Chairman Gregg, if he had the money, as he said, would fund it. How do we break this train wreck we are heading to? How do we get off this track of not doing what we committed to do? Vote for this amendment. It will send a message to the appropriators, it will send a message to the administration, it will send a message to those who are working on our appropriations accounts that we as a Senate expect them to somehow, some way, go back and make the tough priority choices and find the money necessary to do this. Maybe we can fund it over 2 years. If so, they will work that out. This is not the final draft of the bill that will ultimately be before the Senate. They will work that out. I am willing to work with them on that.

Also, if the National Guard were to build it, we have been told they would do it for one-third of the cost that private contractors would charge. That could be a savings, and we could get this fencing done without so much money in any one budget year.

We voted to build 370 miles of fencing, 500 miles of barriers for vehicles, and I am hoping we will not disappoint the American people, once again. I am hoping somehow, some way, we will rise to the occasion and say: We made a commitment. It is the right thing to do.

The administration was never out here championing building fencing. That is never something they said would be a cure-all. Frankly, it is a bigger positive step than many people

admit. They did come forward and tell us, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, that these were the figures they needed to create a lawful system at our border. We have areas in developed cities and towns where people can walk across the border without even a checkpoint. There is not even a fence there. This is what we need to do.

If we are serious about it, and I think the American people are, and I think there is a growing seriousness with the President and the Members of the Senate, let's step up and do what it takes. Don't go 8 feet across the 10-foot ravine and fall into the pit. Let's complete the task before the Senate. Somehow, some way, we can find the money in this budget. I know we will if we pass this amendment. If we do not pass this amendment, we will be sending a signal, it is business as usual, and we do not intend to honor our commitments.

That is the wrong thing to do it. It could not be more damaging to have failed to honor our commitments on any bill before the Senate than the immigration bill. This is a bill for which the people have the least confidence in us.

Amendment No. 4660

The other amendment I call up is amendment No. 4660; I ask the previous amendment be set aside, and I will make my remarks about amendment No. 4660.

Mr. President, this amendment deals with sufficient funding of ICE, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement interior agents. ICE is authorized. We voted to authorize and hire 800 new investigative agents in fiscal year 2007. That begins October 1st. Beginning October 1st, we voted to authorize the hiring of 800 new agents under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for 206 investigative agents in 2007. Among other things, those agents are used to investigate illegal employment in the workplace, workplace enforcement. Virtually every Senator, in the context of the immigration debate, has talked about how important it is to increase worksite enforcement. We have talked about it time and time again. The way to do that is to increase the number of agents who are investigating these cases. How simple can it be?

This Senate bill appropriates $57 million, an increase of $19 million, to enhance resources devoted to worksite enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the $19 million increase would hire 141 new agents. The bill also appropriates funds to hire 27 new compliance investigators. They are similar to but not the same as an investigative agent.

The 141 new agents and the 27 compliance investigators do not meet the President's request for 206 agents. They just do not meet the President's request for 206 agents. And it does not come close to funding the 800 agents that Congress authorized ICE to hire next year.

You see, once again, this is serious business. We talk about enforcement. We say we are going to do it, but when it comes down to the lick log, we spend our money on other things.

So my amendment will ensure that the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security funds the full level that Congress authorized to hire in 2007, a total of 800 new agents. This means that we have to find the money for ICE to hire 659 more agents than the bill currently funds. That is 800, minus 141.

The Department of Homeland Security tells me that it costs as much as $130,000 to fund a fully wrapped new ICE agent for the first year, with training and equipment and all those things. Therefore, the cost for these additional 659 new agents will be $85 million. To pay for these agents, the amendment contains an across-the-board reduction.

This is about making some decisions about what we intend to do with regard to enforcement of immigration laws. It sets some priorities. So that will help us focus on what we need to do.

To me, based on my experience, having worked with Customs agents, having worked with Border Patrol agents, having worked with INS agents back when I was a Federal prosecutor, interior enforcement agents, who are responsible for enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and inside our borders, are a top priority.

Let me tell you, it is not going to be that difficult. We are not going to need tens of thousands of Federal agents to change the workplace illegality that is going on. Most businesses today want to do the right thing. We have not given a biometric card, which is not easily counterfeitable, to those people who come here legally so the businesses can make a legitimate decision about whether they are legal or not. We have created a lawless system in many different ways.

But businesses must be held accountable. We can create, under this bill, a system that gives businesses a greater ability to know what the law is and to comply with the law. Once they know we expect them to comply with the law, once we pass this immigration bill that will create better workplace rules and procedures, we can almost overnight see a dramatic reduction in the hiring of illegals at the workplace. Isn't that what we want?

Some do not want that. They would like to be able to hire as many as they want to at lower wages.

But we as a nation have to look at the national interest and set a policy about how many people should come into the country, only allow those in lawfully, and make sure they are given a good identifier so they can go to work. But we need sufficient investigators to make sure we reach the tipping point in the workplace so that employers know with certainty what the rules are and know that if they do not comply with those rules they will be held to account. Once they know that they will be held to account, we will see, in very short order, a dramatic dropoff in illegal activity. Just this increase would make a tremendous amount of progress.

Mr. President, I have a few minutes left. I would yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. He may want to make some remarks.

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

Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks on the question of funding of the authorized border fencing in amendment No. 4659 and amendment No. 4660 which would authorize funding for the hiring of a number of interior enforcement agents that we authorized and voted to hire just a few weeks ago. I would like to talk about that.

I am well aware--and I know the argument that has been made by our wonderful Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, and Senator Murray-- that there is just not enough money in this bill to pay for it. I would say to my colleagues: This is an important issue that deals with something that we made a commitment to the American people about just a few weeks ago. And now it comes time for us to fund it and we don't have the money.

We spend almost $900 billion in discretionary spending, $1.4 trillion in entitlement spending. We can find a couple of billion dollars to fund this.

How do we do it? We pass these amendments, and we will send a signal to the appropriators and to the White House that we are serious and find the money somewhere. That is what we will be saying. I know they are going to say: Don't vote for this amendment. I am for the fence. Everybody is for the fence, Jeff. We just don't have the money.

How can we say that? We just voted to build the fence. We can't say we don't have the money. That is not an acceptable answer. So pass this amendment. Yes, it is going to cause some grief. Yes, there is going to be huddling of appropriators and budgeteers and the White House. They are going to have to hammer out a way to get the money to fund this thing. But to let this slip and to be on record as a Member of the Senate who just voted to build a fence and now vote not to fund it is not a good thing to do. It is going to send a bad signal to the American people. It is going to be a bad signal. They are going to say: They have been promising to have some enforcement and the first vote that comes up, the first bill that comes down the pike, they don't put the money in to do just what they voted to do.

Remember the fence can't be built and the agents we authorized to be hired can't be hired unless we appropriate the money. Please, we have to appropriate the money. I know this budget is tight. I will just say to my colleagues, I thank Senator Gregg for his support for the fence, his work in the supplemental to get more money for enforcement. If it had not been for his leadership, we would not have as much as we have. But it is not enough.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is a statement by the Senate that somehow we expect this matter to be funded. There is plenty of money in this Government, if we look for it, to fund this important matter.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk for the two amendments I have proposed. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify those two amendments, as we have proposed them.

Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to say that this amendment would authorize the appropriating committee to pay for the fencing--give them more discretion to pay for it out of the account they deem is appropriate. It would be across the board but within their discretion, so that no one particular account must be cut or reduced by passage of this amendment. The Coast Guard and other things would not have to be reduced in order to pay for this amendment.

I yield the floor.

This amendment would follow through on our 83-to-16 vote on May 17 to build 370 miles of fencing at the border and 500 miles of vehicle barriers, as requested by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mike Chertoff. Unfortunately, this bill does not fund it. Just a few weeks ago, we authorized it. Now we are not funding it. That is not acceptable and will undermine our credibility with the American people.

Please note that the amendment has been modified. The amendment has been amended, and it does not require any account to be reduced, such as the Coast Guard or others, but it does require discretionary spending in the bill to be reduced to pay for it, so it is paid for.

We need to honor our commitment and our vote of just a few weeks ago in order to maintain credibility with the American people on the question of immigration, an area in which they have great reason to distrust our actions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I know Senator Gregg and his team will figure out a way to fund it if we require it.

Mr. President, this amendment will fund the investigative agents we authorized in the immigration bill that passed this Congress. It would do so by increasing the funding for $85 million and would fully fund the 800 positions we authorized. We authorized 800 positions, but, unfortunately, we have only funded 141.

Once again, it raises serious questions, as in 1986, about whether or not we are going to talk but not be willing to put up the money to fund the bill.

Also, this will be offset by reductions in any discretionary account without mandating across-the-board cuts. The amendment has been amended from that previously filed so that no specific account is required to be cut, such as the Coast Guard.

I believe we need to follow through on our commitment to the American people to increase our investigative agents. This will fund what we authorized.

Mr. President, I often rise to speak about the issues being debated on the floor of the Senate, whether it be to share my thoughts on immigration, the war in Iraq, or the marriage amendment--as was the case this past week. I am honored to speak for the people of Alabama and to share their concerns with my colleagues in the Senate. Today I wish, not to debate, but for a moment reflect on the rich history of our Nation.

I have heard it stated, on more than one occasion, that the length of a person's stay in Washington should be measured by the feeling they get standing on Constitution Avenue at dusk. As a public servant, I find it impossible to look at the Capitol, illuminated against the night sky, without reflecting on the history and sacrifice of our forefathers.

I was reminded of this while reading a speech written by Morgan Harris, a sixth grader at Hampton Cove Middle School in Huntsville, AL. Morgan, tasked by his English and Social Studies teachers to write a speech about the flag, took the creative approach of writing from the flag's perspective. While there have been poems written from similar points of view, I found Morgan's speech to be a refreshing reminder of the history and importance of Old Glory. I share it with you today:

Flag Speech

(By Morgan Harris)

I am the flag. I was originated on June 14, 1777. I was

given 13 stripes alternating red and white with 13 white

stars in a field of blue. I am the flag. My content was

dictated, but my arrangement was not. Many made me appear in

different ways. My stripes usually stayed the same, but my

stars were often rearranged. For many years history has

taught that Betsy Ross was my original maker. Though she made

many flags, there is no proof that she made me first. In 1818

my design was set. The only change was to add a star for each

new State. I was carried by soldiers into battle. I flew from

the masts of great ships. For 47 years I had 48 stars. In

1959 and 1960 I was given two stars for the new States of

Alaska and Hawaii. Today, I still have those same 50 stars

and 13 stripes. I am the flag.

To show respect and dignity for what I represent, rules

have been written for my use and care. When I am displayed

during the playing of the national anthem, men and women in

uniform stand at attention and salute me. All others stand at

attention with their right hand over their heart and men

remove their hats. During the Pledge of Allegiance, everyone

is to stand at attention with their right hand over their

heart. I am usually flown in the outdoors from sunrise to

sunset. However, I may be flown for 24 hours a day if lighted

during darkness. I should not be left out in the rain or bad

weather. I am flown at half-staff upon the death of great

people to show respect to their memory. I am draped over the

caskets of those who serve our country. No other flag is to

fly about me. I am the American flag.

I should never be allowed to touch the ground and should be

stored and protected. I should never be displayed upside

down, except as a sign of distress. I should always be

carried aloft and free. I represent a living country and I am

considered a living thing. Therefore, when I am worn as a pin

I should be worn on the left near the heart. When I am no

longer fitting for display, I am to be destroyed in a

dignified manner, preferably by burning.

The writer Henry Ward Beecher once said, ``The American

flag has been a symbol of Liberty and men rejoiced in it.''

Mr. Beecher was stating how the flag represents our freedom

in America and this is what I love most about the flag.

When I see the flag flying high on a flag pole and hear

``The Star-Spangled Banner'' played, I think of the freedom

we have as Americans. I think of the men and women who have

died so that we may have this freedom. It makes me proud to

be an American. The flag is our symbol of freedom.''

Mr. President, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that Morgan's speech won first place out of 148 entries at his school. He has much to be proud of.