Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would delay the implementation of the 2005 round of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment report issued by the Department of Defense on May 13, 2005. The bill would postpone the execution of any decisions recommended in the report until certain anticipated events, having potentially large or unforeseen implications for our military force structure, have occurred, and both the department and Congress have had a chance to fully study the effects such events will have on our base requirements.

The bill identifies three principal actions that must occur before implementation of BRAC 2005. First, there must be a complete analysis and consideration of the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Structures. The overseas base commission has itself called upon the Department of Defense to ``slow down and take a breath'' before moving forward on basing decisions without knowing exactly where units will be returned and if those installations are prepared or equipped to support units that will return from garrisons in Europe, consisting of approximately 70,000 personnel.

Second, BRAC should not occur while this country is engaged in a major war and rotational deployments are still ongoing. We have seen enough disruption of both military and civilian institutions due to the logistical strain brought about by these constant rotations of units and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan without, at the same time, initiating numerous base closures and the multiple transfer of units and missions from base to base. This is simply too much to ask of our military, our communities and the families of our

servicemen and women, already stretched and over-taxed. And frankly, our efforts right now must be devoted to winning the global war on terrorism, not packing up and moving units around the country.

Our bill would delay implementation of BRAC until the Secretary of Defense determines that substantially all major combat units and assets have been returned from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations, whenever that might occur.

Third, to review or implement the BRAC recommendations without having the benefit of either the Commission or Congress studying the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in 2006, and its long-term planning recommendations seems counter-intuitive and completely out of logical sequence. Therefore, the bill requires that Congress receive the QDR and have an opportunity to study its planning recommendations as one of the conditions before implementing BRAC 2005.

Fourth and Fifth: BRAC should not go forward until the implementation and development by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security of the National Maritime Security Strategy; and the completion and implementation of Secretary of Defense's Homeland Defense and Civil Support Directive--only now being drafted. These two planning strategies should be key considerations before beginning any BRAC process.

Finally, once all these conditions have been met, the Secretary of Defense must submit to Congress, not later than one year after the occurrence of the last of these conditions, a report that assesses the relevant factors and recommendations identified by the Commission on Review of Overseas Base Structure; the return of our thousands of troops deployed in overseas garrisons that will return to domestic bases because of either overseas base reduction or the end of our deployments in the war; and, any relevant factors identified by the QDR that would impact, modify, negate or open to reconsideration any of the recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005.

This proposed delay only seems logical and fair. There is no need to rush into decisions, that in a few years from now, could turn out to be colossal mistakes. We can't afford to go back and rebuild installations or relocate high-cost support infrastructure at various points in this country once those installations have been closed or stripped of their valuable capacity to support critical missions. I, therefore, introduce this legislation today and call upon my colleagues to join us in supporting its passage.

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

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate a young man named Max Meyer. At the age of 14, Max was recently declared the winner of PAX TV's ``America's Most Talented Kids.'' His winning performance before a television audience exemplified his gift of playing the piano while singing a rendition of Frank Sinatra's ``The Lady is a Tramp.''

Max's accomplishments on the piano are truly impressive, but his talent does not stop there. Max also plays six other instruments, including the harmonica, kazoo, guitar, French horn, drums, and the trumpet.

I have had the pleasure of hearing Max perform on many occasions. His talent and dedication to music are nothing less than inspirational. I am proud to join Max's friends and family in congratulating him on his many and most recent accomplishments.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate an extraordinary educator from Watertown, SD. Jensi Kellogg-Andrus, South Dakota's Teacher of the Year, was recently honored at a conference here in Washington, DC. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt congratulations to her.

Jensi is a bright light in a profession of illuminators. Her unwavering dedication to her students' education and development is remarkable. Jensi takes the time to adapt her lesson plans to each individual learning style and strives to help each student achieve their personal goals.

Jensi's career has spanned 16 years and I wish her many more years of continued excellence. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Jensi for her many and most recent accomplishments.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his good work in moving this bill along. This is legislation that is long overdue. It is time that we move forward to vote so we can get help to these highway departments across this country, particularly in States such as mine, Northern States, where we are going to lose the construction season if we don't get something done, get a bill passed, and get a permanent authorization in place.

I speak in opposition to the pay-to-play amendment that has been offered to the Transportation bill.

For my colleagues who might not be aware of this issue, the Acting Governor of New Jersey issued an executive order last September which blocks anyone who makes political contributions to state officials, candidates or parties in excess of $300 from bidding on any contract for services, material, supplies or equipment or to acquire, sell or lease any land or Federal building where the value of the contract exceeds $17,500.

While it is clearly New Jersey's prerogative to institute such pay- to-play laws when it comes to State contracting, this New Jersey executive order effectively violated the free and open competition provisions governing Federal Aid Highway and Transit Contracting and went much further than pay-to-play laws in other States.

It's my understanding that New Jersey's Acting Governor, Richard Codey, issued this executive order in response to corruption and kick- backs that were uncovered with respect to no-bid State contracts.

Seeing that almost all of the contracts that occur under the Federal Highway and Transit programs are based on sealed low-bid contracts, the Senate should not adopt this amendment because it would undo the existing uniform rules that all States must follow when it comes to Federal contracting.

Congress has specifically stated in past highway and transit authorizations that we should encourage fair and open competition.

Congress should encourage competition by cultivating the broadest group of competent qualified contractors to do the work. We want to ensure that we are getting the best work done for the best price.

The low bid system was used to build our interstate system and National Highway System. It provides the highest quality product at the lowest possible price through competition. It should be maintained and strengthened, not weakened by adopting the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey.

Soon after New Jersey's Acting Governor issued his Executive Order last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation was forced to withhold a portion of New Jersey's transportation funding because the State was not complying with Federal contracting requirements--this was done after the U.S. Department of Transportation attempted to work this issue out with New Jersey Officials.

Soon thereafter, the New Jersey legislature stepped in and passed a bill on March 22, 2005 that excludes Federal aid highway funding from the Governor's previous pay-to-play executive order--thereby restoring New Jersey's Federal transportation funding.

I share the Senator from New Jersey's concern about illegal activity when it comes to no-bid contracting. However, there is nothing that currently prohibits states from taking action to prosecute those responsible for such illegal activities.

Further, since the current low-bid sealed contracting process used on Federal transportation contracts protects against instances of corruption or impropriety, and the fact that the New Jersey legislature has ensured that its pay-to-play regulations don't impact Federal transportation contracts, I'm a little puzzled why this amendment is needed--unless of course the Senator from New Jersey is seeking to change the existing Federal contracting process.

Federal contracting law already includes a process for the exclusion of contractors who have acted illegally--and the Federal Government also has a debarment process that prohibits contractors who have committed fraud or bribery from bidding on future contracts.

Because the State of New Jersey is currently suing the U.S. Department of Transportation in Federal district court concerning the previous withholding of Federal transportation funds, now is not the time for the Senate to weigh-in on this matter. The Senate should allow the court to hear the case on its merits.

My colleagues will also be interested to know that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee rejected this amendment when we marked up the transportation bill on March 16.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has informed me that there has not been one single case of kick-backs or corruption with regard to low-bid Federal aid highway contracts in New Jersey.

Most importantly, the U.S. Department of Transportation opposes this amendment and has informed me that the Corzine Amendment would create an unmanageable patchwork of local restrictions and requirements when Federal aid funds are used on a project.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to allow the Federal Highway Administration and those State governments that are so interested in getting a highway bill put into place to enable them to address the critical transportation needs this country faces, to get this highway bill passed and defeat this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, may I inquire as to the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer to the pending bill, H.R. 3, the transportation bill.

Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would remove a substantive grant of authority the U.S. Department of Transportation

will be given under the bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. The House and Senate have been working for the past 2 years to reauthorize TEA-21. I understand one of the underlying goals has been to improve upon the existing process States must follow from project inception to completion. Many of my colleagues would be amazed to learn that on average it takes 8 years to complete a construction project from inception to its completion. Some Members have told me it takes longer than that.

While I applaud Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for their work to make needed improvements in the transportation process, my State Department of Transportation in South Dakota has brought to my attention a problematic provision they believe will further delay and complicate further transportation projects across the country.

To clarify for my colleagues, section 1605(a) of the underlying bill would grant the Federal Highway Administration the authority to ``ensure'' that a highway facility ``will consider the preservation, historic, scenic, natural environment and community values.''

I have been unable to get anyone to give me a good explanation as to why this particular provision was included in the bill. Currently each of our respective State Departments of Transportation already follows strict Federal rules when it comes to such things as environmental review, historic preservation, and planning requirements. States also have to follow their own State rules regarding these issues. To give an example, this is the book State DOTs have to follow. This pertains to rules and regulations that apply to highway projects. It seems to me to be quite thick already.

The amendment I am offering does nothing to take away from the existing environmental reviews, historic preservation, and planning requirements each transportation project is subject to. Very simply, it removes the prospect that this provision will result in the Federal Government imposing new requirements on top of those already in law or rule, including in the subjective area of ``community values.''

I believe many of my colleagues would agree the best decisions are made by individuals at the State and local levels. If this provision were to be signed into law, I fear States will be told by the Federal Government what their community values are. Even more concerning to me and my department of transportation is the risk that there will be varying interpretations of community values from State to State and regional divisions of the Federal Highway Administration. Our current design, planning, and construction processes are difficult enough as it is.

Unless we remove section 1605(a) from this bill, we will effectively be allowing the Federal Highway Administration to tell our States what their respective community values are. Furthermore, unless we remove this provision, I fear one of the major goals in the reauthorization bill, which is project streamlining, will be unachievable. Moreover, while I certainly heard about this from my own State Department of Transportation, I have received letters from the following groups supporting the removal of section 1605(a) of the bill: AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has written asking that this provision be removed; AGC, the Associated General Contractors of America; ARTBA, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association; the American Highway Users Alliance; the American Council of Engineering Companies; the Transportation Construction Coalition; and the U.S. Chamber-led Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition. I will submit for the Record some of those letters that have been sent to us with respect to this particular provision of the bill.

I want my colleagues to know what the executive director of AASHTO said in his letter:

States should have the flexibility to determine how they

will work with other state agencies and local communities to

address these values rather than having them dictated by the

federal government.

NEPA and other environmental laws already provide

regulatory oversight. Additional requirements will only

burden the project delivery process, which we are tying to

streamline.

Mr. President, I ask unanimus consent that those letters I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in closing, as I have outlined today on the floor--in addition to the views expressed by the leading transportation groups in the country--it is my hope the bill managers will be able to accept this commonsense amendment to ensure that community values are decided at the State level and not in Washington, DC.

Again, I will close by saying this particular document already provides a tremendous amount of paperwork and regulation and rules that State DOTs and those who participate in Federal projects and highway funding issues have to comply with. It certainly seems to me that to add a nebulous and subjective additional requirement of ``community values,'' one, adds additional paperwork burden and redtape to the process that is already extensive and, secondly, it allows the Federal Government to interfere in an area that ought to be decided at a State and local level.

I hope the managers will accept the amendment. In the event they don't, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``Strengthening Border Security Between the Ports of Entry: The Use of Technology To Protect the Borders'' on Thursday, April 28, 2005 in Dirksen Room 138 at 3 p.m.

Witness List

Panel I: David Aguilar, Chief of the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Kirk Evans, Ph.D., Director, Mission Support Office, Science & Technology Directorate, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I also rise today to speak in support of moving forward with debate on reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. As many of my colleagues know, enactment of a long-term, robust Transportation bill is long overdue. I credit the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, for their good work in bringing this to the floor.

It is important work that we are about to undertake. We are in the sixth extension of the current bill. We have another construction season that is going to be lost in the Northern States if we do not get a long-term bill put into place.

I appreciate very much the chairman's work in taking a very fair and evenhanded approach in how he has tried to distribute a certain amount of finite funding for this bill. As he mentioned in his remarks, this is a balance that must be struck between the large States and the small States. Frankly, passage of this legislation is critical not only to my home State, but to the Nation as a whole.

Since my service in the House of Representatives, I have long been a supporter of a strong federal role when it comes to transportation infrastructure funding. In fact, I believe the transportation infrastructure is one of the primary responsibilities of the federal government. After all, an adequate transportation infrastructure that is safe and affordable helps facilitate the movement of the goods and services on which our economy relies. Additionally, investing in our transportation infrastructure is a proven way to ease congestion and improve the safety of our highway system.

If we look at the economic impact of what we are talking about today, it is profound. For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs and job opportunities are created or sustained. For every $1 billion in highway and transit expenditures, gross domestic product, GDP, will increase by $1.75 billion, a multiplier effect of 1.75.

So this is important to our economy in terms of the jobs it will create, the growth it will bring about in our Nation's economy, and it is critical that this legislation, which has been held up since the last Congress, move forward. It is one of the most important measures the House and Senate must resolve this year. And it is incredibly time sensitive as we look at the sixth extension we are operating with today and the need to get a permanent bill in place so this construction season will not be lost on many of those transportation departments in the Northern States.

I have heard regularly from officials from the South Dakota Department of Transportation who are concerned about the tremendous uncertainty they face as a result of not having a long-term bill. The business community, local officials, tribal leaders, and constituents across South Dakota continue to ask me why critical transportation projects are delayed from getting off the ground. I recognize that a handful of my colleagues from donor States are concerned that the bill, as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, does not go far enough to boost their overall rate of return. But the bill the Environment and Public Works Committee reported out last month, S. 732, does more to address the donor issue than the administration's reauthorization proposal or the bill as passed by the House of Representatives last month.

The clearest way to address the underlying concern that donor States have raised is to add more funding to this bill. In fact, I plan to support the amendment I understand Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus intend to offer because boosting this bill's overall funding level is the straightforward way to increase the minimum guarantee donor States seek without unfairly reducing the funding for donee States, such as South Dakota.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the chairmen and the ranking members from the various Senate committees responsible for this legislation.

As I said earlier, time is of the essence. It is important we work together to pass this bill so that conference negotiations between the House and the Senate can get underway, especially in light of the extension that is slated to expire on May 31.

I again commend the leadership of our committee, and the leadership on both sides in the Senate for their desire to bring this bill to the floor to ensure we are taking the steps necessary, when this current extension expires at the end of May, to have a new permanent bill in place that will address the critical infrastructure needs of our Nation as we move into the future. Many of the highways, interstates, and roads across this country are in poor or mediocre condition. Mr. President, 27 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. It is important we get to work on this legislation in the Senate so we can get to conference with the House, resolve any differences that exist, and get a permanent funding solution put in place for the States, the cities, the business community, and all the jobs and economic development that go with it.

Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to support this motion to proceed to the legislation. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their good work. I see Senator Bond, from Missouri, who has also been instrumental in crafting this legislation. I appreciate the leadership and work this committee has put in to get the bill to the floor. It is time we get it voted on and signed into law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I hope my amendment will be included as part of the final bill. I know the managers intend to offer a managers' amendment. I want my colleagues to know I have been working with the chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, the ranking member, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, of the Committee on Environment and Public Works concerning this issue since we marked up the underlying bill in committee last month.

While Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, Subcommittee Chair Bond, and Ranking Subcommittee Member Baucus initially had questions regarding my amendment in committee, I understand now

the staff has been able to work through all of those concerns.

Simply put, my amendment seeks to allow Native American tribes the ability to nominate roads to the Secretary of Transportation for designation as scenic byways, All-American Roads, or America's Byways.

Currently, Indian tribes are only allowed to nominate roads for designation under the Scenic Byways Program if they first go through their respective State Department of Transportation or Federal land management agencies such as the National Park Service or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. My amendment allows tribes to designate those roads over which they have jurisdiction or management responsibility as tribal scenic byways which then allows them to directly nominate the road for national designation with the Secretary of Transportation.

Additionally, my amendment calls on tribes to ensure the safety and quality of the roads that are designated as scenic byways similar to the requirements States currently have. In no way does this amendment impact the funding available for scenic byways. It simply grants Indian tribes the same ability States and Federal land management agencies currently have to nominate roads.

In closing, this is an issue of fairness and something I hope the managers of the bill will be able to accept. It does not impact current levels of funding. It simply allows for more flexibility for the Native American tribes in this country to designate roads that are under their jurisdiction and management.

I hope the managers will be able to accept the amendment. As I said earlier today, I hope we can proceed to get this bill through the process, through the Senate, into conference with the House, and on the President's desk because it is so important to this Nation's future, to my State of South Dakota, and to all those tribes, local governments, State highway departments, business groups, and those who are awaiting final action on the highway bill.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for favorable consideration of this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords for their help.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Vermont for their assistance and for their staffs' work. This will improve the way the roads are treated on the reservations and give our tribes more flexibility and discretion when it comes to how they treat the roads.

Mr. President, I rise today in morning business to speak about a matter of great importance, and that is our broken judicial nomination and confirmation process. As Senators, we have sworn to support and defend the Constitution, and on the issue of judicial nominations the Constitution is straightforward. It states that the President nominates judges and the Senate has the duty to give its advice and consent on those nominations. For over 200 years, that is exactly how it worked, regardless of which party was in power.

Over the past 2 years, the Democrat minority has attempted to change the rules and stand 200 years of Senate tradition on its head. The Democrat minority now thinks that 41 Senators should be able to dictate to the President which judges he can nominate. The minority also thinks that it should be able to prevent the rest of the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of voting up or down on judicial nominees.

The Democrats' position is contrary to our Constitution, our Senate traditions, and the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box this past November. It must stop.

The advice and consent provision in the Constitution has served us for over 214 years up until the last Congress. That meant that the Senate should vote, and for over 200 years no nominee with majority support has been denied an up-or-down vote in this body, zero.

The Democrats have said that they have confirmed 98 percent of the President's nominees. The actual number is 89 percent. But even at that, are we to say that we are only going to follow the Constitution 89 percent of the time? Furthermore, this Senate's record on dealing with the President's appellate court nominees is the worst for any President in modern history. This President's record of having his appellate court nominees voted on is 69 percent, which ranks him lowest of any President in modern history.

It would be one thing if these nominees did not have the votes for confirmation, but they do. These nominees will have 54 or 55, 56, 57 votes for confirmation. It is wrong to deny them what the Constitution says they deserve and for us to ignore our constitutional responsibility to see that they have an up-or-down vote in this body.

The Democrats have said that it is their prerogative to debate. Well, that is great. Let us debate them on the floor of the Senate. But before they can be debated, a nomination has to be brought to the Senate floor for debate. We have a right to debate under the Constitution in the Senate.

They have also suggested that judges ought to have broad support; that they ought to have more than the necessary 51 votes for the simple majority that has traditionally been the case in the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution about filibustering judges. There is nothing in the Constitution about requiring a super-majority to confirm judges. If the Founders had wanted judges to get a super-majority vote, they would have put that in there. They did it for treaties, for constitutional amendments, and for overriding a Presidential veto. Clearly, that was not the case with judges. It was the Founders' intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.

The Democrats in the Chamber have said that what we are trying to accomplish is ``the nuclear option,'' suggesting that somehow this is a radical process that we are trying to implement. Well, simply, that is not true. There is nothing nuclear about re-establishing the precedent that has been the case, the practice, and the pattern in this Senate for over 200 years.

What is nuclear is what is being discussed by the Democrats in this body, and that is shutting the Senate down over the issue of judicial nominees, which means important legislation to this country, such as passing a highway bill that will create jobs and growth in this economy, could get shut down, or an energy policy which is important in my State of South Dakota. We have gas prices at record levels, we have farmers going into the field, the tourism industry is starting its season, so we need to do something to help become energy independent. I am very interested in the issue of renewable fuels. I want to see as big a renewable fuels standard as we can get on the Energy bill, but we have to get it on the floor to debate it first. We cannot have these attempts, these threats--and I hope they are just that: threats-- because it would be tragic, it would be nuclear, if the other side decided to shut this Senate down over the issue of judicial nominees.

The Democrats in this Chamber have tried to confuse the issue of legislative and judicial filibusters, clearly trying to confuse the public about what this means. Well, what we are talking about is simply the narrow issue of judicial nominees. It is part of this Senate's constitutional responsibility and duty, and we must take it very seriously. However, in the last Congress that became extremely politicized.

What we are talking about again is simply the issue of judicial filibusters. Incidentally, it was the Democrats who last voted on the filibuster in the Senate to do away with it back in 1995. It was a 76- to-19 vote. It had to do with the whole issue, not just judicial but legislative filibusters as well. Many of those Democrats who voted to end the filibuster still serve in this institution today.

The American people see this as an issue of fundamental fairness. They understand that this body's constitutional obligation, responsibility, and duty is to provide advice and consent, and that means an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

The Democrats in the Senate have said that this President's nominees are extreme. There are going to be a couple of them reported out of the Judiciary Committee today. Janice Rogers Brown received 76 percent of the vote the last time she faced the voters in California, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism. Her nomination in this Senate has been stalled out for 21 months. Priscilla Owen will also be reported out today. She received 84 percent of the vote the last time she faced the voters in Texas. She has been waiting around for 4 years in the Senate to get an up-or-down vote on her nomination. She was endorsed by every major newspaper in the State of Texas. These nominees are not extreme. What is extreme is denying these good nominees a vote, and it betrays the role and responsibility the Founders gave the Senate.

So as we embark upon and engage in this debate that is forthcoming on judicial nominees, let us keep in sight and in focus the facts, and the role and responsibility this institution has to perform its duty. And that is to make sure that when good people put their names forward for public service, they at least are afforded the opportunity that every nominee with majority support throughout this Nation's history has had, and that is the chance to be voted on in the Senate.

I fully support what the other side is saying about wanting to debate these nominees. Let us do it. I am certainly willing and hopeful that we will be able to engage in a spirited and vigorous debate. Let us debate, but then let us vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I respect the Senator and I appreciate what he has to say about wanting to move the agenda. That is something I am very concerned about because of the Highway Bill, as well as the Energy Bill. Those are things that are lined up and need to be done. They are unfinished business from the last Congress. My concern from all this, and the Senator from Nevada has been here long enough, obviously, to know this, the Senate does set its rules and procedures. That is part of the Constitution. Back in 1980, of course, the Senate did the same things we are talking about doing here when the Democrats had control under Senator Byrd.

But more important, this needs to be based on facts. The facts are on our side in this debate. If you look back--the Senator from Nevada talked about historical precedents. The reality is what I said earlier is absolutely accurate, and that is there has not been a judicial nominee with majority support in the history of this Nation, up until the last Congress, who was denied an up-or-down vote in the Senate by a filibuster or by using the Standing Rules of the Senate to prevent that from happening. That simply is a fact.

It is also a fact that in the instance he referred to back in 1968, the Fortas nomination to the High Court, it was President Johnson's selection for Chief Justice. That was, I should say, a bipartisan attempt. It was a judge who did not have majority support in the Senate, and furthermore it was a judge about whom they were raising ethical issues.

The nominees we are referring to here are people of high quality. They are people who have been rated by the American Bar Association as being highly qualified to serve on the bench. They are not extreme, as the Democrats have suggested. They are judges who have been voted on in their States and won overwhelming majorities. These are people who deserve to be voted on in the Senate. This is about the tradition, it is about the precedent, it is about the history of the Senate, and it is about the Constitution. And it is about the responsibility, as Senators, that we have to see that these judicial nominees who are presented by the President for confirmation, for the Senate to perform its advise and consent role, are dealt with in an appropriate way.

I hope the Senator from Nevada will work with our leadership to try to fashion a way in which these judges can be voted on in the Senate. If they are not, we are setting an entirely new precedent for the future of how these judicial nominees are going to be considered in the Senate because this is unprecedented in the history of this Nation, what has happened in the last session of Congress, and what is being suggested by the Democrats in the Senate at this time. And that is that they will shut this institution down and keep other legislation from moving forward simply because they want to dictate to the majority and to the President of the United States about the kind of judges he ought to be submitting to the Senate for confirmation.

I have a couple of other colleagues here who want to speak to this issue, but it is important that this debate be about the facts. I hope we can have an opportunity to debate these judges. Then I hope we have the opportunity to vote on them.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

I thank the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Connecticut for the great work they have done in recognizing the sacrifice of our men and women who are fighting for freedom's cause in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world. This is important legislation. I am pleased to be able to support their efforts and to see it becomes a matter of law.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 12 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, today, it is my distinct honor and privilege to rise and speak on behalf of Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Talent, myself, and 47 other senators, as we introduce bipartisan legislation we believe to be long overdue. It is not reform legislation. It does not authorize new government programs, create new sources of tax revenue, or provide incentives to stimulate our economy. It is none of those things, but it is a matter of great importance. The events of 9/11 have reminded us all of that. It is, instead, legislation that speaks to the core of our beliefs and hopes as a Nation, and as a people. It is about a national treasure and a symbol of our country that the vast majority of Americans--and the majority of this great body, I might add--believe is worth special status and worthy of protection. It is about the American flag.

Our American flag is more than mere cloth and ink. It is a symbol of the liberty and freedom that we enjoy today thanks to the immeasurable sacrifices of generations of Americans who came before us.

It represents the fiber and strength of our values and it has been sanctified by the blood of those who died defending it.

I rise today to call upon all members of this body to support a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. It would simply authorize, but not require, Congress to pass a law protecting the American flag.

This amendment does not affect anyone's right to express their political beliefs.

It would only allow Congress to prevent our flag from being used as a prop, to be desecrated in some ways simply not appropriate to even mention in these halls.

This resolution and similar legislation have been the subject of debate before this body before. There is, in fact, a quite lengthy legislative history regarding efforts to protect the American flag from desecration. In 1989, the Supreme Court declared essentially that burning the American flag is ``free speech.'' That is a decision the American people should make, particularly when this country finds itself fighting for democracy and expending American lives for that cause, on battlefields overseas.

South Dakota veterans and members of the armed forces from my State know exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm sure they do from every state represented in the Senate. In recent months, units of the 147th field artillery and 153rd engineer battalions of the South Dakota National Guard returned home after spending a difficult year in Iraq. Likewise, the 452nd ordinance company of the United States Army Reserve is preparing to depart for Iraq in September.

My father, like many other veterans of World War II, understands the importance of taking this step. Veterans from across South Dakota have asked me to step up and defend the flag of this great Nation and today I am answering that call.

Today, members of both political parties will introduce a proposed constitutional amendment that would give back to the American people the power to prevent the desecration of the American flag. We know the gravity of this legislation. There is nothing complex about this amendment, nor are there any hidden consequences. This amendment provides Congress with the power to outlaw desecration of the American flag, a right that is widely recognized by Madison, Jefferson, and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, one of the foremost advocates of first amendment freedoms.

Most states officially advocate Congress passing legislation to protect the flag. Frankly, I do not see this as a first amendment issue.

It is an attempt to restore the traditional protections to the symbol cherished so dearly by our Government and the people of the United States. Some acts are not accepted as ``free speech'' even in societies like ours where we consider free speech a cherished right. For example, an attempt to burn down this Capitol building as a political statement would never be viewed as someone's right of free speech. Our laws would not tolerate the causing of harm to other's property or life as an act of ``free speech.'' This flag happens to be the property of the American people, in my opinion, and this question should be put before the States and their people to decide how and if to protect it. I think the answer will come back as a resounding ``yes''.

There is little doubt that the debate over state ratification will trigger a tremendous discussion over our values, beliefs and whether we will ultimately bestow a lasting honor on our traditions. Importantly, it will be an indication of how we recognize our servicemen and women who are sacrificing--right now--in Iraq and Afghanistan, to protect those traditions and values for us. Will we honor them, and all the veterans who served and died in wars for this country and our flag over the last 200 years? That's not a question which a court should hold the final answer.

I believe the time has finally come. I believe our country wants this debate. The majority of this Senate, I believe, wants this amendment. We begin it here, and we begin it now. Let the debate begin.

Mr. President, today, it is my distinct honor and privilege to rise and speak on behalf of Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein, Senator Talent, myself, and 47 other senators, as we introduce bipartisan legislation we believe to be long overdue. It is not reform legislation. It does not authorize new government programs, create new sources of tax revenue, or provide incentives to stimulate our economy. It is none of those things, but it is a matter of great importance. The events of 9/11 have reminded us all of that. It is, instead, legislation that speaks to the core of our beliefs and hopes as a Nation, and as a people. It is about a national treasure and a symbol of our country that the vast majority of Americans--and the majority of this great body, I might add--believe is worth special status and worthy of protection. It is about the American flag.

Our American flag is more than mere cloth and ink. It is a symbol of the liberty and freedom that we enjoy today thanks to the immeasurable sacrifices of generations of Americans who came before us.

It represents the fiber and strength of our values and it has been sanctified by the blood of those who died defending it.

I rise today to call upon all members of this body to support a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. It would simply authorize, but not require, Congress to pass a law protecting the American flag.

This amendment does not affect anyone's right to express their political beliefs.

It would only allow Congress to prevent our flag from being used as a prop, to be desecrated in some ways simply not appropriate to even mention in these halls.

This resolution and similar legislation have been the subject of debate before this body before. There is, in fact, a quite lengthy legislative history regarding efforts to protect the American flag from desecration. In 1989, the Supreme Court declared essentially that burning the American flag is ``free speech.'' That is a decision the American people should make, particularly when this country finds itself fighting for democracy and expending American lives for that cause, on battlefields overseas.

South Dakota veterans and members of the armed forces from my State know exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm sure they do from every state represented in the Senate. In recent months, units of the 147th field artillery and 153rd engineer battalions of the South Dakota National Guard returned home after spending a difficult year in Iraq. Likewise, the 452nd ordinance company of the United States Army Reserve is preparing to depart for Iraq in September.

My father, like many other veterans of World War II, understands the importance of taking this step. Veterans from across South Dakota have asked me to step up and defend the flag of this great Nation and today I am answering that call.

Today, members of both political parties will introduce a proposed constitutional amendment that would give back to the American people the power to prevent the desecration of the American flag. We know the gravity of this legislation. There is nothing complex about this amendment, nor are there any hidden consequences. This amendment provides Congress with the power to outlaw desecration of the American flag, a right that is widely recognized by Madison, Jefferson, and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, one of the foremost advocates of first amendment freedoms.

Most states officially advocate Congress passing legislation to protect the flag. Frankly, I do not see this as a first amendment issue.

It is an attempt to restore the traditional protections to the symbol cherished so dearly by our Government and the people of the United States. Some acts are not accepted as ``free speech'' even in societies like ours where we consider free speech a cherished right. For example, an attempt to burn down this Capitol building as a political statement would never be viewed as someone's right of free speech. Our laws would not tolerate the causing of harm to other's property or life as an act of ``free speech.'' This flag happens to be the property of the American people, in my opinion, and this question should be put before the States and their people to decide how and if to protect it. I think the answer will come back as a resounding ``yes''.

There is little doubt that the debate over state ratification will trigger a tremendous discussion over our values, beliefs and whether we will ultimately bestow a lasting honor on our traditions. Importantly, it will be an indication of how we recognize our servicemen and women who are sacrificing--right now--in Iraq and Afghanistan, to protect those traditions and values for us. Will we honor them, and all the veterans who served and died in wars for this country and our flag over the last 200 years? That's not a question which a court should hold the final answer.

I believe the time has finally come. I believe our country wants this debate. The majority of this Senate, I believe, wants this amendment. We begin it here, and we begin it now. Let the debate begin.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

How high do gas prices have to get? How over a barrel does OPEC have to get us before we realize what the American people realized a long time ago that we have an energy crisis in America today? We have gas prices that continue to soar. We have supply problems because we rely on the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Earlier this month, I was glad to join Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and four of my colleagues, including the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, on a trip up to the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge. It is a big place.

Alaska is 386,000 square miles. My home State of South Dakota is 77,000 square miles. We think we have a lot of wide open space in South Dakota. But you could put seven of my States of South Dakota into the State of Alaska.

If you look at Alaska in its totality and look at what we are talking about in terms of the exploration and possible production in ANWR, it is 19.6 million acres on the wilderness area, ANWR area. Eight million acres of that is wilderness. The area we are talking about for development and exploration is 1.53 million acres.

Furthermore, the area that would be used under the legislation limits it to 2,000 acres.

That is the equivalent in South Dakota terms of about three sections of farmland in an area that is 19.6 million acres in a State that is 586,000 square miles, where we could put seven of the State of South Dakota.

We had the opportunity when I was up there to look at technology. It is remarkable what has transformed over the last 30 or 40 years. You probably can't see it on the map, but Prudhoe Bay technology is 1970s vintage technology compared to 1980s vintage technology. We went to a site called the Alpine site, which is the millennium technology. The changes that have taken place are dramatic, and the way it has evolved minimizes the impact and the footprint that is left. In fact, at the Alpine site, there were 97 acres, which included the runway where they land the planes to provide their supplies and the lake they get their water from. They are generating 120,000 barrels of oil a day on 97 acres. Why? Because the technology allows them to go underground, to drill horizontally, and to drill directionally. It minimizes the impact above the ground.

We saw where they use ice roads for exploration to get back and forth. In the winter, the roads disappear. Below the frozen tundra is the single largest and most promising onshore oil reserve in America-- somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil. The average of that would be 10 billion barrels.

How much is that? A million barrels a day that we could add to our production in this country. That is 5 percent of what we use--20 million barrels a day in the United States. We get 10 million barrels a day today from outside the United States.

This would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Put another way, it could power the State of South Dakota for 499 years.

We are talking about a significant resource that we need because America is facing an energy crisis.

Gas is over $2 a gallon. A barrel of oil is near record highs. Make no mistake about it, America's energy crisis is an economic crisis that impacts every American. This country needs energy legislation which fosters more oil production and increases the alternatives, such as renewable fuels and ethanol that we produce in my home State of South Dakota.

I hope we can get a comprehensive energy bill that increases the use of ethanol in this country. Right now, we do about 3.5 billion gallons a year in ethanol, but we use 120 billion gallons a year of gasoline in this country. It has to come from somewhere.

Right now, we are paying all the money to the folks in the Middle East who have gotten us over a barrel. We need to change that. We need to reduce our dependence on politically unstable foreign sources of oil.

Specifically, the United States imports about 3 million barrels of oil a day from the Persian Gulf. The estimated daily domestic supply from ANWR would reduce that number by half.

Passing this legislation will reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil, strengthening our economic security, strengthening our energy security, and strengthening our national security.

When I was in the House, we passed an energy policy, but it got stuck in the Senate.

We have an opportunity to finally finish the job that the American people sent us here to do and to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Listen to the people of Alaska. Mr. President, 57 out of 60 members of the Alaska State Legislature support this. You just heard the Senator from Hawaii talk about most of the tribes in Alaska support this. The congressional delegation, the Governor, the people's representatives here in Washington and in Alaska believe this is important to the future of that State.

It is important for the economy of this country and to the people who are having to pay the price at the pump because we fail and refuse to do something that is so important--to tap the vast reserves that exist right here in America rather than relying on the Middle East for our energy supply.

I hope my colleagues here today will join with me and with those in the past who have supported this and vote for this so that we can begin the process of lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last weekend I joined four of my colleagues to travel to Alaska, to see first-hand the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It's not a welcoming place--it's cold and icy; vast and empty . . . even the Caribou didn't notice our presence. But beneath the icy tundra is one of the largest oil fields in the world--an oil field so vast it could power the State of South Dakota for centuries.

This week the Senate is moving forward on legislation to explore ANWR. This is just one piece of finally passing a national energy policy and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

We cannot act fast enough: This week gas prices hit record highs. And with oil hovering around $55 per barrel and threatening to move even higher, it's critical that the Senate act to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources oil.

ANWR is one piece of the solution. But equally important--and even more important to my State of South Dakota--is investing in renewable fuels like ethanol.

It is time for the United States Senate to pass the Renewable Fuels Standard.

The Renewable Fuels Standard has languished for too long. Despite strong bipartisan support and private-sector agreements, past Congresses have failed to pass a national energy policy that includes a Renewable Fuels Standard. Now, we have another opportunity.

This legislation has a special importance to my State. South Dakota is a heavily agricultural State and the Nation's fifth largest producer of ethanol. The market for ethanol has breathed new life into the small towns and small farms that dot the prairies of South Dakota. When driving through the rural counties of South Dakota, it's not unusual to observe the silos and storage tanks of an ethanol plant silhouetted against the prairie horizon. In many ways, the ethanol industry and its physical manifestations have become a part of the rural American identity.

Make no mistake about it: South Dakota's farmers are relying on the passage of the Renewable Fuels Standard to provide a surge in corn prices and a guaranteed market for their product.

This legislation is an improvement upon what passed out of the United States Senate last Congress. It increases the ethanol gallon requirement to 6 billion gallons, an increase of 1 billion gallons.

As we have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to move this country forward. This legislation is vital to the ethanol industry, and will strengthen our economy, and our energy security. After so many failed attempts to pass this important legislation, I hope this Senate will finally finish the job and pass a Renewable Fuel Standard.