Floor Statements

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him, especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can do more in conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the Senate, I believe, that we could do more in research and development. There is a consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I look forward to looking at what he has to say.

I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil supply.

That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States.

The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5 years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines, which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America.

The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby. They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we will spend our available money on research and development, as the Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before we clearly understand what we are doing.

Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3 billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill policy; we need a national energy policy.

Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we are already beginning to see the results.

There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But we could do much more.

There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power. Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear power is important. That was in the bill.

I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean power.

Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol. The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but it doesn't

amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no excuse for spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic windmills that give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape when we could be spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, what I hope, finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that we redouble our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major manufacturers are telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions except water, and one major manufacturer said to me that his company, one of the largest in the world, would have a commercially available car on the market within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems soon to me. But the sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the better.

To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air and to make sure that we do our part not to add to global warming, we should do all these things. We do not need a national windmill policy. We need a comprehensive energy policy.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts.

We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get from ANWR.

My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of his efforts.

I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him, especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can do more in conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the Senate, I believe, that we could do more in research and development. There is a consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I look forward to looking at what he has to say.

I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil supply.

That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States.

The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5 years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines, which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America.

The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby. They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we will spend our available money on research and development, as the Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before we clearly understand what we are doing.

Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3 billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill policy; we need a national energy policy.

Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we are already beginning to see the results.

There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But we could do much more.

There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power. Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear power is important. That was in the bill.

I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean power.

Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol. The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but it doesn't

amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no excuse for spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic windmills that give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape when we could be spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, what I hope, finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that we redouble our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major manufacturers are telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions except water, and one major manufacturer said to me that his company, one of the largest in the world, would have a commercially available car on the market within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems soon to me. But the sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the better.

To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air and to make sure that we do our part not to add to global warming, we should do all these things. We do not need a national windmill policy. We need a comprehensive energy policy.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts.

We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get from ANWR.

My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of his efforts.

I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the University of Tennessee, Belmont University, and the University of Memphis men's basketball teams all deserve congratulations for qualifying for the men's NCAA tournament this year. The Lady Vols made it to the Sweet Sixteen in women's basketball for the 25th consecutive time. None of those teams made it all the way to the championship, but two Tennesseans who play for the University of Florida did. I want to congratulate them, especially since one is from my hometown, Maryville.

Lee Humphrey was Tennessee's Class AAA Mr. Basketball when he attended Maryville High School. He is the school's all-time leader in points and steals. His dad, Tony, a middle school teacher in Maryville, had the key to the gym. And on many nights, Lee and his dad would go to the gym and while Lee took shots his dad rebounded. Apparently, the practice paid off. Dick Vitale said that Lee was the ``X factor'' in the Final Four. In the championship game he scored 15 points, making 4 of 8 shots from the field. Coincidentally, the game was played in the current home stadium of Lee's boyhood idol, Peyton Manning.

Lee's teammate Corey Brewer from Portland, TN, was 1 of 24 seniors named nationwide as a 2004 McDonald's All-American player. He scored 29.4 points a game and averaged 12.8 rebounds his senior season at Portland High. He received a lot of honors that year, including being named grand marshal of Portland's Strawberry Festival. Corey has credited his success to hard work in practice and a childhood spent playing sports with his older brother Jason and Jason's friends. He is a role model who returns to Portland and talks to elementary school kids, urging them to study and warning about the dangers of drugs. He follows the lessons he learned from his mother, Glenda, a teacher.

Recruited for his tenacious defense as well as his scoring ability, Corey has been a big game player for the University of Florida all year. In the championship game, he scored 11 points and grabbed 7 rebounds to go along with 4 assists and 3 steals.

Mr. President, we Tennesseans are proud of our State's basketball teams. We want them to win. But we are also proud of our young scholar- athletes who play for other teams. They are Tennesseans, too, and we want them to know we are proud of their accomplishments.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Democratic leader.

The majority leader.

The minority leader.

Objection is heard.

How many minutes would the Senator like--2 or 3 minutes?

Not on this but on another matter. If the Senator needs more than a minute, I am glad to yield some of our time to the Senator.

I yield 3 minutes to Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I believe Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn are coming to the Chamber to talk. I believe they have just arrived. I defer to Senator Cornyn and to Senator Kyl. We will be voting tonight on an amendment about helping prospective citizens become Americans, those who are legally here. I would like to talk a few minutes about that before 5:30 p.m.

Yes.

Mr. President, we are happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Vermont 3 of our minutes so he can make his remarks.

If it is all right with the Senator from Texas.

We have all the time remaining between now and 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, the majority has the remaining time until 5:30, at which time there will be two votes, one on Senator Bingaman's amendment and one on the Alexander amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be allowed the next 15 minutes, followed by Senator Kyl, after which I be allowed up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona, who has the next 15 minutes, has generously agreed to allow the Senator from Alabama to have up to 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified so the Senator from Alabama has 3 minutes, Senator Kyl has 15 minutes, and then I have 15 minutes after Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the agreement be modified to permit the Senator from Alaska to speak for 3 minutes before my 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 3193, the amendment we will be voting on later this afternoon.

I have a modification of my amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. President, this afternoon at 5:30 we will be casting two votes: one on Senator Bingaman's amendment which has to do with border security, the second is a different kind of amendment. It is an amendment about what I call the rest of the immigration story, helping prospective citizens become Americans.

I know border security is extremely important. We are starting with that because the principle of the rule of law is at stake. I know it is extremely important for us to create a temporary legal status, as has been discussed this afternoon by Senators Cornyn and Kyl and Sessions, for students we welcome here to study and workers we welcome here to work. We are going to be talking today and this week about that.

But I submit the most important thing we will be discussing this week, and the most important part of any story on immigration, has to do with a different principle, and that is the three words right up here above the Presiding Officer's chair, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' one from many, the motto of our country, the greatest achievement of the United States of America.

We have taken all this magnificent diversity from all over the world and we have turned it into one nation, a nation with a common heritage, a common history, a common language--something no other country in the world has been able to do nearly as well.

This amendment is about redoubling our efforts to help prospective citizens who are here legally to become Americans. The amendment reflects the work of several Senators in this Chamber. Senators Cornyn and Isakson and Cochran and Santorum and I, earlier, along with Senator McConnell and Senator Frist, had offered legislation we called the Strengthening American Citizenship Act, which I will describe in a minute.

In the last two Congresses, Senator Schumer and I introduced legislation that would take the oath of allegiance that a half million to a million new citizens take every year and put it into the law, give it the same sort of status extended to other important national symbols, such as the Star-Spangled Banner, our national anthem. Several of us here--Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Byrd, and Senator Burns--have been working to try to put the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be American.

This is about helping prospective citizens become Americans. Becoming American is no small thing. We don't think about becoming French, or becoming English, or becoming Japanese, or becoming German because in most countries in the world you become a citizen, if you can at all, based upon your race, your ancestry, your background.

We are just the opposite here. You cannot become a citizen of the United States based upon your race, your ancestry, or your background. In fact, you only may become a citizen of the United States if you move here from another country by going through a series of steps, which includes pledging allegiance to the founding documents that embody the principles that unite us as Americans. We are united by ideals.

This debate this week is a good debate because it brings up many of those principles and ideals that unite us, and it is typical of most of our debates on this floor. Those ideals often conflict. We have the idea of a nation of immigrants conflicting with the rule of law here. That is why we are having a difficult time figuring out what to do about the 10 million or 11 million people who are here illegally.

We have to weigh the facts as we talk about how many temporary workers we want, and that we have the principle of laissez faire in our character. We have a free enterprise system. We want people to work. We want to attract them here. As a part of that principle of laissez faire, we have in the bill that Senator Specter reported two important provisions that make it easier for some of the brightest people outside of our country to come to our country and help create a higher standard of living for us.

We have some very outdated and nonsensical provisions in our immigration

laws. If Werner von Braun showed up wanting to come to a university today, or a Werner von Braun of this generation, he would have to swear he was going to go home. We wouldn't want him to go home. We want the brightest people here in our universities and in our research institutes so they can help us create better jobs and a higher standard of living here. Otherwise, those jobs go to India, to China, and other parts of the world.

We have many principles at stake. Here is exactly what the amendment does we will be voting on this afternoon after Senator Bingaman's amendment. First, it would help legal immigrants who are embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language--English--our history, and our way of Government by these provisions.

One, providing them with a $500 grant for an English course. There are a great many people here who want to learn English. I think it is a myth that those people who come to this country don't want to learn English. For older people who come here, it is harder. But in 2004, 1.142 million individuals participated in English literacy programs designed to help improve English language for immigrants. Seventy-one percent of those participants are Hispanics. Twenty-eight percent of all English literacy adult education programs reported having waiting lists. Thirty-five percent of those reported lists of 50 or more people on the waiting lists. We have a lot of people here who want to learn our common language, and we should want them to learn our common language. It is important to unite us as a country to do that.

Second, we would allow those who become fluent in English--not just basic in English but fluent and proficient in English--to apply for citizenship 1 year early; that is, after 4 years instead of 5. That is a major change. In order to become a citizen, one must be here 5 years under the present rules. One should have good character and pass a test about our Constitution and principles. None of that changes. Today, one must learn English--a basic level of understanding.

In addition to helping people learn English with grants which may be used in any accredited educational institution, why not give those who become proficient in English the incentive of becoming a citizen in 4 years? That is what this amendment would do. It would provide grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and civics so that new citizens could learn the principles that unite us as a country. It authorizes a new foundation to assist in these efforts. This is an area ripe for public-private opportunity. I think there are a great many people--many of whom may be immigrants themselves--who would want to contribute to a new foundation that would help new citizens learn more about our country.

We codify the oath of allegiance which new citizens swear when they are naturalized. This is a remarkable law. One-half million to a million new Americans this year will take the oath. They renounce where they come from, and they pledge allegiance to where they are coming. Of course, we are all proud of where we came from, but we are prouder still to be Americans. This provision puts this into law. It is essentially the same oath George Washington himself took in 1778 at Valley Forge and administered to his own officers. It is the same oath that millions upon millions of new citizens of this country have taken for 200 years. This would dignify it and make it a part of our law.

In addition, this amendment asks the Department of Homeland Security to work with the National Archives, the National Park Service, and others to carry out a strategy to highlight the ceremonies in which immigrants become American citizens.

I have been to many of those ceremonies. There is not a more moving experience anywhere in America--and these events happen virtually every day in some Federal courthouse, where 30, 45, or 70 prospective citizens will arrive in the courthouse. The judge will say something about our country and what this means, and then these men and women from all across the country, neatly dressed, many of them with tears in their eyes, raise their hands, having been here 5 years, shown good character, learned English, and passed the test about our Constitution and they renounce allegiance to where they have come from and they pledge allegiance to this country. Those ceremonies will be highlighted.

Finally, it establishes an award to recognize the contributions of outstanding new American citizens.

I would suspect that this new award would one day, perhaps very quickly, become as important as the Presidential Medal of Freedom because it will not be hard to find outstanding contributions by new immigrants to our country.

I see the Senator from New Mexico on the floor. He and I have heard it often said that of the 100 Americans who have won the Nobel Prize in physics, 60 are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Each of us knows of such a list, and for the President to be able to identify up to 10 such immigrants who have made great contributions to our country and to recognize them every year will make a difference.

How much will this cost? It won't cost the taxpayers a penny because these grants to help people learn English, which is the major cost, will be paid for by the visa fees that are paid each year.

This is an important amendment. I believe it is the most important subject we have before us: helping prospective citizens learn English, giving them an incentive to become a citizen in 4 years instead of 5, as they become proficient in English, providing grants to encourage the teaching of American history and civics, creating a new foundation to assist in that, codifying the oath of allegiance, highlighting the ceremonies in which citizens become new Americans, and then allowing the President to designate a handful of new Americans every year who contributed so much to our country.

During these next few weeks, we should enact legislation to secure our borders. Then we should create a legal status for workers and students. We welcome them to increase our standard of living, as well as export our values. But we should not complete our work on a comprehensive immigration law without remembering why we have placed that three-word motto above the Presiding Officer's Chair, without remembering that our unity did not come without a lot of effort, without noticing lessons from overseas in France and Great Britain that remind us it is more important today than ever to help prospective citizens become Americans.

I notice the Senator from New Mexico on the floor. The majority has all the time remaining, if the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to discuss it. I would be glad to yield some of that time to the Senator from New Mexico if wants to discuss his amendment.

Mr. President, this is an amendment about the motto above the Presiding Officer's desk. It helps legal immigrants who are embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language, English, to learn our history and our way of government, by providing them with grants. It allows legal residents to earn their citizenship in 4 years instead of 5 if they become fluent in English. It provides grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and civics, sets up a foundation to assist with that, codifies the oath of allegiance that immigrants take and dignifies the ceremonies in which immigrants become American citizens, and establishes an award to recognize the contributions of outstanding new American citizens.

The amendment reflects the work of a number of Senators. Senator Schumer and I have worked on the oath. Senator Byrd, Senator Reid, Senator Burns, and I have worked on American history. Senators Cornyn and Cochran and others have cosponsored the Strengthening American Citizenship Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be added as a cosponsor of the amendment, along with Senators Frist, McConnell, Isakson, Cochran, Santorum, and McCain.

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

Mr. President, last night, severe tornadoes and strong storms swept through west Tennessee. Dyer and Gibson Counties were the hardest hit. According to the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, at least 23 individuals lost their lives in just those two counties. One of those killed was Jane King of Newbern, TN. She was a relative of Congressman John Tanner, and our thoughts are with John and Betty Ann Tanner and all of Jane King's family.

At least 70 people have been injured as a result of the storms. TEMA expects that number to rise. There is damage to at least 11 other counties in west Tennessee. Thousands of Tennesseans have lost their homes and their livelihoods. TEMA reports that 1,200 buildings were damaged or destroyed in the town of Bradford alone.

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency officials are on the ground in the counties affected. They are helping to survey damage. They are offering assistance. A state of emergency is in effect. The biggest need thus far is to get the roads clear. GEN Gus Hargett has assigned 30 members of the 230th Engineer Battalion of the Tennessee National Guard to assist with debris removal. The Dyersburg Armory is being used as a Red Cross processing site.

This afternoon, Senator Frist and I sent a letter to President Bush asking for speedy review and approval of the State's request for Federal disaster assistance. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, tomorrow Governor Bredesen and Congressman Tanner will be on the site. We will continue to be in touch with Governor Bredesen and provide whatever assistance we can. We will work closely with State and local officials.

My prayers are with the families who have suffered tremendous loss as a result of these storms, and I know we will see shining examples of the Tennessee volunteer spirit and neighbor helping neighbor as west Tennesseans rebuild their homes, their businesses, and their lives.

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

Mr. President, I understand the majority leader may be coming soon and, if he does, I will suspend my remarks so he may be recognized and hope that after he is recognized, I can continue with my remarks.

This week, the Senate begins an overdue reform of our immigration laws. The Chair has been in the middle of that and is making contributions to it. Because nearly 10,000 illegal aliens cross the United States border every day, more than 3 million a year, we

should start--start--with border security. But then, once we secure the border and can uphold our limits on immigration, we should get quickly back to the American tradition of creating a legal status for those whom we welcome to temporarily work and study in the United States and who, by doing so, enrich our diversity and spur our economy. But my purpose today is to make sure we don't stop there, that we don't overlook, as Paul Harvey might say, ``the rest of the story,'' the rest of the immigration story; that is, helping prospective citizens who are legally here become Americans.

Joined by Senators Cornyn, Isakson, Cochran, Santorum, Frist, and McConnell, I have introduced S. 1815, the Strengthening American Citizenship Act that is indispensable to any comprehensive immigration bill. This legislation I plan to offer as an amendment at the appropriate time during this debate would help legal immigrants who are embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language, to learn our history, and to learn our way of government by the following steps:

No. 1, providing them with $500 grants for English courses; No. 2, allowing those who become fluent in English to apply for citizenship 1 year early; that is, after 4 years instead of 5; next, providing grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and civics; next, authorizing a new foundation to assist in these efforts; next, codifying the oath of allegiance, which new citizens swear when they are naturalized. It is an oath of allegiance that is very much like the oath of allegiance George Washington and his officers took at Valley Forge in 1778, about which I am going to have more to say.

In addition, our amendment would ask the Homeland Security Department, working with the National Archivist and others in our Government, to carry out a strategy to highlight the ceremonies, such as the one the President attended this week, in which immigrants become American citizens; finally, our amendment would establish an award to recognize the contribution of outstanding new American citizens.

Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington has written that most of our politics is about conflicts among principles that unite us as a country. More than any other subject we might discuss, this immigration debate will involve the basic principles of what it means to become an American. That is why we begin the debate with border security, not because we are pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant. That is not what we are talking about. We begin the debate with border security because as Americans we believe in the principle of the rule of law.

It is hypocritical for us in the United States of America to preach to the world about the rule of law, yet thumb our nose at the 12 million people who live here illegally. It is hypocritical and it is dangerous to our security not to control our own borders.

There is no apology to be made for us as Americans insisting on the principle of the rule of law, just as there should be no other hesitancy about other principles, such as welcoming those who temporarily work here and study here. So the principle of the rule of law is not the only principle that is at stake in this debate. We create a legal status for those from other countries whom we welcome to temporarily study and work here because of the principle, first, of equal opportunity, because we are a nation of immigrants; that is a part of our character, and because we founded our economy upon the principle of laissez faire. In other words, we are a free market economy.

So there are three more principles we need to throw into the mix along with the rule of law: equal opportunity, a nation of immigrants, laissez faire.

We may be outsourcing jobs, but for years we have won our wars and built our economy by ``insourcing'' brain power. Wernher von Braun and his colleagues from Germany helped us in the space race against the Soviets. Sixty percent of the American winners of Nobel Prizes in physics are immigrants or children of immigrants. Sixty percent of the postdoctoral students at our universities in America are foreign students. There are 572,000 foreign students studying at colleges and universities in the United States. While they are here, these students and researchers from other countries help create a higher standard of living for us Americans, and when they go home they export our values better than any foreign aid ever has.

In addition, many of the workers our economy needs to grow come from neighboring countries. I asked my staff to see if I could get an estimate of how many visas we have on the books today for workers coming to the United States from other countries. As best we can tell, we have about 500,000 visas of different forms that may be issued each year, of one kind or another, to unskilled and skilled people who come to our country. Add that to the 572,000 foreign students who study in our country and we have today a large number of people from other parts of the world who are here, enriching our country and improving our standard of living.

I ask unanimous consent that this list of visas for workers coming to the United States from other countries each year be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, these temporary students and workers have helped us create an economy that last year produced 30 percent of the world's wealth for us Americans alone, who constitute just 5 percent of the world's population. It makes no sense for us to have an immigration system that makes it easy for unskilled workers to come here illegally and harder for the brightest people to come here legally. That is why it is my hope this comprehensive immigration bill we are considering will have in it the ideas that would make it easier, modestly easier, for a larger number of highly skilled people to come here and help us create better jobs.

For example, there are two recommendations that were made in the document called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' by the National Academy of Sciences panel, headed by Norm Augustine. This was a set of 20 recommendations that was made to us in Congress by this distinguished panel last summer in answer to our question: What should we do to keep our advantage in science and technology so that our good- paying jobs don't go to India and China?

They told us 20 things to do. Two of the things to do had to do with making it easier for the most intelligent people in the world to work and study and do research here. One of the ideas would be to give a green card, a permanent residency card, to any student from overseas who earns a doctorate in mathematics, engineering, technology, or the physical sciences. Those persons could stay here and help improve our standard of living.

For example, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, the largest science laboratory in the United States of America, the director, the assistant director, and the head of our United States effort to recapture the lead in supercomputing in the world--those jobs are all filled by people from other countries who have green cards, who are here helping us improve our standard of living. So we are glad they are here, and we should make it easier for such people to come.

Craig Barrett, the head of Intel, estimates if we were to adopt this provision, that would mean perhaps 12,000 to 15,000 additional doctoral students in math, engineering, technology, or physical sciences, once they earn their degree, can stay in the United States.

The other provision was at one point in the Judiciary Committee mark. It may still be there. But it takes the cap off some categories of highly advanced people who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, and math. It is simply in our own interest to do that. It continues a long tradition and is one more example of why we already have a tradition of welcoming workers and students who temporarily work here.

So we have at least four principles at play that I have talked about: The rule of law, equal opportunity, laissez faire, and we have the characteristic of our country being a nation of immigrants. But there is another principle that I believe is the single most important principle we have in this debate and it is the one that is engraved above the chair of the Presiding Officer. It is the motto of this country: E pluribus

unum. Our work will not be complete until we help prospective citizens become Americans because our country's greatest accomplishment is based upon that principle. That is, we have united people from many different backgrounds into one nation based upon the belief in a few ideas, rather than upon race, ancestry, or background.

Of all the principles we will be debating in these next 2 weeks, none is more important than that one chosen as our national motto, the one carved in stone above the desk, E pluribus unum: one from many.

We are not here dividing sides up on who is pro-immigrant and who is anti-immigrant. We are here saying we have 5 important principles we all believe in that unite us as Americans, from rule of law to equal opportunity to E pluribus unum. We are trying to put those together in a sensible way. That is what our politics is about. That is most of what we do in the Senate and that is what the people expect us to do today. Each year we welcome about 1 million permanent new legal residents, many of whom go on to become citizens. I am now talking about people who are legally in the United States of America.

To become an American is a significant accomplishment. First, you must live in the United States as a legal permanent resident for 5 years. Next, you must learn to speak English, our common language. Next, you must learn about our history and Government. Since we are united by ideas rather than the color of our skin, one has to learn these ideas to become a citizen. Next, you must swear an oath and renounce the government of the country from which you came and then swear allegiance to the United States of America.

Those are pretty strong words--renounce the government of the country from which you came and swear allegiance to the country to which you are going. Where does that come from? This is where it comes from. This oath dates back to May 12, 1778, when General George Washington and the general officers at Valley Forge signed an oath very similar to the one taken by the 30 citizens the President swore in on Monday, the oath that more than 500,000 new American citizens took last year in hundreds of naturalization ceremonies all over America.

Here is a portion of the oath Washington and his general officers swore:

I, George Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies of

the United States of America, do acknowledge the United

States of America to be Free, Independent, and Sovereign

states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance

or obedience to George the Third, King of Great-Britain; and

I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to

him; and I do swear that I will to the utmost of my power,

support, maintain and defend the said United States of

America. . . .

Those were remarkable words then. Those were remarkable words on Monday, when those 30 new citizens stood up and said the same thing.

The language in the oath immigrants take today comes from that oath in 1778. It says in effect: I may be proud of where I come from, but I am prouder of where I am. In both the last session of Congress and in this session, Senator Schumer and I introduced legislation, S. 1087, to put the wording of the oath of allegiance derived from this into law, giving it the same dignity as the Star Spangled Banner and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Becoming an American is also a unique experience because it has nothing to do with ancestry. America is an idea, not a race. We are united by principles expressed in our founding documents, the very principles we are debating in this immigration legislation, not by our multiple ancestries.

Americans enjoy more rights than the citizens of any nation on the face of the Earth and our Founders recognized, as every citizen and prospective citizen must, that along with those rights come responsibilities. The new citizens, like those who came before, must appreciate this simple but fundamental truth: In a free society, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Some have suggested our diversity is what makes our country great.

To be sure, diversity is one of our great strengths, but diversity is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. The greatest accomplishment of the United States of America is that we have molded that magnificent diversity into one nation, based upon a set of common principles, language, and traditions.

That is why the words above the desk of the Presiding Officer say one from many, not many from one. And that is why a comprehensive immigration bill is not complete unless we help prospective citizens who are legally here become Americans.

We could look to Great Britain and France to remind us of how fortunate we are to have had two centuries of practice helping new citizens become Americans. Last August, when he announced a number of measures regarding British citizenship, Prime Minister Tony Blair said:

People who want to be British citizens should share our

values and our way of life.

These new rules were spurred by the terrorist attack in London in which four young men, three of whom were the British-born children of Pakistani immigrants, bombed the London subway system.

France is facing a similar period of self-examination on integrating immigrants and the children of immigrants following violent civil unrest this last November.

According to the French Ambassador:

These teenagers feel alienated and discriminated against

both socially and economically. They don't want to assert

their difference. They want to be considered 100 percent

French.

It is hard to imagine becoming French or becoming British or becoming Japanese or Chinese or German, for that matter. On the other hand, to be a citizen of this country, one must become an American. We should be wise enough to take a lesson from the difficulties of our friends overseas and redouble our effort to help new citizens become Americans. This is, of course, one more reason to control our borders--so that we know who is coming from other countries and can help those who legally choose to stay here to become Americans.

We Americans have always understood that perhaps the most important limit on how many new citizens our country can successfully absorb depends upon how many can be assimilated as Americans. Robert Putnam has written in the book ``Bowling Alone'' how at the beginning of the 20th century, when America experienced an influx of foreigners about as great in terms of percentages as that of today, the Nation took seriously the issue of assimilation. It was during this time that civic organizations such as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts and the Rotary Clubs were launched. Many industries had programs that taught English and history to foreign workers. The most important agent of assimilation was the common school, what we call today the public school.

The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the public school was created largely ``to teach immigrant children reading, writing, and arithmetic--and what it means to be an American.''

Yet today U.S. history is not as important a part of the school curriculum as it once was. As a result, high school seniors score lower on U.S. history than on any other subject. I have worked with Senators Kennedy, Byrd, Reid, and a number of others to help put the teaching of American History and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American.

But while we are teaching our children more about what it means to be an American, we should also be stepping up efforts to help the 500,000 to 1 million permanent legal residents who are living legally among us and who will this year become American citizens.

During these next 2 weeks, we should enact legislation to secure our borders. That honors the principle of the rule of law. Then we should create a legal status for the workers and the students we welcome here to help increase our standard of living, as well as to support our values. That honors the principle that we are a nation of immigrants, that we believe in equal opportunity, and that we believe in a free market, laissez faire. But we should not complete work on a comprehensive immigration bill without remembering why we have placed that three-word motto above the Presiding Officer's chair,

without remembering that our unity did not come without a lot of effort, without noticing lessons from overseas that remind us that it is more important today than ever to help prospective citizens become Americans.

In the spring of 2002, 4 years ago, when Senator Fred Thompson decided not to run for reelection, my job then was on the Harvard faculty at the Kennedy School of Government. I was teaching a class I created there called the American Character and America's Government. Matt Sonnesyn, who is my senior policy adviser today, was my course assistant at the time.

In that course, we looked at the kinds of issues that Senators might deal with. I had no idea at the time that I might be a Senator. We tried to identify the principles that each of the problems raised. In other words, we recognized that since we are a nation united by principles, we wanted to be able to understand the principles and have a principled discussion when we got issues like school choice or support for faith-based institutions.

Perhaps the issue that created the most discussion in our class that semester was a question that was presented in this way: Should illegal immigrants in the State of Illinois have State driver's licenses?

The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, had come to Chicago and asked the Illinois legislature to do that.

If one of my students had stood up and said: I have a pro-immigrant or an anti-immigrant solution to this problem, that student would probably have earned an F because I asked them to identify the principles that this issue raised. This was a typical university class of pretty smart students in an area where more of the students are to the left, I would say. There were several refugees from the recent Clinton administration, there were some international students, and there were students from all over our country of many races and backgrounds.

But the first issue this class raised when considering the question of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in Illinois was the principle of the rule of law. Then we went right through the other principles that I have just discussed today. And a little bit to my surprise, this class came down very hard on the idea that, of all the principles considered, the principle of rule of law required no driver's licenses for people not legally here.

They came to that conclusion quickly. But they also came quickly to the conclusion that in a country that always values equal opportunity, laissez faire, and a nation of immigrants, that we should have clear rules for welcoming people who are temporarily working here and temporarily studying here, that there should be generous allotments for that, that it was in our interest. They also spent a lot of time talking about those three words above the Presiding Officer's chair, about how can we help all those who were here legally to learn what it is to be an American.

I was very impressed with the way our class 4 years ago at that university dealt with the issue of immigration. It had a similar problem to the one we are facing. They considered all the principles. It was not considered to be a pro-immigration or anti-immigration result. It was a discussion about principles in which we all agree, which collide, and it was up to the students in that class to come to a solution which was principled.

That is our job in this body. We need to let the American people know that we honor each of the principles that we talk about today. We should not step back one inch from honoring the principle of the rule of law, but we shouldn't be hesitant for one minute to welcome those who work here and study here because we also honor the principle of equal opportunity, being a nation of immigrants and the free market economy that we are.

I hope before we are through in these 3 weeks that we will do as the students did 4 years ago and realize that above all, when we talk about immigration, about people coming to this country, that what is distinctive about America, what is our greatest accomplishment, is not that we can figure out a way to create laws and virtual laws to control our borders, not that we can come up with some mathematical number of people who can work and study here, but what we have been able to do that France has not done, that Great Britain has not done, that China and Germany have not done--no country in the world has ever done the way we have--is that we have taken people from all different backgrounds and said we are the United States of America. And to become an American you believe in ideals, and it doesn't matter where you come from, what your race is, what your background is.

It is important that we keep that up front, that we honor our diversity but more important that we can be proud of where we come from but prouder where we are; that we honor the oath of allegiance that our amendment will seek to make law, where George Washington and his officers said we put aside where we came from--we may honor it, we may be proud of where we may go to reunions and talk about it, but we are Americans.

That is the most important subject for an immigration debate, and this bill will not be complete without it.

I look forward to offering an amendment at the appropriate time that adds to our discussion of helping prospective citizens become Americans. This would be the only country in the world in which such an amendment would have that kind of meaning.

Exhibit 1

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frist and Senator McConnell be added as cosponsors to S. 1815, the Strengthening American Citizenship Act.

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

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask consent that at 3 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Frist amendment at the desk related to a study on deaths on the border; provided further that no amendments be in order prior to that vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time before the vote be allocated as follows: the next 30 minutes beginning at 1:20 be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; the following 30 minutes be under the majority control; the next 30 minutes be under the control of the Democratic side; and finally that the remaining time before the vote be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. President, I see Senator Bingaman. I will be brief in my remarks because I assume he wants to speak. If I could say to the chairman, who was here earlier, I hope very much we can begin to move to votes. I spoke earlier today about an amendment which I filed which is amendment No. 3193. It is filed at the desk. It already has the cosponsorship of Senators Cornyn, Isakson, Cochran, and Santorum. I ask unanimous consent that Senators McConnell and McCain be added as cosponsors.

The majority leader, Senator Frist, is also a cosponsor.

While I do understand and am disappointed by the fact that we are not going to be moving to votes tonight, this is not a new idea that I have made in my amendment. My first speech on the floor of the Senate in 2003 was about the importance of becoming American, how in our country we are unique because we do not base our backgrounds on race or ancestry but on a set of ideas, and how important it was for us to put the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American.

Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, joined me on that. Senator Kennedy joined me and Senator Reid. He and I are working together to create Presidential academies for students and teachers of American history. We are trying to take the National Assessment of Educational Progress and make sure that it includes another way of putting the teaching of American history back in the right place in our curriculum.

The reason we do that is because our common schools were created to help immigrant children learn the three Rs and what it means to be an American. Because if you don't know the principles upon which our country is based, it is difficult to become an American. We have this advantage over other countries in the world who base their nationality on race or on the color of their skin or their ancestry. We don't do that. It is important to become an American by understanding the principles of our country. We agree on that. It is those principles that we debate here.

This is not a debate about who is pro or anti-immigrant. We are all pro-immigration because that is an important part of our character. But we have more than one principle at issue here. The first one is the rule of law. We are all for the rule of law because people who come to this country don't come to a country where we don't stop at stop signs and we don't observe contracts and we don't follow the law. We follow the law here or there are consequences. We have those principles. And we have the principle of equal opportunity. And we have the principle of a free market or laissez faire. We have the principle above the President's desk of E Pluribus Unum. Our great achievement is that we have taken this magnificent diversity and forged it into one country. We are the United States of America, not the United Nations.

Therefore, the amendment that I had filed today and is ready to be voted on tonight or tomorrow or Monday, whenever we are ready, ought not to be very controversial. It is simply to help the half million to a million people from other countries who are legally here and ready to become citizens, to help them become Americans. It does that by providing them with $500 grants so they can learn our common language. It doesn't make them learn it; it helps them, if they want to learn it. It says to those who become fluent in English that they may become citizens in 4 years instead of 5. It doesn't penalize them. It gives them rewards. It gives grants to organizations to help them learn our history. It codifies the oath of allegiance George Washington and his troops took and that millions of Americans have taken which basically says I am not Scotch-Irish anymore, which my family was. I am an American. I am proud of my Italian heritage, but I am proud to be American. That has been our history.

Senator Schumer and I in two Congresses have introduced legislation making that oath a law, not just some administrative dictum that someone could mess around with, but put it right up there with the Star-Spangled Banner, the National Anthem, and other great symbols of America.

My amendment establishes a reward to recognize the contributions of outstanding new citizens. It asks the Department of Homeland Security and the National Archives to develop ways to dignify and celebrate these wonderful ceremonies such as the one the President attended on Monday where 30 people stood up and said: I have been here 5 years. I have demonstrated good character. I have learned English, and I am proud of where I came from. But I am prouder to be American. I swear allegiance to this country, the same oath George Washington and the officers took at Valley Forge in the year 1778 and which new citizens have taken in this country ever since then.

We could talk about border security. It is important, and that is the rule of law. We can solve that problem. We know how to do that. We can agree on that. We can talk about how many guest workers we want. We already authorize 500,000 or more work visas a year. Perhaps we need more. We can figure that out. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico and I have been working for a year with the National Academy of Sciences to make certain that we in-source brainpower so we can keep our jobs from going to China and India. I would like, through this legislation, to make it easier for the brightest people in the world to come here and help us create our high standard of living.

I mentioned earlier in the day that the top three jobs at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, our largest science lab in America, are held by three foreigners with green cards from England, Canada, and India. The Senator and I have worked together to recapture our advantage in supercomputing in America so that America can be the leader in computing. Who runs that program? It is a citizen of India who is living here. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but he is here helping improve my standard of living and the next person's standard of living.

I want our discussion to be a comprehensive discussion. I want us to deal with border security. That is the rule of law. But I want us to set rules for welcoming the people who temporarily work here and study here, but I also want us to make sure we do the most

important thing and remember those three words up there in the Senate Chamber, ``e pluribus unum.'' They are not there by accident. They mean that we need to devote extra effort to making sure that those who come here legally also become Americans. That is the real limit on the number of new citizens who can come here--whether they can become a part of our culture, a part of our country, and become Americans.

If we don't do that, we are nothing more than a united nations; we are not the United States of America. I think there is broad agreement in this body about that. That is why Senator Schumer and I introduced the oath of allegiance bill. That is why myself and others are working on helping to put American History back in our schools for children. I am ready to vote on this amendment tonight or tomorrow, but I certainly hope the chairman and the leaders on both sides of the aisle would allow Senator Bingaman's amendment and my amendment and others to be voted upon as soon as possible.

The American people are expecting us to deal with immigration. We are here and we are ready to do it. Let's get on with it. It is time to stop debating and start acting, and a good way to start would be to help prospective citizens become Americans. That would finish a comprehensive bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3193, which I filed at the desk, be considered.

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

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

Five minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the leadership for allowing me these few minutes. There are a number of grave issues facing our country. The Senator from Virginia has talked about the management of ports. The governors from across America are meeting here to talk about National Guard

strength and about the rising costs of Medicare. We are all interested in those issues, but this issue I rise to speak about is one that threatens our national unity as much as any of those graver issues.

Let me put it this way: Where is Dave Barry when we really need him? As he would say, what I am about to say to you, I am not making up.

Apparently someone has discovered that it may not be true, as is now suggested at the beginning of each airline flight, that using our cellular phones will cause our planes to plunge directly to the Earth. As a result, airlines and cell phone companies, as the presiding officer, who is chairman of the relevant committee, well knows, are encouraging the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the approximately 2 million Americans who fly each day to talk on their cell phones while they are traveling.

There are many issues facing our country, but as I say, I can't think of one that threatens our national unity quite so much as this proposal to turn airplanes into cacophonous, steel-sheathed missiles of Babel rocketing through the skies.

Imagine squeezing into your 17-inch middle seat between an oversized gentleman shouting into his Blackberry and an undersized teenager yapping into her cell phone, while in front of you a foreign traveler orders dinner and across the aisle a saleswoman lectures her child--all of them raising their voices to be heard. It would be 5 hours of perfect hell from Dulles to Los Angeles--a rising, deafening chorus of ``Can you hear me now?'' In multiple languages.

I can promise you that this noisy symphony will cost the airlines money. To begin with, passengers will demand expensive headphones to drown out the noise. These headphones will be twice as expensive to replace when passengers begin wrapping them around the throats of the yapper in the next seat. Not to mention the added cost of the medical bills that will be the result of fistfights or the cost of emergency landings to remove brawling passengers. To prevent these airplane fistfights, the airlines would need to hire three times as many air marshals. And I cannot imagine how many they would have to hire for a long flight to Alaska.

Stop and think for a moment about what we hear now in airport lobbies from those who wander aimlessly or stand next to us yelling every imaginable personal detail into a microphone dangling from one ear. We hear them babbling about last night's love life, rearranging next week's schedule, or lamenting their children's behavior. We hear them barking orders to an assistant, dictating messages, or engaging in negotiations. All of this is done, of course, in a loud, unnatural cell phone voice and completely oblivious to those of us nearby who are being forced to learn more about this person than we would ever want to know. An airplane is a close environment, and we are assigned to one seat, strapped in, and limited in our choice of seatmates. We are also limited in the ability to walk around or walk away.

I have just one cell phone to turn off for my country, but I will assure you that there are many other airline travelers who will gladly make the same sacrifice. I offer as evidence the statement of a senior member of the House Transportation Committee and former chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, which he made on July 14 of last year; the thoughtful comment by Court Television anchor Fred Graham from USA Today, November 14, 2002; and another USA Today article, this one by Craig Wilson on June 1, 2000.

I ask unanimous consent that each of these articles be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. President, each of these travelers argues for preserving one of the last refuges of privacy--the quiet of an airline cabin where one may read a book, listen to music, sleep, or be left alone. This privacy may not be enshrined in the Constitution, but surely it is enshrined in common sense.

If there must be cell phones on airplanes, common sense suggests following Fred Graham's advice: Create soundproof conference rooms in the back of the which passengers may rent for the privilege of yelling into their cell phones. Or perhaps technology itself will rescue us. Perhaps the Federal Communications Commission or airline plane executives in a real outburst of common sense will earn the gratitude of 2 million Americans who fly each day by deciding text messages, yes, but conversations, no.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the National Governors Association meeting will be held in Washington during the week we return from recess. That brings back some fond memories for me because I remember the 8 years I served as Governor. Each time we came here, and the highlight of it every year, was a dinner in the White House with the Chief Executive of the United States and the chief executive of each of our States.

While the Governors are in town, or as they are coming to town, I want to take the opportunity to wave the lantern of federalism on a few issues under discussion here in the Senate that will affect strong State and local governments. I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about the same issues because his service as mayor made him

aware of those issues, just as I was as Governor.

During the year after I came to the Senate, when we were debating the Internet tax issue, someone said in exasperation that I had appeared not to have gotten over being a Governor. I hope that can be said on the day I leave here, because most of our politics here in the Senate is about how we resolve conflicts of principles. One of the most important principles upon which our country is founded is the principle of federalism, the idea that we are a big, diverse, complex country and that we need strong States and strong cities and strong counties and strong communities to absorb all of our differences. We are not a small, homogeneous nation and our federalism is absolutely key to our success as a country.

I have not gotten over being Governor. It causes me especially to remember how the Republican majority came to power in 1994, a majority of which I am proud to be a part. There was a Contract with America. I wasn't part of the Congress at that time, but I remember it very well. I remember one of the most important aspects of the Contract With America was: no more unfunded Federal mandates. I remember also that a large number of Republicans, along with Leader Gingrich, stood on the Capitol steps and said: If we break our promise, throw us out.

Since I wish to make sure our majority doesn't get thrown out, I want to remind all of us, including many who serve in the Senate, who voted in 1995 to stop unfunded Federal mandates, this still is an important part of our responsibilities here. I have three examples of that in our discussions.

The Senate recently reaffirmed its commitment to the idea of avoiding unfunded Federal mandates. I suppose I should stop for a moment and explain what I mean by ``unfunded Federal mandate.'' That is a Washington phrase we throw around. Here is the way I understand it. Nothing used to make me madder as Governor--and I daresay it might also be true of the Presiding Officer, who was a mayor--than for some Senator or Congressman to come up with a big idea in Washington, pass it into law, hold a press conference and take credit for it, and send the bill to me to pay at the State capitol. Then the next thing you know, that same politician would be back somewhere in Tennessee making a big speech about local control. That is an unfunded Federal mandate-- when the big idea is here and the law is passed here and then the bill is sent down to the county commissioner or to the mayor or to the legislature or to the Governor and it is said: It was our idea but you pay for it.

Ten years ago when Bob Dole was the majority leader, the first thing the new Republican Congress did--it was called S. 1 at that time--was to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It created a new point of order that could be raised against legislation imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments. Everyone felt pretty good about that because they said this new law will create a so-called penalty flag that can be thrown when some Federal official came up with a good idea, passed it into law, and sent the bill back to us in the States. However, until recently that penalty flag has never been thrown, not in the first 10 years of its existence. However, last year, in our Budget Act, that point of order was given some more teeth. In the budget resolution under which we operate today, an unfunded mandate point of order raised in the Senate requires 60 votes in order to be waived instead of the simple majority required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

In October of last year, 2005, this 60-vote point of order was raised for the first time in the Senate against two amendments to an appropriations bill that would have raised the minimum wage. That would have been an unfunded Federal mandate. This new provision was put into the Budget Act by Senator Gregg, who had been the Governor of New Hampshire. It had my support as well as that of a number of other Senators. So I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues, and the Governors as they are coming to town, three issues that are currently under discussion here that raise the specter of unfunded Federal mandates.

No. 1 is the taxation of Internet access issue. State and local governments and members of the telecommunications industry, I believe, need to come up with a solution to that question before the current moratorium expires in 2007.

No. 2, the Federal Government needs to fully fund the implementation of the so-called REAL ID Act, which we passed last year and which has to do with border security.

No. 3, the Federal Communications Commission needs to exempt colleges and universities from expensive new requirements that will require colleges to modify their computer networks to facilitate surveillance, which will have the effect of adding about $450 to every tuition bill across this country.

Let's take those one by one. First is the Internet access tax moratorium. My colleagues will remember that after we had a spirited debate that went on for about a year and a half, President Bush signed into law the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. There was a lot of discussion, a lot of compromise, a lot of negotiation. What we were arguing about was, on one hand we wanted to increase the availability of high-speed Internet access to all Americans--that is a national goal--but at the same time we didn't want to do harm to State and local governments by taking away from them, as a part of our act, billions of dollars upon which they relied for paying for schools, paying for colleges, paying for other local services.

The bill we came out with at the end of 2004 was a good compromise for several reasons. First, it was temporary, not permanent. It called for a 4-year extension of the Internet access tax moratorium that was already in place, so this one will expire in a year and a half.

Second, our agreement allowed States already collecting taxes on Internet access to continue to do so. That was a part of the ``do no harm'' theory that many of us championed.

Finally, it made clear that State and local governments could continue to collect taxes on telephone services even if telephone calls are made over the Internet, which they increasingly are.

In January of this year, the General Accounting Office released a report interpreting the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. The GAO interpreted the moratorium in a more limited way than what I, and I am sure many of the other Senators, intended when we were drafting the bill.

While the interpretation may suit me fine because it goes in the direction I was arguing, the GAO interpretation may demonstrate very clearly how important it is to deal with this complex issue in some other way. That is why it needs to be resolved by representatives of industry and by mayors and Governors working together to suggest to us a path for the future. I understand the National Governors Association has convened meetings with representatives of the telecommunications industry and State and local governments. I hope all the parties will take those negotiations seriously, reinvigorate those efforts, and present us with a workable compromise we can then consider and enact.

Let me suggest again the principles that I believe should guide this discussion. No. 1, separate the issue of taxation and legislation. Both are very complex issues that can have serious implications for industry and State and local governments and consumers, but they are not the same effects. The goal should be simplicity. Regulations surely ought to be streamlined to allow new technology to flourish. Voice over Internet protocol or, in plain English, making telephone calls over the Internet, is very different than plain old telephone service, and our regulatory structure needs to recognize that and be welcoming to this change. The goal in taxing the industry should also be simplicity and certainty. For example, a company that operates in almost 11,000 State and local jurisdictions, all of whom might tax telecommunications, might have to file more than 55,000 tax returns a year. No one wants to see that happen and that is far too big a burden for a large company, much less a small startup company. But in searching for a solution, we do not want to do harm to State and local governments.

The Senator from California, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator

from Ohio--many Senators pointed out that State and local governments rely heavily today on telecommunications taxes as a part of their tax base.

In our State of Tennessee, our Governor said it is a matter of $300 million or $400 million in State revenues. That would be as much money as we would raise from instituting an income tax. It is a lot of money. So we should not take an action in Washington, even for a good purpose, that has the effect of undercutting State and local decisionmaking. My point very simply is, deregulate voice over Internet protocol? Yes. We absolutely should do it. But we must find a way to do it that doesn't force States and local governments to provide subsidies to the telephone companies. If the Federal Government wants to provide a subsidy to the telephone companies, the Federal Government ought to pay for it and not create an unfunded Federal mandate.

The second example of the possibility of an unfunded Federal mandate came with the passage of the REAL ID legislation. We are about to enter into a debate about immigration. We hear about it all the time. It is a serious problem. We have 10 million to 15 million people living in our country who are illegally here. That is not right for a country that honors the rule of law, and we have to fix it. One way some have suggested to fix it was the so-called REAL ID law. But the effect of that was basically to turn driver's license examiners in Tennessee and every other State into CIA agents by making State driver's licenses national ID cards, and then forcing the States to pay for it.

I don't want to talk today about whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to turn State driver's license employees into CIA agents, or whether we should have a national ID card. The fact is the law says that is what they are going to do and that is what we are going to have. What I want to talk about today is how do we pay for that.

REAL ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislators, will cost States $500 million over 5 years to implement. That is $100 million a year. This is not technically an unfunded mandate because the law actually gives States a choice, but here is the choice: In Minnesota or Tennessee or any other State, either upgrade your driver's licenses according to the Federal rules, or your residents will not have the ability to collect their Social Security check or board an airplane. So that is not much of a choice.

All across the country, because of the REAL ID law, this is a new responsibility for States and it is going to cost a half billion dollars. Yet in fiscal year 2006, only $38 million was appropriated for States to cover the cost of REAL ID. In fiscal year 2007, the President's budget contains no funding for REAL ID, even though $33.1 billion is to be spent on homeland security.

I intend to work this year to see that REAL ID does not become an unfunded mandate. If the Federal Government wants to create a national ID card and they want to force the States to do it, then the Federal Government ought to pay for it.

My final example: the Federal Communications Commission needs to make sure that compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, called CALEA, does not become an unfunded Federal mandate on colleges and universities.

This CALEA law is a law that communications systems have to be engineered in such a way as to make it easy for Federal agents to subject phone calls to surveillance. In August of last year, the Federal Communications Commission, recognizing that more and more telephone calls are being made over the Internet, extended the requirements of this law to colleges and university computer networks.

Implementing this order, according to technology experts, could cost $5 billion to $6 billion, a figure that translates into a $450 increase in annual tuition at most American universities.

The pages here who are listening to this are already looking forward to tuition increases when they go to college that are high enough, and they don't need another $450 on top of it.

Over the last several years, tuition college costs have increased faster than inflation. Public school tuition jumped 10 percent in 1 year--in 2004. Even though Federal funding for colleges and university has gone up, State funding has been fairly flat. So we have seen a big increase in tuition, and this is another $450.

Given these concerns, even though the FCC might have a laudable objective in making it easier to overhear or keep track of phone calls in computer networks on college campuses, if the Federal Government wants to order that, the Federal Government ought to pay for it.

I have written to the FCC urging it to exempt colleges and universities from the requirement of August 2005 in order to allow time for the development of an alternative to this $450 tuition increase.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the FCC on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, these are some of the big ideas in Washington, all of which may be laudable. The idea of freeing high- speed Internet from overregulation and subsidizing it, the idea of national ID cards administered when you get your driver's license so that we can do a better job of protecting our borders, and the idea of reengineering computer systems on college campuses so that it will be easier for us to fight the war against terrorists--all three may be wonderful ideas, but all three amount to unfunded Federal mandates, if they are done the wrong way.

I began my remarks by reminding all my colleagues--and especially our colleagues on this side of the aisle, those in the majority--that the Republican Party came to a majority in 1994 on a platform of no more unfunded mandates. Republican leaders said: If we break our promise, throw us out. I don't want us thrown out any more than I want any more unfunded Federal mandates.

So my purpose today, as the Governors begin to come to town, is to

wave the lantern of federalism a little bit and raise a red flag to remind my colleagues that there is now a 60-vote point of order for any unfunded Federal mandates going through here and that I and others will be watching carefully to make sure that we keep our promise.

This is a body in which we debate principles, and one of the most important principles that we assert is the principle of federalism. It does not always trump every other principle that comes up, but my feeling is it has been too far down. I want to raise it up higher, and I intend to use that 60-vote point of order to assert the principle of federalism when unfunded Federal mandates appear on this floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his impassioned advocacy for the people of Montana. I want to make sure he has completed his remarks. I have plenty of time to wait if he has not.

I wish to add to those remarks. This morning I met with a number of Tennesseans here in an event we call Tennessee Tuesday. It is a meeting we have every Tuesday. Senator Frist and I host it for Tennesseans who are visiting Washington, and it is a chance to let them know what we are working on.

I talked with them about asbestos. One of my friends on the other side of the aisle began this debate, which should have started earlier, by saying: Why are we talking about asbestos when we have a war, when we have deficits out of control, when jobs are going overseas, when kids are not learning in schools, when Medicaid costs are rising and prescription drug benefits are not being delivered as efficiently as we would like? Why are we talking about asbestos?

I think we have an obligation to say to the American people, and to ourselves, we know exactly why we are talking about asbestos. We are talking about asbestos because it has to do with tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of American jobs. We are talking about asbestos because it has to do with whether we are going to retain our preeminence as the leader in the world in competitiveness, whether we are going to be able to lead the world in terms of the standard of living we have. We are talking about asbestos because we have thousands of Americans who have been hurt and who deserve compensation and who cannot be compensated.

Asbestos is right where it ought to be. It is at the top of our agenda. We have Democrats and Republicans working together to solve the problem because it is about jobs, it is about America's role in the world, and it is about Americans who have been hurt and who have no way to be compensated unless we decide to help them.

Let's take the first point. The FAIR Act, as we call it--and that is a good name for it--is about jobs because since the 1980s, more than 70 companies have gone bankrupt as a result of asbestos lawsuits. These lawsuits have occurred because people were working for those companies and they were exposed to asbestos and many of them died or were seriously ill. More than 60,000 workers lost their jobs since the 1980s because 70 companies have gone bankrupt over asbestos lawsuits.

If we picked up the paper and read in the morning that 60,000 jobs had gone to China, there would be speeches made all across this Senate floor about whose fault it was. It will be our fault if we do not solve the asbestos problem and 60,000 more jobs are lost. Those are real, good-paying, manufacturing jobs that will be lost if we do not solve the asbestos problem.

My State of Tennessee has its share of those jobs. The auto industry, as an example, has one-third of the manufacturing jobs in Tennessee. We are glad that Saturn and Nissan have come to our state, and that we have gone from a handful of suppliers to nearly a thousand. But those companies, those suppliers, those jobs are at risk if we do not solve the asbestos problems.

The FAIR Act is about America's role in the world. It's about our competitiveness. The President talked about that in his State of the Union Address. He talked about it in Nashville. He is now talking about it wherever he goes. We are confident in our ability to lead the world. We know we are only 5 percent of the people and that last year we produced 30 percent of the wealth. We know the rest of the world is eyeing that statistic and saying, If American brainpower and economic conditions produced a growth economy that gives Americans 30 percent of the wealth for 5 percent of the people, we want to emulate that. So we have to work hard every day to make sure we create an environment in this country in which American businesses can grow the largest number of new American jobs. The last thing we want to do is lose American jobs.

How do we do that? We keep costs down. We stop runaway lawsuits. We solve the health care problem. We invest in science and technology because 85 or 90 percent of our new jobs since World War II have come from advances in science and technology. That is why we have introduced the Protecting America's Competitive Edge or PACE Act in this Senate, where we have 31 Democrats and 31 Republicans who have signed onto legislation recommended by the National Academies that would invest 9 billion new dollars this year in keeping our advantage in science and technology. We want to stay competitive.

According to a report from NERA Economic Consulting, ``Asbestos litigation has damaged U.S. competitiveness.'' For example, if you are worried about asbestos lawsuits, you want to put your plant somewhere overseas and your jobs somewhere overseas, and we lose out.

Productivity growth in the United States, according to that report, in asbestos-affected manufacturing sectors

has lagged behind growth in their counterparts in other countries by half a percent.

We Tennesseans worry about that because we like manufacturing jobs. As I said, one-third of them are auto jobs, and many of them are chemical jobs. We don't like lagging behind. We like our standard of living. That report says we lose $51 billion annually, with a total loss of $303 billion. The dollars are hard to comprehend. But jobs and competitiveness are what we are talking about here.

Finally, the FAIR Act is about compensation to Americans who have been hurt. We say the words ``compensation to victims,'' but that doesn't really say it as plainly as ``Americans have been hurt.''

Here is a fact that got my attention. This is one reason I am speaking about this issue. This is the reason I am a cosponsor of the bill offered by Senator Specter and Senator Leahy. Seventy billion dollars has been spent on asbestos litigation through 2002. Asbestos litigation is litigation to help people who have been hurt, who are going to die, in many cases, from asbestos. Nearly 60 percent of that $70 billion was spent on attorney's fees and other transaction costs. In other words, the people who are hurt got 40 percent of the $70 billion. That is not right.

In addition, it is taking up to 3 years for victims to collect their compensation as a result of complex litigation. Some businesses have gone bankrupt, so you don't collect from them. Some people have died, so they are in no position to collect. The legal process has taken too long for them, and 60 percent of the money that is collected is going to the lawyers.

This is not about plaintiffs' lawyers. Half the money goes to defense lawyers and half to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Whose fault is that? I don't know whose fault it has been, but I will tell you whose fault it will be if we allow this to continue. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Ginsburg both said it to us. They said: We can't fix this problem in the judiciary; the Congress needs to do it. In one case, the Supreme Court said:

The elephantine mass of asbestos cases . . . defies

customary judicial administration and calls for national

legislation.

That is us. That is what we are here for. That is why we get the big bucks. That is why we have the salaries. This is a big problem. We are supposed to solve it, and we ought to solve it. We have been trying to solve it. For the last 10 years, some of the best Members of this body on both sides of the aisle have been working on it. I could not begin to name them. I have heard Senator Specter say that Senator Gary Hart, more than 20 years ago, came to see him about it. Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have worked hard, as have Senator Hatch and many other Members. Some of them don't agree about the eventual result, but many of the best Senators are working hard because they see this as a problem of jobs and competitiveness and Americans who have been hurt.

Where do we come at this point today? We have a budget point of order against the bill. If the point of order succeeds, the bill fails. Those of us who believe it is our job to solve the asbestos problem won't get to take the next step to actually debate the bill and see if we can bridge our differences and save jobs, improve competitiveness, and help Americans who have been hurt. I urge my colleagues not to let this point of order kill the asbestos legislation because we in Congress are the only ones who can solve this problem properly.

I respect the fact that the point of order is being made. But a point of order, as the Senator from New Mexico, the former chairman of the Budget Committee for so long, has said, doesn't automatically kill a bill; it just says to us: Stop and think; consider the point of order. And when we consider the point of order, which is designed for the purpose of making sure we don't slip in the legislation provisions which will cause big expenses in future years, we find this doesn't cause big, unanticipated expenses in future years. In fact, a February 13, 2006 letter from the Congressional Budget Office concludes that ``this legislation would be deficit neutral over the life of the fund.'' So the point of order deserves respect, but this bill does not deserve to be killed by a point of order.

I implore my colleagues. We have a job to do. This is a tough piece of legislation. We are divided on our side. We have some who like the trust fund, but we have other Members who like another approach. There are some Democrats who like the trust fund and some who prefer another approach. I believe it is our responsibility to the people who put us here to solve this big problem. It will save tens of thousands of jobs, it can help tens of thousands of Americans who have been hurt, and it will help to assure America's preeminence 10, 15, 20 years from now.

I urge my colleagues, don't let the point of order kill the bill and kill our opportunity to solve this problem.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I want to honor Philip A. Francis, Jr., on his promotion as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and his departure from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Since 1994, Philip A. Francis, Jr., has served as assistant superintendent of America's busiest national park. For more than 11 years, Phil did an exemplary job of keeping the Smokies on track and moving forward during a very dynamic period of the park's history. Phil served under a succession of three different Smokies superintendents and acted as superintendent himself for well over 2 years of his tenure. His leadership provided an essential element of stability to the park's operations and to improving its relationships with its many partners and surrounding gateway communities.

In recognition of his organizational management talents and his ability to work with numerous and diverse stakeholders, Phil has recently been chosen to become superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway. With over 9 million annual visitors, the Smokies is the most visited national park in the country. But the 470 mile-long Blue Ridge Parkway, with nearly 19 million travelers a year, is the National Park Service's busiest management unit.

While at the Smokies, Phil provided oversight and continuity to National Park Service managers at all levels as they negotiated through the complexities of making far-reaching decisions regarding the future of the immensely controversial Cades Cove and Elkmont Historic Districts in the Tennessee portions of the park. And he has played a key role in striving for a resolution to a 60 year-long debate over a proposed new road though the Smokies in North Carolina. Despite the often heated debate among the parties to these contentious discussions, Phil has gained a reputation for his willingness to listen to the concerns of all sides and to look for solutions that recognize their needs while still protecting the park's natural and cultural resources.

Phil has also been an influential proponent for the Smokies in communities outside the park's boundaries and in working with its ever- expanding circle of support groups. Since their founding in 1993, the Friends of the Smokies has raised in excess of $15.5 million in support for improvements at the Smokies. By combining Friends support with assistance from the Great Smoky Mountains Association, the park has been able to broaden its educational programs, undertake the world's first all species biodiversity inventory, and expand environmental education opportunities. Phil has been a key participant in helping develop those new programs, and in creating new nonprofit organizations to manage them.

In 2002, the National Park Service faced a challenge in finding a new superintendent for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. For those who care about the Smokies, as I do, there was lots of interest in who would be selected. Director Fran Mainella made a great choice when she appointed Dale Ditmanson, and we have grown to appreciate Dale's abilities and passion over the last few years. One of the reasons for Dale's strong start is the help he has gotten from Phil, and I look forward to working with Dale to preserve and carry on Phil's legacy in the Smokies.

I join the park's many neighbors and friends in thanking Phil for his hard work and professionalism while at the Smokies. I extend my congratulations and best wishes to Phil on his new assignment at the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the life and contributions of an American civil rights icon, Mrs. Coretta Scott King.

Many people know Mrs. King as the wife of one of America's greatest citizens, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King's enduring legacy of nonviolence and his quest for racial equality permanently altered the social fabric of America. Mrs. King will always be remembered as a part of Dr. King's life and legacy that are rightfully celebrated across our great land and throughout the world. However, Dr. King's towering accomplishments should not obscure the fact that Mrs. King held her own historic place in our Nation's struggle for equal opportunity.

I am reminded of the time some 20 years ago when Mrs. King came to see me when I was Governor of Tennessee. We were working to establish a holiday in honor of her late husband. It was harder work than it should have been, and I am reminded of how far we have come even since that time.

Mrs. King was the founding president of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change which continued to promote the noble philosophies of Dr. King. In addition to promoting the memory of her husband and his great work, Mrs. King created her own legacy as she traveled throughout America and across the globe to champion racial equality, women's rights, religious freedom, health care, and education.

We all know that Mrs. King was born in a time when America was very different than it is today. Little Black boys and girls could not go to school with little White boys and girls. Plessy v. Ferguson had not yet been overruled, so ``separate but equal'' was the law of the land. Lynchings were common and in many places the Ku Klux Klan terrorized Black communities, often operating with near impunity. As we look back on the amazing progress we have made since then, we remember those who were responsible for helping America turn away from the sins of injustice and inequality.

As a wife, a mother, and a leader of the civil rights movement, Mrs. King showed strength and dignity. With quiet determination, she preserved her husband's legacy and created her own place in the history of our Nation's struggle for equal opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate until 3 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer will be relieved because I am to preside at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, today, President Bush made an announcement of something he calls the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It is part of the President's 2007 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy. In that budget, at a time when there is not much extra money, there is $250 million to deal with the objectives of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

Part of the initiative we have heard about before. It calls for advanced technology for nuclear reactors--reactors from which we can produce clean energy, reactors which are smaller than the reactors that we have today that produce about 20 percent of all the electricity we use in the United States. But I want to call attention to a part of the President's proposal which we have not heard much about before--at least from him--that is the part about reprocessing and recycling the fuel that is used in nuclear reactors. That has been something we haven't been doing in the United States for a long time, except in limited cases, and it is something that requires a great deal of attention. My hope is that, while it is a small part of a large budget, the idea of reprocessing and recycling spent fuel from nuclear reactors would have a significant, measured, and careful bipartisan discussion on the floor of the Senate.

Even though it is a small part of the big budget, dealing with the issue of reprocessing spent fuel can make a big difference in the solution to a number of large problems.

For example, whether we are able to deal with global warming within a generation, the only technology we have, of which I am aware, which will produce large amounts of carbon-free energy which would permit the United States and the world to reasonably hope to deal with global warming in this generation is nuclear power.

Even though it is 20 percent of our electricity in the United States today, it produces 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity.

Solving the reprocessing and recycling problem which deals with the issue of energy independence--and it has been talked a lot about on both sides of the aisle--if we want to be independent of other countries, we have to have ways to produce large amounts of energy in a clean way. And other than conservation and efficiency, nuclear power, in my judgment, is the only way to do that today.

A third area has to do with clean air. We have other forms of energy production such as coal, a very important form, but coal still produces large amounts of sulfur and nitrogen pollution. It produces mercury. The idea of recapturing the carbon and the integrated gasification process of making that coal-produced electricity clean is something we still have a lot of work to do on.

Dealing with reprocessing will have a lot to do with solving the problems of proliferation concerns that we have about other countries getting hold of spent fuel and turning it into material that can produce nuclear weapons. We read about it every day in terms of Iran and North Korea. It has to do with a balance of payments in the United States.

Some country is going to produce these advanced nuclear technology powerplants. Russia, for example, might produce 30 or 40 of these. When it does, it will have the technology available to sell those powerplants to India, China, and other parts of the world where they need large amounts of energy which is clean. The United States will be left behind if we are not a part of that process.

I have mentioned all of these issues as if they were American issues--global warming, energy independence, clean air, proliferation, balance of payments. These are worldwide issues. By one account, 30 percent of pollution in the Los Angeles basin comes from Asia. If India and China aren't able to deal with the global warming issue, with the clean air issues, and with the proliferation issue, every American will be affected.

Today, there are about 430 nuclear reactors in the world being used to produce electricity. About 100 are in the United States. We have a classified number--maybe it is about the same--of them which have been used in our nuclear Navy since the 1950s. It is not difficult to imagine a world with 1,000 nuclear reactors. There are 124 nuclear reactors on the drawing board today, or under construction. Until recently, none of those were in the United States. We haven't built one new nuclear powerplant from scratch since the 1970s. It is very odd because we have a large demand in this country for large amounts of low-cost, clean energy. We invented the technology. We have used it in our Navy since the 1950s without a single incident.

France is now about 80 percent reliant on electricity from nuclear powers. And Japan, which suffered under our use of nuclear weapons, has used nuclear power to produce electricity.

Things though are changing. While nuclear power has some problems, so does every other alternative for producing the large amounts of energy that we and the world needs.

Coal, which I mentioned, produces pollutants, and no one has yet produced a way to deal with all of the carbon that is produced by coal to make it the strategy for future.

Many environmental groups--I am one of those persons who is hopeful about that--but the idea of recapturing such large amounts of carbon and putting it underground is something we haven't able to do yet.

Drilling for new oil produces lots of arguments in this body and close votes. Importing oil produces many resolutions and arguments in this body as well.

Wind energy is appealing to some, but you would have to cover up the whole State of Massachusetts to produce what one or two nuclear powerplants would be able to produce.

Today, solar energy is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what we use in America.

So we need nuclear power. In order to have nuclear power, we are going to have to deal with the problem of where we put the spent fuel and what we do about proliferation.

I am glad that the President suggested in his budget today the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. I am glad he put $250 million in it to advance the idea of processing and recycling.

First, we should move ahead with the advanced technology and loan guarantees, the investment tax credits, the risk assurance that was enacted in the Energy bill in July.

Second, we should move ahead with research and discussion of reprocessing and recycling so that we can reduce by 90 percent the amount of waste that we would have to store at Yucca Mountain, or similar facilities, and reduce by more than that the heat in that spent fuel.

And finally, we should discuss an international protocol so that while other countries such as the United States, Russia, and others might invent the technology for small, new nuclear powerplants, there would be some sort of international protocol that would lease the spent fuel, supervise its processing, and supervise its permanent storage so that we and the world in this generation can deal with global warming, energy independence, clean air, and a variety of other issues that deal with our lives.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.