Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time is available, 10 minutes, 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I simply want to say that if I were a teacher and giving out grades for commonsense amendments to the immigration legislation, I would give the Gregg-Cantwell amendment an A-plus. I think everyone listening and thinking about this issue would feel the same way.

Here we are in the United States of America at a very competitive time where we earn 25 percent of all the money in the world for just 5 percent of the people, and we know how we do that. We do it primarily through brain power. Eighty percent of our new jobs since World War II have come from our advantage in science and technology. Of course, we grow a lot of our own brain power, but increasingly we have been insourcing.

Mr. President, of the 100 American Nobel Prize winners in physics, 60 of them are immigrants or children of immigrants. Go down to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which is the largest science laboratory in America. The top three positions are held by people with green cards, foreign nationals. There is a man at Oak Ridge who is one of those three who is in charge of the United States effort to recapture the supercomputing lead in the world, which we lost to Japan. He is a citizen of India. He has a green card.

So Senator Gregg and Senator Cantwell, I think, are exactly right. They are saying that in this large immigration bill where we are talking about bringing millions of more people into the United States under certain conditions, two-thirds of the lottery tickets for 50,000 people ought to go to the highly educated persons from these underserved countries who then can come to our country and help us create a standard of living. It is in our interest to do this.

I am glad the Indian citizen is in Oak Ridge, TN, in charge of our supercomputing effort to lead the world. I am glad Warner von Braun came to the United States to help us win the space

race with the Soviets. I am glad that of the 100 Nobel Prize winners in physics, 60 of them are immigrants, are sons and daughters of immigrants. I want more of them to come to this country because I know what is going on in India, and I know what is going on in China.

Senator Bingaman and I, and many other Senators, Senator Gregg included and Senator Kennedy has been a leader in this area as well, asked the National Academy of Sciences to tell us a year ago exactly what we need to do to keep our advantage in science and technology. They gave us a list of 20 recommendations.

Among the most prominent of those recommendations was, make it easier for the most talented men and women in the world to research and study in the United States of America and to stay here, not to run them off. We don't want them to go home; we want them to stay here. It is in our interest for them to stay here.

There are already two provisions in the underlying bill which help with that, both taken from the Augustine report, as we call it, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' by the National Academy of Sciences. But the Gregg-Cantwell provision is exactly in that spirit. I do not think it is too much to say that the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, who are worried about America's competitive position in the world, would think that the idea of making it easier for 35,000 or 37,000 of the best and brightest scientists in science, math, engineering, and computing to come, stay, live, work, and do research in the United States, create more jobs and raise our standard of living, I think they would give a big cheer. I bet they would give an A-plus. I am not authorized to give out A-pluses for anyone except myself. But I would think that all over America, those who know about the Gregg-Cantwell amendment, who know about our competitive position in the world, would say: Absolutely right. If we are going to have 50,000 more people coming in here, let's let them be the best and the brightest who can help create new jobs in America.

We heard plenty of speeches in this Chamber about outsourcing jobs. This is an amendment which insources brain power. Over the last half century, 80 percent of our new jobs have come from our advantage in science and technology. This would help us keep that. I would hope this would be a bipartisan amendment, strongly supported on both sides of the aisle, and would be adopted by the conference report and would become law. So I salute the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Washington for their vision, and I am glad to cosponsor the amendment.

Mr. President, today I reintroduce a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that colleges and universities should continue to educate their students about the importance of intellectual property and the harm caused by copyright infringement. I am joined in offering this resolution by Senators Leahy, Hatch, and Nelson of Florida, as well as my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist.

This measure is very similar to S. Res. 438, a Senate resolution which three of my colleagues and I introduced last month. I call my colleagues' attention to my remarks on S. Res. 438 and those of Senator Leahy, which both appeared in the Congressional Record on April 7, 2006.

Madam President, I see the manager of the bill. I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to go ahead for about 10 minutes on the Inhofe amendment.

Madam President, could I be notified when I have 60 seconds left?

I think Senator Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma, has been looking at the original motto of the United States which is above the Presiding Officer's chair: e pluribus unum, ``one out of many,'' in our antecedent language of Latin because he has done a very good job, I think, of helping to say what the body as a whole would like to say, and I hope this is something all Senators can agree on.

Here is what the Inhofe amendment, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, does. No. 1, it states the obvious: that English is the national language of the United States. But in so stating, it does not prevent those who are today receiving Government services in other languages from continuing to do so. We can have those discussions at another time.

The second thing it does is it adopts an idea that has been suggested by Senator Grassley, the Senator from Iowa, on another occasion during the debate on this bill; that for those immigrants who are currently in the country illegally but who may be able to adjust to a legal status under the way this bill is finally written, it establishes a clear English language requirement for them to become lawful permanent residents.

The third thing it does is it establishes clear goals for the tests that immigrants take to become new American citizens, so that they know English, our common language, and so that they know American history. That test is currently being redesigned by the Department of Homeland Security. In doing so, this part of the Inhofe amendment picks up language that had been offered before by Senator Reid and by me, and by Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd, as we worked to create summer academies for outstanding students and teachers of American history.

It should surprise no one that the Senate would pass a resolution stating that our national language is English. I can remember being at an education meeting in Rochester in the late 1990s, when someone asked: What is the rationale for common schools? And Albert Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the public schools, the common schools of America were created to help largely immigrant children learn reading and writing and English and mathematics with the hope they would go home and teach their parents.

So for a long time, we have tried to help new citizens learn our common language so we can speak to one another, and that has been English. Since 1906, our naturalization laws have required new citizens to know English and be able to pass tests in English.

The Senate, at the beginning of the immigration debate, put a value on the English language by approving an amendment that said that the federal government would offer $500 grants paid for out of visa fees by those who are legally here, who are seeking to become prospective citizens. In other words, we want to help people learn English.

That same amendment said that if you become fluent in English, we will cut a year off the time you have to wait to become a lawful, new citizen from 5 years to 4 years.

I remember when I was Education Secretary for this country 15 years ago, when I went to the Southwest United States and someone told me: Well, you will probably find a lot of people who

object to learning English. But I found just the reverse. I found a lot of men and women in the Southwest United States who were upset with me because they didn't have enough help to learn English. They wanted to learn the national language, the common language of the United States.

The Inhofe amendment is in that spirit. I have always believed that the luckiest children in our country are those who speak more than one language, whether it is Spanish or Chinese--which, after Spanish, is the next most widely spoken language in our country--but that one of those languages must be English, and children should learn it as quickly as is practical.

The second part of the Inhofe amendment should not surprise anyone because it incorporates language Senator Sessions had offered to try to make certain that the U.S. history test that new immigrants take if they wish to become citizens is a good test and includes the key documents and key events and key ideas of our founding documents. As I mentioned, that has broad support on both sides of the aisle here, with the Democratic leader, as well as the Republican leader, Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, and others, having been involved in that.

Finally, it should be no surprise that the Senate, in the middle of a debate on a very important subject, finds talking about our common language, our national language, English, an important matter, and talking about U.S. history an important matter. In many ways, there is nothing more important to discuss if we are talking about immigration because the greatest accomplishment of our country is not our diversity, even though that is a magnificent part of our country. It is that we have taken all that diversity and molded it into one nation on something other than race and ancestry.

We have this enormous advantage in the world today, an advantage France and Germany don't have. People have a hard time thinking of how to become German, how to become French, how to become Italian, how to become Chinese, how to become Japanese. But if you come to this country and you want to become a citizen, you must become an American and you must learn our common language. That is a part of it, and it has been for 200 years.

The greatest, most practical limit on the number of new immigrants who can come to our country is our ability to assimilate them into our culture to help them become Americans.

The Inhofe amendment is a very carefully constructed amendment to try to make sure that we are heard properly in this country. We value every language. We value every ancestry. We value every background that is here. It is what makes our country so special. I, for one, hope our children grow up speaking more than one language. But we need to be able to speak with one another, and we need to understand those principles which we debate here in the Senate. Just look at this debate on immigration. We are debating four great principles with which we all agree, but we apply them in different ways. They are the rule of law; they are laissez faire, about our free market system; they are equal opportunity, giving everybody a fair chance at the starting line; and e pluribus unum, the idea that we are one nation from many.

This amendment is as important as any amendment which is being offered because it helps take our magnificent diversity and make it something even more magnificent. It recognizes that only a few things unite us: our principles, found in our founding documents, and our common language. We are proud of where we have come from, where our ancestors have come from, but to make this land of immigrants truly one country, we must have and honor our national language, our common language, and that language is English.

Mr. President, first, let me say to my friend from Colorado that if we were to take all 100 of us who are in the Senate, some of whose families have been here for a while, none of us, I would judge, have families who have been in the United States for longer than Senator Salazar's family--for 11, 12, or 13 generations. It is a source of great pride to serve with him.

He and I discussed this amendment. I understand his passion and feeling about it. But what I would like to do in a few minutes is take exactly the opposite view from the distinguished Senator from Colorado because I do not see how the United States of America can be unified unless we have a national language. That is all this is about. The Inhofe amendment is not an official English amendment. It is not an amendment to declare English the official language of the United States, which 27 States have done. It does not require that all government documents even be printed in English. It could have done that, but it doesn't.

It simply says English is the national language of the United States, period. That is the first thing it says. Then it has a provision that talks about the importance of encouraging the learning and understanding of English.

Then it has a provision which, the way I read it, says that nothing prevents the government from rendering services in languages other than English.

That would mean that in a whole variety of areas where the Congress last made a decision--whether it is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Bilingual Education Act of 1967, the provision that Senator Robert Kennedy put into the law recognizing the unusual circumstances of Puerto Ricans who moved from Puerto Rico to one of the 50 States--or an Executive order by any President, this amendment wouldn't change any of that. That is the whole point of the amendment. It is just to say this is our national language.

Then it says that someone does not have the right to sue to get services in another language unless it is provided by law. It doesn't diminish a right already established by law.

It does one other important thing. It draws on the beginnings of an amendment by Senator Sessions about the citizenship requirements that have been in our citizenship process. It seeks to make those stronger.

Senator Sessions is not the only one in this Senate interested in that. There is probably no one in this Senate more interested in that than the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, who is not only interested in American history, but his family has a place in it.

We have worked together in a variety of ways to try to get a clearer understanding of U.S. history among our children, among our citizens-- not because we want to punish them, but because we have such a unique and diverse country that it is critical that we all understand these common unifying principles which come from our history, including what we are debating today: rule of law, equal opportunity, laissez-faire, E pluribus unum. We are not pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant;

we just have four principles on which we all agree, and we are trying to put them together into a bill. Those are the things which unite us as a country, along with one other thing, and that is our common national language.

The second part of the Inhofe amendment has in it language to help improve the citizenship exam that legal immigrants take to become citizens, of which 514,000 did last year. It is good language, language which was in the legislation Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid, and I worked on with many others a couple of years ago to help create summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history. We tried to define the history we were talking about in the sense of key ideas, key documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the place from which come our unified principles.

Here are the differences between the amendment from the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Oklahoma. There are four differences. It is important for colleagues to understand.

Senator Inhofe's amendment declares that English shall be the national language. The Senator from Colorado has taken out the word ``national.'' He does not want it to say that. He says ``common and unifying'' language. I prefer the wording of the Inhofe amendment because while English is our common language, it is more than that. It is the common language of a number of countries, but English is also part of our national identity. It is part of our blood. It is part of our spirit. It is part of what we are. It is our national language. That is one difference.

No. 2, the Salazar amendment does not include the provision that is in the Inhofe amendment that says that for all those people here illegally who may become lawful and put on a path to citizenship, which is the goal of the sponsors, it says those persons must learn English. The Inhofe amendment strengthens that requirement. Currently, in the underlying bill, it simply says they must be enrolled in school to learn English, and the Inhofe amendment strikes that, so those persons have to learn English in order to be here lawfully. That is very important.

This large number of 10 million or so people who are here illegally is the source of most of the problems in this debate. If we are not going to send them all home, which almost no one thinks will happen, then we either have to put them on a path to citizenship or lock in 10 million people in the United States who pledge allegiance permanently to another flag, which is something we have never done before. The Inhofe amendment is preferable because it helps make it easier for those 10 million to learn our national language. Those are two differences.

The third difference is the Salazar amendment completely takes out the excellent work Senator Inhofe and Senator Sessions did, much of the language having been borrowed from work that Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid, I and others worked on, which tried to improve the citizenship test. This may not be an intention of the Salazar amendment, but it does it. It takes out the language that says the test should mention the key documents, such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, and key events such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, the world wars, the civil rights movement, and the key ideas and key persons.

Why is that important? Because we are not a nation based on race, we are not a nation based on ancestors; we are a fragile idea based upon a few principles and our national common language. So I prefer an amendment that has those provisions in there. That is the third reason.

The fourth, as I read it, suggests that Executive orders issued by the President are just like statutes. Constitutional lawyers would have a problem with that.

A vote for the Inhofe amendment is a vote to say English is our national language. It is a vote to say that those who may not be here legally, but who eventually may be determined legal by this legislation under some process, should learn English on their way to citizenship. And finally, the amendment includes a very good section that helps to define the key ideas and events of our history for citizenship.

I would be happy to if we can do that on your time.

The answer to my friend from Colorado is no. The election of a new President might change an Executive order if the new President modified or changed the Executive order. My understanding of Senator Inhofe's amendment, and he can speak for himself, is he does not seek to change any right now granted to anyone.

We can have a good debate about whether there ought to be bilingual ballots. In my opinion, I don't think there should be because you have to be a citizen to vote and you have to demonstrate an eight grade understanding of English to be a citizen. But that is in the law and is not affected by this and neither would an Executive order.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Colorado, that is a preposterous question for what we are talking about and not really a suitable question for a serious proposal.

This is a simple proposal which declares that English is the national language of the United States and that the Government of the United States should do whatever it can to encourage that. It does not change any right that anyone has today. It also includes a strengthening of the citizenship test. Anyone who understands the founding documents knows that liberty is at the front of our unifying principles. Any citizen has a right to speak in Spanish. A Senator, of course, does as well. This has nothing to do with inhibiting anyone's rights. It just declares that, unlike Switzerland, unlike Canada, unlike Belgium, we have a common national language that is part of our identity. We do not want to be based on race. We do not want to be based on ancestry. We want to be unified by a few things--the unifying principles and our national common language.

So the answer is, of course not.

Mr. President, if I could have 4 more minutes.

The differences I see in the two amendments are, No. 1, the Salazar amendment says no to making English our national language. It uses another description. No. 2, it says no to the requirement that immigrants who are illegally here and who may be put on a path to citizenship should learn English before they go on that path to citizenship. And it says no to the provisions in the Inhofe amendment which improve the citizenship test, requiring those who become citizens to learn the key events, key documents, key ideas of our history.

The Inhofe amendment is well within the mainstream of 90 to 95 percent of the thinking of the American people. It is a valuable contribution. It is a restrained proposal. It does not seek to change any existing right that someone might have to receive services from the Government in some other language.

I thank the Senator. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the Democratic leader and colleagues struggle to come up with some reason we shouldn't declare that English is our national language. They are having a very difficult time doing that. In fact, what they have been doing is arguing all sorts of unusual ways against an amendment that no one has proposed.

Let me say what Senator Inhofe's amendment does. It declares English as the national language of the United States. We are free to say whatever we want, speak whatever we want, but it is our national language. Specifically, the Inhofe amendment says it doesn't prevent those receiving Government services in another language from doing so, whether authorized by law or by Executive order or by regulation. That is No. 1. The Salazar amendment, in contrast, does not say English is our national language. That is the first point.

The second thing is the Inhofe amendment would say that those who are illegally here, who might become legal under this law and get on a path to citizenship, would have to actually learn English rather than just enroll in school. Anyone can sign up and not learn anything. Senator Salazar's amendment doesn't do that.

A third reason Senator Inhofe's amendment is better, in my opinion, is it has some excellent language that would improve the citizenship test that new citizens take, including the key ideas, key documents, and key events of our history that we all agree on, and which we voted unanimously on a couple of years ago in another piece of legislation.

If you believe English is our national language and don't want to interfere with any existing law or right, if you want new citizens who might be illegally here today to learn English as a part of that path to citizenship, and if you want a better American history test for new citizens, the Inhofe amendment is preferable.

I think a lot of this debate is about unity versus diversity. That is the struggle. It is a real struggle in this country.

Some on the other side of the aisle said this is unimportant. It might be to them, but it is not to me, nor is it to most Americans. I think it is at the center of this whole discussion about what we are doing with immigration. If the American people got any whiff that we thought having a national motto or a national anthem or a national pledge of allegiance or a national language was unimportant to us, I think they would throw us all out because most people know that our diversity is a magnificent strength--we are a land of immigrants--but our greater strength is that we have turned that all into one country.

Iraq is diverse, and Bosnia is diverse. Are they better places for that? They haven't been able to unite themselves into one country. How did we do that? Partly because of these unifying principles which we debate here with respect for one another, and through our national language.

No matter what they say, the opponents of this amendment are reluctant to say that English is our national language. If they were not, they would vote for the Inhofe amendment. First, it declares that if you have any rights now, you will still have them after the Inhofe amendment passes. It requires those who are here illegally but want to become citizens to learn English rather than just enroll in school. And it beefs up the U.S. history requirement in a way the Senate has previously approved.

The Democratic leader talked about how nice it would be for someone to call 9-1-1 and get a Spanish-speaking voice. It wouldn't have been so nice to the 200,000 new citizens from Asia who came in last year because they do not speak Spanish. That is why we have a common language.

My goal is that every child in America be bilingual or even multilingual. But one of those must be to learn English, and every child should learn it as soon as possible. We have a common language because we are a land of immigrants. It is our national language.

A vote for the Inhofe amendment is a vote for our national language. It is a vote to leave everyone's rights to receive services in other languages exactly where they are today. It is a vote to say that those who might be here illegally today but who seek to become citizens must learn English, and it is a vote to beef up our U.S. history tests which are required of those coming into this country and applying for citizenship.

For generations, we have helped people in this country learn English. We do so even further in the underlying bill with new $500 grants. It should be a simple statement to say that English is our national language, that we have a national motto, a national pledge, a national oath.

Then why struggle to come up with reasons not to make English our national language?

I yield the floor.

Will the Chair please advise me when 60 seconds remains.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and congratulate him on his amendment.

The President talked last night about what we need to do to secure our borders. He took an important step forward. He committed to doubling the number of Border Patrol agents during his time as President. As that is ramped up, he said he would ask the National Guard to help us fill the gap. Guard members would help by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads, and providing training. As a former commander in chief of the Tennessee National Guard when I was Governor, the proposal sounded to me eminently sensible.

The President also talked about using high-technology verification cards, ways that employers could do a better job of making certain the people they hire are legally here. He talked about Federal-State cooperation being improved with State and local law enforcement.

All of this will take some time, but we need to do whatever we can in the Senate to ensure that the President's commitment to secure the border succeeds. That is why I joined with Senator Gregg and others last week to add $1.9 billion to the Border Patrol during our debate on the emergency supplemental bill. That money will help replace outdated vehicles that are breaking down and purchase new boats and other equipment. That is why I am cosponsoring the amendment of Senator Isakson today. Senator Isakson's amendment says clearly: Border security must come first.

Under this amendment, we can still pass, I believe--and I will ask the Senator this question when my time has expired--we can still pass a comprehensive immigration bill, but we can't adjust the legal status of those illegally here until the border is secure. We have no business passing a comprehensive immigration bill without making sure first that the border will be secure. Upholding the rule of law on our border is as important as defending our freedom in Iraq. A nation that loses control of its own borders is a nation that will not likely exist for long.

Last year, more than half a million new citizens became Americans. They had waited 5 years, learned English, pledged allegiance to our country, had foresworn allegiance to the country from which they came, and learned about our Constitution and laws. They know the principles that unite us as Americans--not our race, not our ancestry, but principles. Among those principles are equal opportunity and laissez- faire. We thrive on immigration in this country. But among those principles, too, is our unity. And first among those principles--at least none is more important--is the principle of the rule of law. Those half-million new citizens know that they are free to drive here across the country but not to run stop lights; that they are free to make contracts in this economy but not to break them; that they are free to own a gun under the second amendment but not to shoot someone.

We thrive on legal immigration, but we cannot tolerate illegal immigration.

I would like to ask through the Chair, if I may, a question of the Senator from Georgia.

Through the Chair, my question to the Senator from Georgia is this: I favor a comprehensive immigration bill. I would like to see border security. I would like to see legal status for students who study here, for skilled people who help win Nobel Prizes here and improve our economy. I would like to see a comprehensive immigration bill that includes help for people legally here to learn English and learn our history and unite us as Americans. But, Senator Isakson, am I correct that if we pass your amendment, it is still true, is it not, that we can pass a comprehensive immigration bill that includes all of these provisions I just described? The only difference is, as I understand it, that we may not adjust the legal status of those illegally here until the border is secure? Am I correct about that or am I wrong about that?

Mr. President, I offer my support for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 conference report, which will prevent a tax increase on millions of Americans and keep our economy growing.

This bill could also be called the Job Creation and Economic Growth Act. In the nearly 3 years since we cut taxes on dividends and capital gains in 2003, the U.S. economy has experienced significant growth. We've had 32 straight months of job growth. More than 5.3 million jobs have been created since August 2003. The Nation's unemployment rate is 4.7 percent--the lowest in nearly 5 years, and lower than the averages of the last four decades. More Americans are working today than ever before, and they have more opportunities for better jobs.

Business investment is up. The stock market is up. And construction spending, home building and household wealth levels are at all-time highs. These factors illustrate families in Tennessee and across America are benefiting from the progrowth tax policies initiated by the President and Congress.

This legislation will continue those pro-growth policies. It includes an extension of lower rates on dividends and capital gains. More than 425,000 Tennesseans--including seniors and lower-income workers--will benefit from these lower rates, with an average tax benefit of $989 per year. More than one third of these Tennesseans are families earning $50,000 or less. I am glad the Senate is passing this bill to keep their taxes from going up.

The bill also include a one-year extension of a provision that will keep the alternative minimum tax, AMT, from hitting nearly 150,000 Tennesseans when they file their taxes for 2006. The AMT was originally passed to ensure that wealthy Americans paid their fair share of taxes. Without a change in the law, the number of Americans subject to the AMT would have jumped from 4 million in 2005 to 19 million in 2006, eventually growing to nearly 52 million by 2015. So by including AMT relief in this legislation, we've prevented millions of Americans from having to pay higher taxes.

This legislation also provides tax relief to our small business owners by allowing them to continue to expense certain amounts of equipment they purchase. This gives our small business owners greater flexibility to buy the necessary items they need to expand and improve their businesses--which is particularly important in Tennessee, where 97 percent of all businesses are small businesses.

This legislation also includes a provision to help songwriters in Nashville and throughout the country. Under current law, these songwriters have to pay a tax rate of 35 percent for any sale of their music catalogues or collected works. The tax rate on these sales will now be taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. Now songwriters who sell their work will be able to treat it the same as the sale of any other business. Many songwriters earn modest incomes, so this change will make a big difference in their lives.

The way Congress can keep our economy strong is by keeping taxes low, exercising fiscal discipline and controlling the growth of Federal spending. This Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is an important step in that direction, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on other measures to promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, on Monday night, with unanimous support, the Senate passed resolution No. 458 that I sponsored, along with 12 other Senators, affirming that the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem be said or sung in the language that unites us as one Nation, that language being English.

This was more than bipartisan. It was unanimous, with one dissent expressed on the other side. It should be virtually unanimous.

This is the land of immigrants. Almost all Americans know we need and must value our common language, which is English. Yet during the last week, the idea of a non-binding resolution expressing the Senate's thought that whenever we say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the Star- Spangled Banner, take the oath of citizenship, that it ought to be in our common language, produced quite a little storm across the country. Some said we were restricting liberty.

But this not about what we are free to do; this is about what we ought to do at the opening of the Senate, at the opening of a ball game or Boy or Girl Scout troop meeting. As Americans, we are free to sing the Star-Spangled Banner in Swahili, we are free to say the Pledge of Allegiance in pig Latin, but that is not what we ought to do. And the Senate, by unanimous consent, said that on Monday night.

Some said this was disrespect for other languages. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe our official documents ought to be in our common language. I have always favored, including when I was Education Secretary of this country, what I call ``English plus.'' The luckiest among us are those who know more than one language, but one of those must be English. Children should learn it as quickly as possible if they want to succeed in the United States of America.

The real reason for the storm of reaction to the singing of the Star- Spangled Banner in a foreign language is that most Americans instinctively understand that while diversity is important, unity is more precious. That is why we pledge allegiance to the American flag rather than the flags of the countries from which our ancestors came. That is why most of our politics is about principles upon which we agree, principles found in our founding documents. That is why we give rights to individuals instead of to groups. That is why we honor our common language, English.

In Sunday's Washington Post, a Chilean-American playwright, a professor at Duke, said our country is well on its way to becoming a bilingual nation and that he thought we would endure just fine. I respectfully disagree. I think it would make it harder for us to endure. I think it would make us more a United Nations than the United States of America.

Now the Senate unanimously agrees. So does the mayor of Los Angeles, an

Hispanic American. Antonio Villaraigosa said:

I was offended by the idea of a national anthem in another

language because for me the national anthem is something that

deserves respect. Without question the vast majority of

people in the United States were offended, as well. Our

anthem should be spoken English.

So says New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Hispanic American, who said on the ``CBS Early Show'' last week:

I agree. The national anthem should be in English. Most

immigrants want to become American. They want to learn

English. They want to be part of the American mainstream.

Twelve cosponsoring Senators agree. Many Democrats in the House of Representatives have joined as cosponsors. Senator Conrad from North Dakota spoke on this in the Senate last week and said:

A common language is absolutely essential to our Nation. I

look to our neighbors to the north [meaning Canada] and see

incredible traumas they have been through because they are

speaking in two different languages. My own strong belief is

we ought to say the pledge in English and sing the national

anthem in English.

Ramon Cisneros, the publisher of a Spanish language newspaper in Nashville, e-mailed me:

Thank you for the resolution. Our common language as

Americans is and will always be English. Our national symbol

should always be said and sung in English.

We have worked hard to make English our common language, creating common schools, requiring new citizens to learn English to the eighth grade level. The Senate last week passed grants to help prospective citizens learn English. We welcome legal immigrants to this country. But we expect they will become American, that they will learn our common language, English, that they will learn our history, that they will subscribe to our values as found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and when they became citizens, they will renounce allegiance to their former government and swear allegiance to our laws and Constitution. That is what holds us together as the United States of America.

So I am glad, in conclusion, that as the Senate stood together for our economic identity as Americans, it did it unanimously and passed our resolution affirming that statements of national unity, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, should be said or sung in our common language, English.

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

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to speak about getting some long overdue help for small business men and women in Tennessee who have really been struggling to afford health insurance for themselves, their employees, and their families. We have an opportunity in this body to do something about it. This is not some abstract discussion we are having here; this is about something every single one of us hears--at least I know I hear it. Whether I go to Mountain City or Sevierville or Lexington or Memphis--wherever I go in Tennessee, a small business man or woman says to me: We cannot afford health care costs; we need some help.

We have some help. We have a proposal by Senator Enzi that will provide some help to small business men and women. Now is the time for us to act. Now is the time for the people of this country who are listening to this, who know we need this, to say to Senators: Let's go. Let's do this. Let's take the Enzi bill and reduce health care costs for small businesses across this country, and at the same time let's cut into the millions of Americans who are uninsured because the people for whom they work cannot afford to offer them health care insurance.

Here is the situation in Tennessee. We have well over 2 million people at work in Tennessee, and 97 percent of all businesses are what we would call small businesses. So that is whom we are talking about in our State--more than 2 million people who work, many of whom are working for companies that cannot afford to provide them health care insurance or are gradually reaching the point where they can't give them that benefit anymore. Increased health insurance costs are driving employers and families away from comprehensive coverage. Increased costs are taking away the opportunity for a working family in Tennessee to be able to work for a company that can offer a basic insurance policy that the family and the employer can afford. What we are doing this week is moving away from that situation. What we are doing in the Senate this week and next week is providing an opportunity to change that situation.

Dennis Akin runs the Wash Wizard car wash in Hendersonville, TN. We are not talking about big-time CEOs who make $350 million a year and fly corporate jets somewhere. We are talking about Dennis Akin who runs the Wash Wizard car wash in Hendersonville, TN, just outside of Nashville. This is what he says:

I am currently providing health care for all my employees

and their families. The cost at the present time is over

$44,000 per year for 5 employees, up 28 percent from last

year. The premiums have escalated at about that rate for the

last several years, and twice I have had to drop to plans

with lesser coverage to be able to pay the premiums.

Dennis Akin went on to say:

We really need to be able to find some kind of relief or

we'll have to reduce our benefit level to where the financial

burden on my staff could be devastating. In a business as

small as mine health care costs are my largest expense and

there seems to be no end in sight.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about a third of Tennessee firms with 50 or fewer employees offer health insurance to their employees. In contrast, 95 percent of Tennessee firms with 50 or more employees offer health insurance to their employees.

Our economy is not static. It changes all the time. Every year, we lose an estimated 5 to 8 percent of our jobs. That is a lot of jobs. That is between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs just in Tennessee. The good news is we have the strongest economy in the world and we are gaining more jobs than we lose. But where do those jobs come from? They don't primarily come from Federal Express or Eastman Chemical or the Aluminum Company of America or DuPont. We are glad to have all those great employers in Tennessee, but most of the new jobs come from the Wash Wizard car wash in Hendersonville, TN, and companies like that. These are new companies, small companies. They may be adding two or three employees a year. Currently, only a third of those firms, those firms with 50 or fewer, can afford to offer health insurance of any kind to their employees.

What does that mean? That means that most Tennesseans are simply left without any access to health care that they can afford because in our country, the way things are today, most people

get their health insurance from their employer. Maybe that is not the way it should be. Maybe 10 years from now, we will be in a different sort of system. But since World War II, that has been the way it has been. By an accident of our history, most Americans get their health insurance at the place where they work.

What we are saying is, in States such as Tennessee, and all across this country, only a third of the people who work for small businesses--which is where 97 percent of the people work--can get a health care plan there. No wonder we have a lot uninsured people, and no wonder we have a lot of families worrying about the rising cost of health care.

The reason we are having this debate is the chairman has a bill that will fix that situation. It will lower health care costs for small businesses and help families be able to afford a basic health insurance plan. Every American ought to want that to succeed, and we need to pass this bill. We need to do this, and it is important for the American people to know that we intend to bring this to a vote in the next few days.

The discrepancy between what is available in the big companies and what is available in the small, independent companies is absolutely unfair. There is no reason for it.

Earlier this month, the National Federation of Independent Business, Tennessee's largest small business advocacy group, delivered 10,905 petitions in support of this bill signed by small business owners in Tennessee who want lower health care costs. We must make health insurance affordable for Tennessee's small business owners and for working families.

How will the Enzi bill help? When I say the Enzi bill, that is the chairman of the committee who has worked on this bill and who has been able to work through a lot of obstacles that prevented this from happening in the Senate before.

The Small Business Act--a fancy name is the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act--I, like Chairman Enzi, like to call it the Small Business Health Insurance Act. That is a pretty good name because that says what it does. Here is what it will do.

It will allow businesses and trade associations to band their members together and offer group health insurance coverage on a national or regional basis.

It will empower small business owners and give them the opportunity to choose a health plan that is best for their families and best for their employees. This bill will promote lower costs and greater access to health care. Lower cost means the employer can afford it. The plan itself, with the employee contribution--if the employee can afford it-- being available means there will be more access to it. It will do that by, No. 1, permitting the creation of fully insured small business health plans; No. 2, creating more options in benefit design--in other words, you will have more choices; if you want this or this, if you can't afford that, you can try this--and, No. 3, it harmonizes insurance regulations across State lines while keeping States as the primary regulators.

I am a former Governor. I am for States rights. You often see me on the Senate floor asserting the principle of federalism. I believe strong States and strong communities are important for our country and that we ought not be constantly passing national solutions to problems without recognizing that.

But I believe the Enzi bill properly respects the principle of federalism. It protects State oversight. It protects State authority. I also believe it is important to have a level playing field for everyone in the market--and the bill does that as well.

A study prepared by the Milwaukee firm of Mercer Oliver Wyman for the National Small Business Association found that the Enzi bill would, one, reduce health insurance costs for small businesses by 12 percent, about $1,000 per employer, and reduce the number of uninsured and working families by 8 percent, approximately 1 million people nationwide would have basic health insurance who today don't have it.

This bill would cut the cost of health insurance for small businesses, which is 97 percent of where the people in my State work. That is No. 1. No. 2, it reduces the number of uninsured and working families by 1 million people across this country.

This is a piece of legislation worth passing. It actually does something for somebody. This is a rare opportunity to help small businesses. It is a real milestone moment, and Chairman Enzi is to be commended for getting the bill this far.

The House of Representatives has passed this legislation, on which the Presiding Officer served, and I am sure he has voted for it three, four, or five times over in the House of Representatives. But then it gets over here to the Senate, and we have been in gridlock for 10 years on this issue. The House of Representatives has passed this legislation eight times, and for 10 years we haven't been able to find a way to say we are going to reduce the health care costs for small businesses by 12 percent and decrease the number of Americans who are uninsured, that we are going to give 1 million of them insurance. That was until Chairman Enzi set his sights on trying to unravel the stalemate. He did it. He got the small business community together with the insurance commissioners and the insurance companies all around one table to discuss how to make it work.

We need to take advantage of this rare opportunity to help the small business men and women in Tennessee and across this country to find affordable health insurance by passing this important legislation.

We have said on the Republican side that this is Health Week; that we have heard the American people; we know that there are uninsured Americans; and, we know that small businesspeople are struggling. They are struggling with the cost of runaway litigation. We are trying to stop that, but the other side of the aisle blocked that twice this week when we put up legislation that would have given mothers and babies a chance to be better served by OB/GYN doctors.

Who can be against that? The other side of the aisle was against it. They basically kept Tennessee mothers who are pregnant from having a chance to be served by OB/GYN doctors. Now they have to drive a long way to have their babies. Unfortunately, they are going to have to keep driving because the other side of the aisle said, no; you are not going to even be able to vote on that.

Now we have moved to the next issue that will help small business. If we couldn't this week help mothers who are about to have babies by giving them better access to health care, at the very least we can take the Enzi bill and pass it and say to the thousands and thousands of realtors, to the thousands and thousands of barbershops, gas stations, and say to Dennis Akin who runs the Wash Wizard car wash in Hendersonville, TN, we can say to the small businesses in Tennessee-- which is 97 percent of all the businesses--we will cut your insurance costs by 12 percent, or at least give you that option, and to the people of this country we will increase by 1 million the number who are able to get insurance.

This legislation is a good piece of legislation to help lower the cost of health insurance. I hope very much that in the next several days we can pass it. The House has passed it eight times. We can at least pass it once, and then the American people will see that we hear them and we are doing the job they want us to do.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the Senate extend morning business until 2:30 p.m. with the time equally divided between the majority and minority, and upon conclusion at 2:30 p.m. the majority leader be recognized.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 10 a.m. in SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the implementation of the Sugar Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2006, at 5:45 p.m., in closed session for a discussion on the situation in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 10 at 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Fostering Permanence: Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead for America's Child Welfare System''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Economic Development in Indian Country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Modern Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act'' on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, today the U.S. Civil Rights Commission announced its opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, which the Commission found to ``discriminate on the basis of race.''

It is possible that the Senate will be asked in the next few weeks to consider this legislation. I hope my colleagues will agree with the Civil Rights Commission and oppose this legislation.

Here is what the Commission had to say:

The Commission recommends against passage of the Native

Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, or any other

legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or

national origin and further subdivide the American people

into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of

privilege.

S. 147, the act to which the Commission refers, would create a separate, independent, race-based government for native Hawaiians. It would undermine our unity in this country. It would undermine our history of being a nation based not on race but upon common values of liberty, equal opportunity, and democracy.

The question the bill poses is thus one that is fundamental to the very existence of our country. It creates a new government based on race. Our Constitution guarantees just the opposite--equal opportunity without regard to race.

Hawaiians are Americans. They became United States citizens in 1900. They have saluted the American flag, paid American taxes, fought in American wars. In 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians reaffirmed that commitment to become Americans by voting to become a state. Like citizens of every other state, Hawaii votes in national elections.

Becoming an American has always meant giving up allegiance to your previous country and pledging allegiance to your new country, the United States of America.

This goes back to Valley Forge when George Washington himself signed and then administered this oath to his officers: ``I . . . renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to [King George III]; and I do swear that I will to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States. . . .''

America is different because, under our Constitution, becoming an American can have nothing to do with ancestry. That is because America is an idea, not a race. Ours is a nation based not upon race, not upon ethnicity, not upon national origin, but upon our shared values, enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, upon our history as a nation, and upon our shared language, English. An American can technically become a citizen of Japan, but would never be considered ``Japanese.'' But if a Japanese person wants to become a citizen of the United States, he or she must become an American.

That's who we are as Americans, and when we forget that, we run the risk of

undermining our greatest strength. Some say that diversity is our greatest strength. And it is a great strength, but hardly our greatest. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. Our greatest strength is that we have taken all that magnificent diversity and forged it into one Nation.

My heritage is Scotch-Irish. In early America, the Scotch-Irish referred to themselves as a race of people. But despite Scotch-Irish contributions to American independence and some injustices before independence, they did not ask for a separate nation based on race.

It is suggested that ``native Hawaiians'' are different because they lived on the islands of Hawaii before Asian and white settlers came there, and that their previous government was undermined by Americans who came. So, the argument goes, they should be treated as an American Indian tribe.

But U.S. law has specific requirements for recognition of an Indian tribe. A tribe must have operated as a sovereign for the last 100 years, must be a separate and distinct community, and must have had a preexisting political organization. Native Hawaiians do not meet those requirements. In 1998 the State of Hawaii acknowledged this in a Supreme Court brief in Rice v. Cayetano, saying: ``The tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''

If the bill establishing a ``native Hawaiian'' government were to pass, it would have the dubious honor of being the first to create a separate nation within the United States. While Congress has recognized pre-existing American Indian tribes before, it has never created a new one. This is a dangerous precedent. This is not much different than if American citizens who are descended from Hispanics that lived in Texas before it became a republic in 1836 created their own tribe, based on claims that these lands were improperly seized from Mexico. Or it could open the door to religious groups, such as the Amish or Hassidic Jews, who might seek tribal status to avoid the constraints of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If we start down this path, the end may be the disintegration of the United States into ethnic enclaves.

Hawaii itself is a proud example of the American tradition of diversity. According to the 2000 Census, 40 percent of Hawaiians are of Asian descent. Twenty-four percent are white. Nine percent said they were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders. Seven percent claimed Hispanic ethnicity and 2 percent were black. Twenty-one percent of Hawaiians reported two or more racial identities. Their two Senators are of native Hawaiian and Japanese ancestry. Their Governor is white and also happens to be Jewish. But what unites Hawaii is not its diversity, but its common Hawaiian traditions and the fact that Hawaiians are all Americans.

The proposed new government for ``native Hawaiians'' would be based solely upon race. S. 147 makes individuals eligible to be ``native Hawaiian'' specifically by blood. Surely we have by now learned our lesson about treating people differently based upon race. Our most tragic experiences have occurred when we have treated people differently based upon race, whether they were African-Americans, Native American, or of other descent.

In the documents to which we have pledged allegiance, the way we have sought to right those wrongs is to guarantee respect for each American as an individual, regardless of his or her race. This legislation instead would compound those old wrongs. It would create a separate government, and separate rules--perhaps later even separate schools-- based solely upon race.

To destroy our national unity by treating Americans differently based upon race is to destroy what is most unique about our country. It would begin to make us a United Nations instead of the United States of America.

The Senate should heed the advice of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and defeat this legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege and create a new, separate, race-based government for those of native Hawaiian descent.

This idea is the reverse of what it means to become an American. Instead of making us one nation indivisible, it divides us. Instead of guaranteeing rights without regard to race, it makes them depend solely upon race. Instead of becoming ``one from many,'' we would become many from one.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as long as I shall require.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to address two topics today. The first has to do with medical liability, and the second has to do with my resolution to have the Senate express what I think almost every American understands, which is that when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, when we sing the National Anthem, when we take the oath of allegiance for citizenship in America, we should do it in our common language: English.

Medical Liability Reform

Mr. President, first let me express my concern about the medical liability crisis that is occurring in Tennessee and across our country. I am particularly concerned about a crisis in access to medical care for mothers and babies in Tennessee. In 45 of Tennessee's 95 counties, pregnant mothers have to drive for miles to get prenatal health care and to deliver their babies. In 15 of those counties, pregnant mothers have no access whatsoever to any prenatal care within their counties. Only 1 of 104 medical students graduating from Vanderbilt University Medical School in 2004 chose to be an OB-GYN, according to Dr. Frank Boehm, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Dr. Boehm cautions that:

We must not lose sight of the fact that one of the side

effects of our current medical malpractice crisis in OB-GYN

is a steady loss of medical students choosing to practice one

of our most important medical specialties. If this decline in

OB-GYN doctors continues, patients having babies or needing

high-risk gynecologic care will be faced with access problems

this country has not seen.

That is Dr. Frank Boehm, Vanderbilt Medical School, as reported in the Tennessean on July 20, 2004.

Dr. Ron Blankenbaker, associate dean of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Chattanooga, said four of the six doctors at UT Family Practice who provided obstetrical care have stopped working in this specialty because of fears of malpractice lawsuits. That was in the Chattanooga Times Free Press in February of 2005.

It is clear that we are in a medical crisis and we must do something to improve access to care for mothers and their babies. For this reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, a bill to protect access to care for mothers and babies by providing medical liability reform for obstetric and gynecological care. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, a comprehensive medical liability reform bill.

This is the third time during my tenure in the Senate that I have come to the floor to discuss medical liability concerns. While we have debated solutions every time, we have not had the votes necessary to enact those solutions.

Sadly, during this time of inaction, the situation has gotten much worse in my home State of Tennessee. In February of this year, Tennessee was declared a medical liability ``Crisis State'' by the American Medical Association, joining 20 other crisis States where broken medical liability systems are jeopardizing access to health care.

I have heard from doctors and hospitals from one end of Tennessee to the other, all concerned with the skyrocketing costs of medical liability premiums. The average medical liability insurance premium for Tennessee doctors has increased 84 percent since 1999 due, in large part, to our out-of-control jury awards. That is according to the Tennessee Medical Association. In the past 10 years, 100 percent of cardiac surgeons, 92 percent of OB-GYNs, 92 percent of orthopedists, and 70 percent of all doctors in Tennessee have faced legal action-- again, according to the Tennessee Medical Association. The medical liability crisis is driving up the cost of health care for all Tennesseans. The annual cost of defensive medicine,--that is the extra tests and procedures performed by doctors to protect them from lawsuits--is estimated at $70 to $120 billion per year, nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Defensive medicine adds $2 billion to health care costs just for Tennesseans. That is almost $1,000 for every Tennessee household that is spent on unnecessary defensive medicine costs--tests, and procedures performed by doctors to keep them from getting sued--and they are still getting sued.

In Tennessee, 78 percent of doctors report ordering extra tests and procedures due to litigation fears. Nearly half of those doctors estimate that 20 percent or more of their procedures fall into the defensive medicine category. Again, I believe it is pretty clear we are facing a crisis.

Here is what the bills would do. The Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act and the Medical Care Access Protection Act would help us get out of this crisis. I hope we can pass these bills and see them signed into law. These bills ensure fair and just compensation for patient injury by providing full compensation for economic damages. In plain English, if you

are actually hurt, this bill permits you to be paid 100 percent of the value of those damages. It does not interfere with that at all. If a patient is injured, he or she will have unlimited access to economic damages to pay for recovery.

These bills also place a sensible cap of up to $750,000 on awards for non-economic damages. The caps on non-economic damages are fashioned after the Texas State law. After Texas passed statewide medical liability reform in 2003, medical malpractice rates decreased, access to care has been increasing, new doctors are moving to Texas, current doctors are staying in Texas, and new insurers are entering the Texas medical liability market, creating more choices for physicians.

I am happy for Texas. A lot of our family lives in Texas. But I would like to see Tennesseans and other Americans have some of these same advantages. Our Senate bills are modeled after the Texas law, and I hope to see this success story spread to Tennessee and spread nationwide because Tennessee mothers and Tennessee babies and all medical patients deserve access to health care.

Mr. President, I turn my attention to another subject, one I have discussed several times. As a courtesy, I want to let my friends on the other side know that I intend to ask unanimous consent, at the end of my remarks, that my resolution be discharged from the Judiciary Committee. I hope that will be approved, but if it is not approved, I want my friends on the other side to know they need to have a way to register their objection before I make that request.

Today is May 5. In Mexico and in Mexican restaurants across this country, today is known as ``Cinco de Mayo.'' That is because today is the day General Ignacio Zaragoza defeated the invading French forces of Napoleon III.

In the United States, we often think of this holiday as a good reason to go to a Mexican restaurant and enjoy a margarita, but for our southern neighbors it is a very important holiday. France invaded Mexico in 1862, 41 years after Mexico had won its independence from Spain. It took the Mexicans 5 years, but once they succeeded in driving out the French occupiers, their country was finally free, and it has remained free since that time.

As they celebrate this important day in their nation's history, I have no doubt that many Mexicans will be singing their national anthem, and I suspect they will all sing it in Spanish, their nation's common language.

I make this point because at the beginning of this week, on Monday, I introduced a resolution in the Senate to affirm that here in the United States of America, statements of national unity, especially the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, ought to be said or sung in our common language--English.

I am not talking about what we are free to do as Americans, I am talking about what we ought to do as Americans.

Last Monday, I offered this resolution which now has 12 cosponsors, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, because I thought it was important for this body to remember what unites us as Americans. Ours is a nation not based upon race, not based upon ethnicity, not based upon national origin, but based upon our shared values, enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, upon our history as a nation and, yes, upon our shared common language--English.

Every Senate office received a request for this resolution of mine to be passed by unanimous consent. That request was agreed to by every Senator on the Republican side. But the other side, the Democratic side, objected. I can only assume that at least some on the Democratic side objected because at least some of them believe that Americans should, at least some of the time, sing our national anthem in Spanish or some other foreign language. Perhaps they also believe we should recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Chinese, which is the second most spoken foreign language in the United States.

Yesterday, I tried again. I tried to pass this very simple and straightforward resolution. Again I was blocked by objections from the Democratic side. I am surprised by this reaction because leading Hispanic Democrats have said they agree with me.

On Monday, Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa about singing the national anthem in Spanish. Here is what the Mayor of Los Angeles, a Hispanic and a Democrat, had to say in his conversation with Wolf Blitzer:

Wolf, let me just say to you, let me just make it

absolutely clear, I was offended, I was offended because, for

me, the national anthem is something that I believe deserves

respect. And I think that . . . without question, that the

vast majority of people in the United States of America were

offended as well.

Continuing the quote from the Mayor of Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa:

. . . our anthem should be sung in English. The Spanish

and Mexican anthems should be sung in Spanish. The French

anthem in French.

So I was offended by it--

Said the Mayor of Los Angeles--

and I think most people were. And remember very few people

bought into that. It really was a non-issue, but I think it

was important to dismiss it as quickly as possible.

Apparently a few of the very few people in America who buy into that are on the other side of the aisle. They are objecting to this resolution that says, when we start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, when we sing the national anthem, when we take the oath of allegiance, we ought to do it in our common language, English. It doesn't require it. It doesn't make it a law. It doesn't say we are not free to do whatever we want to. It just says we ought to. And as the mayor of Los Angeles said, he was offended by the suggestion that we should not do it, and he thought very few people bought into that, it is a nonissue; let's dismiss it as quickly as possible. The way to dismiss it is to adopt this resolution sponsored by 12 Members of the Senate.

I agree with Mayor Villaraigosa, we should dismiss this idea of singing the national anthem in foreign languages as quickly as possible, and that is what I tried to do by offering this resolution.

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, also a Democrat and a Hispanic, agrees. He appeared on the CBS ``Early Show'' with me on Monday morning. We were talking about the day without immigrants. After I explained my view on singing the national anthem in English and talked about this resolution, here is what Governor Richardson had to say:

Well, I agree. The national anthem should be in English.

And I believe that, again, most immigrants want to become

Americans. They want to learn English. They want to be part

of the American mainstream. They wear NFL jerseys. They want

to be American.

So I don't believe that view that immigrants want to learn

the anthem in Spanish is accurate. I think that was a side

show. But, definitely our anthem is English.

That is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But apparently some Senate Democrats disagree. Apparently some of them think we should at least some of the time sing it in a foreign language. But maybe I misunderstood, so let me try again.

Let me say again, I understand from the other side that there is no one here to object, that the Democrats have all gone home, and that if I were to bring up my resolution today, as I had intended to do, that it would pass by unanimous consent without an objection from the Democratic side because no one is here to object.

I think as a matter of Senatorial courtesy I should not do that. I respect my colleagues, and I don't intend to surprise them any more than I would like for them to surprise me. So I will not, today, ask for unanimous consent that S. Res. 458 be discharged from the Judiciary Committee and that the Senate proceed to its consideration and ask that the resolution and preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I will not do that today.

But I would like to put my friends on the other side on notice that I intend to do this every other day, every other day that I am here and as long as this is not enacted I intend to do it, and each day I will do it in a constructive way. I will try to help the American people have a short civics lesson on what unites us as a country.

This is not a country where our identity is based on our race. This is not a country where our identity is based on our ethnicity or where our ancestors came from. This is a country that is

based on a few ideas that are found in our founding documents, based on our common history, and based on our common language. We are proud to be from wherever we come from or where our ancestors came from. We are prouder to be American. Almost every American agrees with that.

That's why we created our common schools 150 years ago. In the words of Al Shanker, as I said yesterday, we created the common school to help mostly immigrant children learn to read and write in English and learn math and to learn what it meant to be an American. In 1906 we passed a law that anyone who becomes a citizen of this country needs to pass a test in English. Today we require it to be an eight-grade level of understanding of English.

This Senate, by a 91-to-1 vote last month, said that as we consider an immigration bill, we better focus especially, and redouble our efforts, on helping prospective citizens become Americans because when we have a lot of people from other countries come here, the real limit on that is how quickly we can assimilate them into our culture, how quickly they can become Americans. We want new legal immigrants, but we do not want enclaves of people living here who have their allegiance to other countries and who permanently decide to speak another language and who don't pledge allegiance to our flag. That underlies our debate on immigration as much as anything else.

So this is a very fundamental issue for me, and I believe it is so for a great many Americans. It is important for the people of this country to know that 12 of us in the Senate have before this body a very simple resolution, not about what we are made to do but about what we ought to do, and what we ought to do--whether we are at our Boy Scout or Cub Scout meeting or whether we are opening the day in the Senate, and we say the Pledge of Allegiance--we ought to say it in our common language. If we are singing the national anthem before a football game, it ought to be in our common language, English. If we are taking the oath of allegiance required for citizenship in the United States of America, which a half million to a million new citizens do every year, we ought to do so in English.

We ought to say that as Senators. The mayor of Los Angeles said it. He is offended by the idea, he says, that our national anthem should not be sung in some other language. Governor Bill Richardson says it. He agrees. He doesn't think it ought to be an issue.

This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. It has strong Democratic support there. What is wrong with the Senate Democrats? Why do they insist, day after day, that our national anthem, our Pledge of Allegiance, and our oath of citizenship ought to be said or sung in some other language than our common language, English?

I would like to get this cleared up.

Out of respect for my colleagues in the Senate and the fact they are not here to object, but they do object, I will not ask unanimous consent today. But I again wish to say to my friends that this floor is for the debating of important issues. This is an important issue. We have so little civics and U.S. history taught in America's schools today that perhaps we need a little civics lesson every single day on the floor of the Senate. I intend to provide it every single day I am here until this legislation is voted on. And when it is voted on, I predict it will pass by a wide margin with bipartisan support; it might even pass with unanimous support.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration en bloc of the following nominations: No. 617, Brian Cogan, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York; No. 618, Thomas Golden, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

I further ask consent that the following Senators then be recognized to speak: Senator Specter for 5 minutes; Senator Leahy for 5 minutes; Senator Santorum for 5 minutes. Further, following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to votes on the confirmation of the nominations in the order listed above; provided that following the votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.