Floor Statements

Mr. President, I engage my colleague the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a short colloquy to clarify the intended use of funds provided in the fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense appropriations bills.

Mr. President, the current standard in polygraph use is woefully inadequate. Last year's Defense appropriations bill included funding for a project that would improve the use of polygraphs within the Department of Defense. The project will ultimately benefit all institutions that use polygraphs to assure security. The project research will lead to the polygraph becoming a fully standardized, machine administered, scientifically based test, thus getting rid of the flaws that are inherent in the current use of polygraphs. Boise State University in my home State of Idaho is well qualified to do this research and develop the standardized technology. It is my hope that the funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2006 will be made available soon and that the funds in the fiscal year 2007 Senate defense appropriations bill will be available to continue the work that will begin with last year's appropriation. Is it the expectation of the distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that the Department of Defense make last year's funds available as soon as possible to assure that this important research goes forward and that fiscal year 2007 funds be used to continue this important work?

I thank my colleague from Alaska for clarifying this point and for his interest in this issue.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on comprehensive, bipartisan legislation reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and now awaiting full Senate approval. S. 2694, the Veterans' Choice of Representation and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2006, contains 28 provisions representing the collective

work of 44 Senators who either sponsored or cosponsored bills that were incorporated into this important legislation.

S. 2694 includes provisions that would improve educational assistance benefits for veterans and their survivors; reauthorize and enhance various programs of assistance for homeless veterans; reduce nursing home and prescription medication costs for service-disabled veterans residing in State veterans' nursing homes; enhance memorial affairs benefits and preserve the character of Arlington National Cemetery as a shrine for our honored dead; and, as the bill's title suggests, provide veterans with the freedom to hire attorneys to represent them during the VA claims process. I will take a few minutes to describe the sections of the bill that I sponsored, none I am more proud of than the choice of representation provision. For a full accounting of all of S. 2694's provisions, I ask my colleagues to read Senate Report 109-297.

Currently, veterans and other claimants seeking veterans' benefits may not hire an attorney until the VA administrative proceedings have been completed a process that often takes several years. That law flows from a Civil War era policy intended to protect veterans from unscrupulous attorneys. That policy arose at a time--unlike today--when attending law school was not required to become a lawyer and there was no effective professional oversight of lawyers.

In recent months, it has become abundantly clear that many veterans and their survivors want the option of hiring an attorney to help them navigate the increasingly complex VA system. In fact, the prohibition against veterans hiring attorneys is considered to be unfair and outdated by a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations, including veterans' organizations, veterans' advocates, judges, law professors, and bar associations.

For these reasons, I joined with Senator Lindsey Graham in introducing legislation to end the outdated, paternalistic restriction on the freedoms of veterans. Section 101 of S. 2694 would repeal the existing prohibition against veterans hiring attorneys to help them obtain benefits from VA. I am delighted that we are closer to doing away with this outdated law and allowing veterans like all other adults in this Nation--to have the assistance of counsel if they so choose.

Title V of S. 2694 represents the first effort in 5 years to enact comprehensive homeless veterans' assistance legislation. Five years ago, Congress set an ambitious goal to end homelessness among veterans by 2011. I am not one who sets goals lightly, especially one so important. Therefore, I joined with Senators Akaka, Burr and Obama to craft the provisions in title V which will both improve services for homeless veterans, and help prevent chronic homelessness among our servicemen and women returning from the war on terror. Among other things, this measure would extend the authorization of appropriations for comprehensive services for homeless veterans, reauthorize a grant program for homeless veterans with special needs, and extend the authority of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans. It would also extend the authority of VA to transfer properties it obtains after foreclosures on homes financed with VA-guaranteed loans to organizations which assist homeless veterans and their families in acquiring shelter. Finally, the bill would authorize appropriations for a program designed to prevent homelessness by providing financial assistance to eligible entities to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services for very low-income veteran families occupying permanent housing.

I want to be clear, however, that I will be monitoring whether these programs are having the effect we expect them to. In March, I held a hearing on the needs of homeless veterans, at which VA, its Federal partners, and community-based service providers to the homeless testified about what is working, what isn't, what duplication might be eliminated, and where deficiencies exist that must be addressed. We learned that more than a half dozen Federal agencies will devote over $2 billion to homelessness. VA alone will spend upward of $221 million on grants, housing and treatment of underlying conditions. In fact, the fiscal year 2007 budget for VA will support a record level of funding for the sixth straight year for targeted programs for homeless veterans. Plainly stated, we cannot afford to waste any money. We must ensure that our resources are invested carefully so that homeless veterans can resume their self-sufficiency and independence.

Section 402 of S. 2694 is derived from legislation I introduced that would remove the four-year limit on the terms for the positions of Under Secretary for Health and Under Secretary for Benefits at VA. When the term limits were originally created, I think we all hoped that they would allow the two officials to serve four consecutive years without any political considerations, regardless of whether the service was in different administrations or under different VA leadership. History, however, has shown us that new administrations or even new VA leadership within the same administration often bring new people at all levels of government, including the two Under Secretary positions. In fact, the last three Under Secretaries for Health and the previous Under Secretary for Benefits did not complete a full 4-year term. Therefore, this provision would eliminate what are, in effect, limits on terms that serve no useful purpose.

The last of the provisions I sponsored touches on a subject that most of my colleagues likely remember. Last summer, we learned that the remains of a brutal murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--were placed in the Nation's preeminent military cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery. I was appalled to discover that the law enacted in 1997 to deny capital offenders from burial in national cemeteries did not apply to Wagner. While we moved swiftly to close the loophole that permitted Wagner's burial in the first place, the question remained: should his remains continue to be included among the scores of honored dead in Arlington? For me and Senator Mikulski, the answer was ``no.'' That is why we sponsored legislation now contained in section 202 of S. 2694 which would direct the Secretary of the Army to remove Wagner's remains from Arlington. As I stated last summer, we must not dishonor the sacrifices made by those memorialized at our Nation's military cemeteries by including among them individuals who, through their own heinous acts, have grievously dishonored themselves.

Mr. President, I want to thank all of the members of the committee and other Senators who worked so diligently on this bill. In particular, I commend the committee's anking member, Senator Akaka. I have said it before and I'll repeat it today, Hawaii's veterans are fortunate to have Senator Akaka as their advocate. It is been a pleasure working with him.

In closing, I ask for the support of the Senate in adopting S. 2694. It is an important, historic piece of legislation that will respect the freedoms won by our veterans on the battlefield, and will improve benefits available to them when they return home from it.

Mr. President, by unanimous consent I understand the Senator from New York has reserved the time coming up. I visited with him. He needed to attend a meeting, so I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed, to be followed by Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi counseled me to stay calm. I am a reasonably calm guy. I don't get too excited about much of anything--at least that is what my wife would suggest. But let me tell you something that happened to me last night that caused me to be a little less than calm.

I drove, like most Americans, to a gas station. I pulled up to the pump, I swiped my credit card, and $39 later I filled an economy car full of $3.25 per gallon gas.

I must tell you and tell the Senator from Mississippi, I wasn't calm. This Scotchman's blood began to rile a bit when I realized that I and all other Americans are paying more for their gas today than ever in the history of this country and it is Government policy that caused it.

It is an attitude over the last 20 years that somehow America was going to conserve its way out of this problem. We didn't have to produce, we didn't have to refine, and, by the way, you can go out and buy a bigger car and it will burn a little more, but don't worry about it, it will be there. We lulled ourselves into this sense of false security that somehow gas is always going to stay at $1.25 or $2 a gallon.

While we were in a sense of false security, we did something else that was politically stupid. Where the greatest potential for domestic oil production exists today, we said take it out of bounds, take it offline. Seventy-five percent of the Outer Continental coast of America today, where our greatest reserves exist, is off limits, all in the name of the environment, even though we have applied technology, science, and engineering in a way today that was proven during the tremendous storm of Katrina when we knocked thousands of wells offline in the gulf, and not one drop of oil was spilled.

Why, then, did we do this all in the name of the environment if, in fact, we can retrieve oil from our deep waters off the Continental Shelf and coast

today and not damage the environment? It was the politics of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. During that time, not only was gas relatively inexpensive compared to today's prices, but our consumption levels went up and we began to buy more and more oil from foreign supplies, foreign producers, dominantly from the Middle East but some from Central and Latin America.

Today, with all of these red areas off limits, where there are potentially billions of barrels of oil, we said ``no'' and we find ourselves dependent today with speculative oil prices going through the roof because wars are being fought, people are killing people in one of the most insecure areas of the world, an area we have grown to become dependent on for the supply of our primary economic resource, oil. What is wrong with that picture, America?

Pogo once said: I have found the enemy and the enemy is us. Maybe that is to paraphrase it a little bit. The enemy for oil prices is us, if I can say it in those terms. It is not only public policy in America today that has created the ``no'' zone to production, it is the attitude in America that somehow energy prices are always going to stay inexpensive and we don't have to produce anymore, even though our rate of consumption continues to grow.

Then along come the late 1990s and the early 2000s and the Chinese economy takes off, the European economy takes off, and the Indian economy takes off, and they are now all large consumers of oil. We all buy it from the same pool, and the price goes up.

Today, before the Senate, this afternoon at 5 o'clock, we have an opportunity to begin to slowly but surely correct a very big problem we built up in the decades of the 1970s, the 1980s, and 1990s, a self- inflicted wound we can now bind up and heal while we work our way out from increasing dependence on foreign resources. That legislation is S. 3711.

What does it do? It takes us right down here to this tiny little green square in the Gulf of Mexico called lease sale 181.

We say to the oil companies of America: You can go out there and bid and lease and drill. Our geological survey determines that there are trillions of cubic feet of gas out there and, potentially, billions of barrels of oil. We can bring it on line and send it to our gulf coast refineries and begin to process it and move it into our distribution systems. And for a moment in time we will become just a little less dependent on Saudi Arabia or Iraq or anywhere else in the world in which we are buying oil today.

Why did we do it? Times change. Attitudes shift. Technology changes. Today, there is absolutely no reason to have a no-zone around the United States because we not only can produce it, we can do it in an environmentally sound way. Here is what we believe--not me; we, the U.S. Geological Survey, our Federal agencies that study where our oil reserves and potentials are--here is what they say we can do. They say there are, potentially, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge--2,200 little acres that we can drill out of millions of acres--potentially, tens of billions of barrels of oil up there; and in the OCS, 115 billion barrels of oil, of which this one little spot down in the gulf we call lease sale 181 that is embodied in this legislation, S. 3711, will be able to reduce this maybe down to 110 billion barrels because maybe we can get 5 billion barrels out of there.

Of course, a few months ago I came to the floor and said: Why are American companies not being allowed to drill in the northern properties off Cuba--where Cuba is now leasing that area out to China to drill, 50 miles off the U.S. shore. Why are not Americans out there doing that? That is another potentially 4.6 billion to 5 billion barrels of oil.

Add it all up, if we were able to use our skill, our talent that we have developed in the decade of the 1990s, and 2000 and beyond, for deepwater drilling, we could bring this much oil on line in a relatively short period of time.

But California says no. Florida, in large part, has said no, although the Senators from Florida have worked with us, and Mel Martinez has done a beautiful job striking the balance to protect the environment of Florida and to drill in lease sale 181 off the coast of Florida.

But, then again, in these areas up through here, where there is tremendous potential off of the northeastern coast of our country, what do Vermont and Maine and New Hampshire and Rhode Island and Connecticut say? No, even though their consumers are paying $3.25 to $3.30 a gallon for gas. Where is the logic? Where is the sensitivity of that? Where is the sensibility of it?

I know America wishes we could snap our finger and this energy problem or crisis would be over. And it will not be. It took us 30 years marching down a path in which production was a negative, in which we said we simply did not have to produce; we could go someplace else and buy it. It is going to take a while to turn that around.

Last year, this Senate made a major step to turn that around. The National Energy Policy Act of 2005, known as EPAct, today, is bringing ethanol refineries or distilleries on line all across the Midwest as a part of producing into the whole energy supply of our country. Twenty percent of America's corn crop, being raised right now in the fields of Illinois and Iowa and Kansas and other places, will be used for ethanol production to go into the gas tanks of the American automobile. So we are moving in the right direction.

Last year at this time, as it relates to electrical production, we had about two reactors on the drawing board; that is, nuclear reactors. Folks, today there are 24 on the drawing board. Ten or 12 of them will be built, but it will take 10 or 12 years to build them. You do not overnight correct the problems you have created over the last 30 years.

The American consumer, in their sense of frustration, today is saying: Fix it. We like inexpensive energy. And I do not blame them. So do I. Last night, at $3.25 a gallon for that regular gas I put in my gas tank, I did not like it one bit. That is the bad news: high gas prices. The good news is: high gas prices. Today, we would not be on the floor debating lease sale 181 if gas were still $1.25 a gallon or even $2 a gallon. It was at $3 a gallon when the folks in Florida scratched their head and said: Maybe we could allow a little drilling out there. Maybe we could bring a little more on production. Maybe we ought to sit and listen to the reality of the environmental skills that our deepwater drillers have today in the production of oil, and we can do that and protect our environment at the same time. And we can. This legislation is going to do just that.

That is why what we pass this afternoon is critically important to the long-term stability and security of this country, to the strength and security of the average American family and consumer out there. It isn't that they will pay less after we do it; it is that they probably will not pay more.

In trying to level these prices and get this country back into production, I would hope that Americans quit saying no. I would hope that Senators would quit saying no and look at all of the alternatives out there today in a diverse energy portfolio of ethanol, of gas, of hydrogen, of nuclear generation for electricity, of wind and solar, and all the things we ought to bring into production in this country that we are working hard to do at this time.

I am not going to ask Americans to be patient. We are not a patient people. We are very impatient as a country. But it is going to take some time. It is going to take the concerted efforts of Senators such as Pete Domenici and myself and Mel Martinez and others who have worked this issue as hard as we have to convince this Congress, that oftentimes is very resistant to change or very resistant to having to go out and face the very powerful environmental community and say: You know, you are just flat wrong. We can produce energy, and we can produce it cleanly for Americans, and provide it abundantly at a reasonable price--if we let the marketplace work, we put the parameters around it as it relates to what we expect from them in the safety and security of our environment but we do not say no. And for too long we have.

Finally, this afternoon, at around 5 o'clock, we are going to vote on S. 3711 and, hopefully, we will say: Yes, let's bring it on line. Let's produce it. Let's put trillions of cubic feet of gas into the gas pipelines and let's bring billions of barrels of crude into the refineries of the gulf coast.

Senate: Say yes. You have been too long saying no. Americans are frustrated and angry they are now having

to pay a price they are not used to, and certainly have an abundance and a sense of security that most Americans have come to enjoy and expect of themselves living in this great country of ours, living with a system that works, and with a government that tends to be responsive to their needs. That is what this legislation is all about this afternoon.

So when the Senator from Mississippi counsels patience, I am an impatient guy, especially when it comes to my pocketbook. And I know most consumers are. I don't like paying $3.25 a gallon. I would like to find the boogeyman and blame somebody for it. We have ourselves to blame because the no-zone was created by public policy, not by the big oil companies. No. They would like to be there drilling and using the latest technology. No. The no-zone was created by public policy: no to the billions of barrels of oil that exist, as shown on this chart, in Alaska, in the Outer Continental Shelf, in the northern area off from Cuba, and in lease sale 181.

The reason we are not there today is public policy, is an environmental attitude that simply says ``we don't have to produce any more.'' Well, we do have to produce, but we need to do it cleanly, responsibly. That is what this legislation is about. That is what the energy policy of last year was about. This Government, thank goodness, has been listening and has finally heard the consumer and his and her frustration.

I would hope this afternoon we turn a no vote into a yes vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for S. 3711. It means a lot to the average family who is paying the price today for bad policy at the gas pumps of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to follow Senator Martinez from Florida, who has truly gone the extra mile in realizing his responsibility to his home State of Florida but also recognizing his responsibility to the Nation and trying to balance the two in a very intricate way. There isn't a Senator on this floor who doesn't appreciate the value and beauty of Florida's vast coastlines and recognize that they are not only a Florida treasure, they are a national treasure. We know we have the technology today, as has been clearly demonstrated over the last two decades, to drill not very far offshore anywhere and make sure that it is done in an environmentally sound way to

protect the beauty of those beaches and the vistas of those marvelous coastlines that make up the great State of Florida.

For Florida or any State to suggest that the oil that lies off its shore is not a national asset and, therefore, should be treated only as a State asset is simply wrong. It would be as though my suggesting, as a Senator from Idaho with millions of acres of Federal forest lands, that not one tree should be cut for the sake of building homes anywhere in our Nation. Why? Because of the environmental consequences, when we know today we, in fact, can cut trees in a clear, clean, and precise way, preserve the environment, and provide the fiber to the national fiber market, be it paper or 2 by 4s to build homes. It is also true of the minerals that lie under the subsurface of my property--but not my property, the Nation's property--on the Federal lands of the State of Idaho.

There is an intricate and important balance between what is a State's responsibility and a State's right and what is a Federal property and, therefore, the responsibility of the Congress in exercising the authority over that Federal responsibility, that Federal resource that we are today talking about in an important piece of legislation that is now before the Senate.

Embodied in S. 3711 is an effort to very carefully go at part of the resource that lies in the Gulf of Mexico that is a Federal asset and a Federal resource and do so in a way that clearly benefits the State of Florida but, more importantly, benefits every consumer in America today.

Here is the current situation that Americans face and that America simply cannot understand. Every area of this red zone around our country is a designated area by a Federal action in which we are not allowing our companies to develop and explore for gas and oil. I call it the no zone--no, you can't go there; no, you can't touch it; no, you can't drill; and, no, you can't develop. What does it mean to our country? Well, it means literally billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas all around this area--Alaska, ANWR, the west coast from the State of Washington down to the border with Mexico off the coast of California, all around Florida, all the way up to the State of Maine. It is difficult to determine how many billions of barrels of oil are there, but we know that it is significant and it is phenomenal.

Let me give an example. On this little piece of paper is a green strip. It is a green strip that recognizes S. 3711. We are going to place it in its proper location in this debate. I am going to put it right there. That is all this bill does. How big is this spot? This spot is 8.3 million acres out of the Gulf of Mexico. This little spot, by this perspective, represents 1.6 billion barrels of oil, we believe, based on a U.S. Geological Survey, and 5.83 trillion cubic feet of gas right there, this little, tiny spot. Is it significant? In the mix of all of this, yes, it is. But more importantly, it says that a comprehensive broad policy under sound environmental guidelines could make this Nation tremendously less dependent on foreign oil and gas coming out of Canada.

The industries that the Senator from Florida talked about that are losing their base, agriculture and nitrogen fertilizer, the petrochemical industry and natural gas that is now going offshore, and we are losing those jobs, all of that would stop if this Senate and this Congress and this Government got their heads on right about national energy policy. S. 3711 is a step in the right direction. Is it a big step? No, it is not. It is a rather small step. But it is a tremendously important step, as we head down the road of beginning to recognize that this Nation could, in fact, become very much self- sufficient in many ways in its energy needs through its own energy production.

You have heard some rather tired and old debate about needing a comprehensive energy policy, and we shouldn't do S. 3711 without it because it simply isn't broad enough. How can any Senator stand on the floor today who stood on the floor a year ago today and debate the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the most significant, broad-ranging energy development, energy conservation, new technology for energy bill that this Congress has ever passed? It is now law. It is now being implemented. And whether you are in the Midwest or the upper Midwest or in Idaho, we have ethanol refineries going up all around us. Twenty percent of the corn crop this year will be used in the production of ethanol and into the future. Why? Because of new technology and national energy policy. You don't need to reinstate or restate what we did last year. All you need to do is keep adding to it and strengthening it in a way that allows us as a nation to become increasingly self-sufficient.

S. 3711 does just that. Let me bring your eye back to the chart, back to this little, tiny spot on the map, this 3.8 million acres. That is a lot of land, isn't it? In this case, it is a lot of water. Under that water and in that land rests an opportunity to bring down the energy costs to the average American consumer by a significant amount and to make us less dependent on foreign sources for our oil today in areas of the world that are politically very unstable.

I could go on about a lot of facts, statistics, and figures. But let me take you to the real important part of this debate. It is called security for the average American family. America is frustrated today, and the average consumer and average mom and dad are tremendously frustrated because their cost of living is not keeping pace with their paycheck. Why? Because instead of driving to the gas pump and filling up for $10 or $15, they are paying $40 or $50 each time, or more. What does that do to a family budget? You may say that is one energy cost; they can surely abide that. Did you check their thermostats and their other energy bills, the cost of electricity to turn the lights on and keep their computer on for them and their kids? What about the temperature in the home in the cold winter months? All of that has costs significantly more in a very short period of time.

In 6 years--that is the life of one term of a Senator--natural gas prices that heat the homes of America have gone up 286 percent. While I know we ought to be concerned about all of the politics and all of the surrounding land and doing it environmentally sound, what we are talking about today is beginning to understand the burden and the sense of insecurity that the American consumer is suffering from and doing something about it. It would be one thing to say there isn't any more gas, there isn't any more oil, and we are shifting to a bunch of alternatives, and in the meantime you are going to have to pay the price.

The reason the American consumer is paying more at the pump today, more for their electrical bill and heating is because of politics, because the American politician for the last two decades has denied the American consumer the right to have access to the resources they are entitled to have. I hope we got the message.

S. 3711 begins to say to American consumers that we hear you. We may be a little late, but we hear you. In hearing you, we are going to bring 5.83 trillion cubic feet of gas online in a relatively short period of time--18 months to 2 years at the very latest. And we have the potential of bringing 1.6 billion barrels of oil into the gulf coast refineries. That is billions of barrels that we will not buy from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or any other place that is politically unstable. We are going to produce it in this country. That should help bring down or stabilize the cost of gas at the pump.

The American consumer ought to be able to rely on its Government not to stand in the way of the private industry sector of our country and its ability to produce for that American consumer. But for decades upon decades, we have done just that, all in the name of environment--in most instances, even when we knew that the environment wasn't going to be damaged. And now we know for sure.

Remember Katrina? Remember what happened a year ago, as one of the most powerful storms in the world surged up the Gulf of Mexico and across the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi and Arkansas? It tipped over oil rigs out in the gulf, shut down thousands of wells that are in this green area. And no oil was spilled. Why? Because of the safety mechanisms, the environmental ability that our industries have today to do it right.

Few of you remember what happened off of the coast of California in the late 1950s and early 1960s; it was an oil spill

known as Santa Barbara. From that day forward, the environmentalists' call was: Remember Santa Barbara. The reason we had so much difficulty with this little sale was the ghost of Santa Barbara. Let me tell you, Santa Barbara is dead, buried, and gone. From that day forward, the American oil-producing industry learned lessons, developed technologies, wellhead shutoffs, did all of the right things not only in a voluntary way but also because of mandates of public policy from our Federal Government. We began to get it better, and it is the best it is today. Americans ought not fear drilling off their coasts because it is done right. Remember Katrina and not one drop spilled.

Let me talk about something else that simply demonstrates the reality of where we are. Let's dial up your scope and not look at the whole of the United States; let's go right to the gulf on this chart. Here we are. Here is 181. This is what S. 3711 talks about, this 8.3 million acres. We provide excellent buffer for the State of Florida all around. Yet we are going to allow production to come off in that area so that the American consumer can feel a little more secure, hoping that the price at the pump will not go up anymore and might go down a little, and their energy bills this winter may go down a little bit. But the reason I bring this to the floor is because of the speech I gave some months ago on the Senate floor about what is going on right here, the Northern Basin off Cuba, 50 miles from the Florida coastline. We have five foreign countries drilling there today. That is 50 miles off of our coastline; it is property that belongs to the Cuban nation. China is there drilling, as are Spain and Canada. It is not 120 miles away, not the big buffer zone we created to protect the Florida coastline from our own effort, our own expertise, from the world's best deep-sea drillers, the U.S. petroleum companies. In some instances there, it is nations that know little about the technology and are borrowing it from others and don't have our quick shutoff systems and our wellhead protection systems. They are not 120 miles off of our coast, they are 50 miles off of our coast, and we cannot do a thing about it.

Let me rephrase that. There is something we could do. Right now, we have prohibition that no U.S. company can go there. It is Federal policy, U.S. foreign policy. Why? Because it is Cuban. Yet the Cubans would love to have us there. Why? Because of our expertise and talent. They want their beaches protected. This particular area of Cuba has beautiful, sandy white beaches being developed by foreign interests today for resorts, so foreign tourists can come there from all over the world. They don't want those beaches at risk, but they also want oil developed. They would love to have us do it, but we have a prohibition against that. We will debate that on the floor.

I have a bill that 20-plus Senators are cosponsors of. It would change the policy and allow U.S. companies to play in that area, to bid, and to become the producer--not for a Chinese market but for a U.S. market. Isn't it phenomenal? Here we go, again. Here is the ``no zone.'' We say: No, you can't. No U.S. company can touch any of this. But right down here, we say: China can come and drill. We say that by the absence of good foreign policy; we don't say it in reality. But by denying ourselves the opportunity, we invite the world to come.

The reason it is important that I say this in the context of S. 3711 is for the American people to understand that, as we struggle to get it right, with lease sale 181 embodied in the Senate bill, it is but a small step in the right direction--albeit the right direction--with potentially a very significant impact to the consumer's pocketbook. At the same time, we have a long way to go as a country, as our economy struggles under dramatically increased energy costs, as the average family struggles to balance their budget, their household budget.

There is no way that mom's or dad's salary is going to go up 280 percent in a few months' time. It will not happen. Yet everything that is tied to energy, everything that is tied to the petrochemical industry, their costs have gone up dramatically, and all of those are put off on the American consumer. Did you hear the Senator from Florida? Twenty-five to thirty percent of our nitrogen production has gone offshore. Now, we are so silly that we are stepping on our food bills. Nitrogen goes on the ground, nitrogen produces crops, crops produce food, and food gets to the consumer shelf. By our public policy, we are suggesting that food costs will even go up, or at least the producer's costs will go up. If the producer's costs will go up, they will attempt to pass that through to the market shelf, to the grocery store. So not only by the absence of good policy are we going to cause mom to pay more to get to the grocery store, we are going to ask that she pay more when she gets there, all because of an incoherent lack of policy that doesn't fit the absolute needs of the American consumer.

I could go on a lot longer about national security and our dependence on foreign oil and, when that dependence is at risk, then we have to suffer or we put our military in harm's way, in part, to protect our foreign interests and keep rural stability. We will argue that it is in the name of human freedom, but in the process it holds down energy costs by creating a stable world.

Senator Domenici chairs the Energy Committee, and he has worked now for a year to produce the legislation that is before us. He recognizes, as do many of us who serve on the Energy Committee, the reality of where we are today and where we have to go. The American consumer will, I believe, feel the positive result of this legislation when it becomes law, when the drilling starts, when the marketplace recognizes that the potential of bringing 5.83 trillion cubic feet of gas to the market and 1.6 billion barrels of oil is very significant, and it is done in a safe way and environmentally sound way and it is out of harm's way from the rest of the world that is growing increasingly unstable, which happens to be one of the primary producers of crude oil for the world market. No, finally the Senate gets it.

Senator Domenici and I and members of the Energy Committee and this Senate struggled for 5 years to craft the Energy Policy Act of last year, a very significant bill.

A lot of work is underway. Billions are being invested in all forms of new technology and energy and energy development. But in the interim, in the next decade or two, as we transition this great economy of ours to different forms of energy, you don't turn off the energy you have, you don't tell the consumer not to drive the car for 5 years until we can get them a hydrogen fuel cell car that doesn't do any emission, or maybe is supplied by energy that is going to cost less. Our country doesn't work that way and it never has.

S. 3711 begins to put us in sync with reality. I say to the American consumer that we hear you. We hear you loudly and clearly and we grasp your sense of frustration and insecurity at this moment. Passage of this bill will help stabilize energy costs and, in some instances, especially in natural gas, it may well bring down those prices for the winter months and the heating months of 2006 and 2007. If we can accomplish that--and I think we can--then this Senate ought to vote unanimously for S. 3711. We ought not get caught up in the minutiae of the politics of the past because the minutiae of the politics of the past have produced $3 gas, have produced $10 and $12-per-million-cubic- feet gas, and have caused the American consumer to develop a sense of insecurity about themselves, their families, and their futures like none we have ever had.

The chairman of the Energy Committee gets it. That is why he has worked as hard as he has. I believe I understand those issues, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

Let us say to the American people: Let's take a step further. Let's erase this red area from surrounding the American coastline. Let's look at new offshore policy that says to the American consumer: Here is an opportunity, and we ought to deal with it in an environmentally sound way, instead of just saying no. You can't just say no and be able to deal with that at the gas pump the next day because when you do, that means the American consumer pays more.

I see that as the essence of this bill. And in supporting S. 3711, albeit a strong step, it is clearly a step in the right direction. Let's remember the responsibility we have to the consumer

as we effectively deal with and develop these resources because that consumer is also an environmentalist who wants it done in a safe and sound and environmentally clean way. That is what we are about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today in support of legislation protecting the most important relationship of all: that of parents and their children. The family is the fundamental, crucial and indispensable building block of our civilization, and parents are at its center. Yet, when it comes to one of the most important decisions in life, children are being kept from the guidance of their parents. I am talking, of course, about the decision whether or not to have an abortion.

The American people believe that parents should be involved in deciding whether their daughter should undergo an abortion. Statistics consistently show this, and the Supreme Court has upheld this. As the Court noted in the decision of H.L. v. Matheson: ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is immature.'' In the case of Parham V. J.R. the Court said ``[t]he law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.''

Convinced of the soundness of this reasoning, at least 48 States have enacted laws requiring consent of or notification to at least one parent, or authorization by a judge, before a minor can obtain an abortion. Unfortunately, this wise policy is being undermined.

Thousands of children every year are taken across State lines by people other than their parents to secure secret abortions. As we speak, abortion providers across the Nation, operating in States with no parental consent or notification laws, are taking out advertisements in phonebooks outside of the State where they operate in order to attract underage patients in neighboring States with different laws. They are doing this in my home State of Idaho. They are doing this in Pennsylvania, blatantly trumpeting the fact that their clinics, outside of Pennsylvania, do not require parental notification as Pennsylvania does. In essence, these abortion providers are encouraging people to circumvent one State's parental notification law by crossing the border into another for a secret abortion.

The tragedy is that thousands of non-related adults take this suggestion every year in successful attempts to circumvent the law. In one highly publicized case, a 12-year-old girl living in a State with a constitutionally upheld parental notification law became pregnant by an 18-year-old man. The man's mother took her for an abortion in a neighboring State with no parental notification requirement. The mother's actions were discovered, and she was convicted of interfering with the custody of a child. A prominent proabortion legal defense organization appealed the conviction on the grounds that she merely ``assisted a woman to exercise her constitutional rights'' and as such was herself protected from prosecution by the Constitution. This reasoning cannot stand.

To say that, because the Court in Roe v. Wade declared most abortions constitutionally protected during the first trimester, that therefore minors have an absolute right to abortion without so much as notifying their parents, and that third parties--whatever their motives--have the right to transport them across State lines for a secret abortion, is to stand constitutional protections on their head. It is to strip children of the natural protection of their parents. There is hardly another circumstance warranting the need for parental guidance and judgment more than when a young daughter becomes pregnant and is considering an abortion. For the sake of our children and our families, this must stop. As a Nation, we loosen our precious family ties at our peril.

I must also note that Idaho is unable to enforce parental notification and consent laws that have passed the State legislature and have been signed into law by the Governor. Nearly 20 other States are in the same situation. These laws are all enjoined due to lawsuits brought by organizations intent on imposing their flawed understanding of the United States Constitutional protections on the American people, and judges willing to support it. It is my hope that this litigation will be resolved and that the right of elected officials to make and enforce laws under their jurisdiction will be upheld.

I strongly support and am cosponsoring the Child Custody Protection Act. Children must receive parental consent for even minor surgical procedures. Children must receive parental consent to take an asprin from their school nurse. I want to make it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines with intent to avoid the application of a State law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion, or judicial waiver of such a requirement. The profound, lasting physical and psychological effects of abortion demand that we help states guarantee parental involvement in the

abortion decision. That means, at a minimum, seeing to it that outside parties cannot walk around State parental notification and consent laws on a whim or as a means to hide illegal activity. We can no more afford to allow State laws to be ignored than we can afford to allow family ties to be further undermined. For the sake of our families, I urge my colleagues to defend both by supporting the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. President, this is not a curious amendment. It has nothing to do with the Superdome in New Orleans at the time of Katrina, because if law enforcement people were standing at the door and they said you could not enter with a legal or illegal firearm, you could not enter. But the Senator from Illinois would like to suggest to you that this is to stop chaos within the Superdome.

That is flatly false. It is important that you understand that. That would not prohibit--if we want to fast forward, God forbid, to a national disaster in Chicago of an unprecedented kind, and for the police to say for those seeking sanctuary at the McCormack Center, you cannot bring guns in here--this amendment would not prohibit that. This amendment agrees with a Federal judge who got an injunction to stop the chief of police of New Orleans from acting illegally. That is what it did.

I am not going to judge the chief of police. He has resigned and is long gone. He left town. He was in a crisis situation. But in this instance the Senator from Illinois is right. When law enforcement breaks down in a national or local disaster, should not the private citizen who legally owns a firearm have the right to protect themselves and their property? The answer for 200 years in this Nation is absolutely yes.

I will give you a couple of situations. A little old lady is sitting on her porch in New Orleans with a shotgun across her lap. Why? Because there were marauders in her neighborhood who were stealing and robbing. She was protecting her home, property, and life. The police came and ripped the gun out of her hand and said, Get out of our way. That happened. I saw it on videotape. It happened. She had not shot anybody. She was deterring those from entering her home and stealing her life savings.

Another example: A couple is moving down one of the canals of New Orleans in their boat. They lost their home and they were in their boat, and it was post-Katrina. They were stopped by the local water patrol in the area, who said, Do you have a firearm on board, and they said, Yes, we do. Is it legal? Yes, it is; here are the papers. Give us your gun. That is what happened. That is really what happened in New Orleans. A Federal judge finally stepped in and said, Stop that, you cannot do it, and, by the way, the thousands of firearms that you have confiscated, give them back, they are private property. Guess what happened. They didn't give them back because they kept no records. They were on a massive sweep. Even some of the local police who were interviewed were embarrassed because they were taking guns away from people and they knew it was their only defense in protecting their own property.

Is the Senator from Illinois denying the basic right of property, defense, self-defense, and family defense in a national disaster when law enforcement breaks down? You bet he is. But the Senator from Louisiana is saying quite the opposite. The Senator from Louisiana is also saying that current law, Federal law, is in no way abridged here. That is fundamentally important. Circumstances can get very, very difficult.

I would not want to prejudge the former chief of police of New Orleans in an impossible situation. When criminal elements were misusing firearms, as they always do, but where private citizens were protecting property, as they can and should have the right to do with the use of their firearms, in his broad sweep of a desire to protect, he took everything. That should not happen. When I saw it happening and when I heard about it, I said, Not in America; that is not the way this country works.

But for a moment in time, that is the way it worked in New Orleans, until a Federal judge stepped up and said, You are out of bounds and off of the law, so stop it. That is what happened.

Now, this should not have been done in the Superdome, and there were none. This amendment would not prohibit that. It would not deny current law and the right of the police to so designate. But it would prohibit the kind of order that would create the sweep of law-abiding citizens who were using a firearm for the protection of their property, their life, and their family's life.

The day we give up the right of self-protection in this country by law-abiding citizens is the day we become the victims of government. That is something that should never be allowed.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for offering the amendment. It is appropriate, timely, and I hope our colleagues will support it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4608 and 4574

Mr. President, today I rise to remember the 3-year anniversary of the death of two, brave fallen firefighters.

July 22, 2003, will be a day that is always remembered in the hearts of the family and friends of Jeff Allen of Salmon, ID, and Shane Heath of Melba, ID. These brave men lost their lives while trying to save our public lands from a catastrophic wildfire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Both men were experienced firefighters of the Indianola Helitack Crew.

This weekend a memorial will be dedicated to Jeff and Shane. Family and friends will gather to remember their strong spirits and the sacrifice they made. This memorial symbolizes the courage of Jeff and Shane, the healing of the community, and helps us all to remember that wildfire spares no one.

Jeff Allen was 23 years old and had been a firefighter since 1999. He started working on the Salmon-Challis National Forest on a thinning crew on the Salmon-Cobalt District in 1998. He served successfully in fighting devastating fires on the Salmon-Challis National Forest during the 2000 fire season. Jeff was a marketing major at Boise State University.

Shane Heath was 22 years old and was in his fourth season with the Forest Service. He served on the Helitack crew as a certified sawyer and was also a student at Boise State University.

The tragic loss of these two men continues to be felt throughout their communities and their selfless acts of true bravery will not be forgotten. I commend the men and women who risk their lives every day by undertaking this terribly dangerous job with courage and professionalism.

Thousands of young men and women are on the fire fronts of the wildfires that are now sweeping across the West. As we enter the middle of fire season, with the devastating heat that we are having in the Great Basin, and the West, I hope that we do not lose another firefighter to wildfire.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to allow veterans who use the VA health care system to establish health savings accounts, HSAs. This legislation will increase health insurance options for veterans and their families, provide future options in the choice of health care providers for veterans, and could ultimately allow veterans who are forced to rely on the VA health care system today to choose to receive care from the private health care system in the future.

As my colleagues are aware, current law allows individuals who purchase a high deductible health insurance plan to contribute funds, on behalf of themselves and their family, to a health savings account. Funds are contributed to the HSA on a pretax basis and then can be withdrawn for qualified health care expenses without any tax consequence.

In order for a person's HSA to be in ``good standing'' with the IRS, the individual cannot carry health insurance that provides coverage for any health services prior to reaching the deductible amount of the high deductible plan. Of course, like many government programs, there are exceptions to the rules for certain circumstance. Most notably, a person does not jeopardize an HSA by purchasing long-term care or accident insurance nor is the receipt of workman's compensation coverage disqualified from contributing to an account. Yet the IRS has advised the health insurance industry that VA health care would count as a health insurance plan that provides coverage for health care services prior to reaching the high deductible limit. Therefore, veterans who use VA are not eligible to establish health savings accounts.

At the time this issue was brought to my attention, the argument was limited to the narrow issue of service-connected veterans being denied an opportunity to avail themselves of the tax advantages of an HSA simply because they suffered an injury related to their service in the military and the government was providing care for that injury. Of course, that seemed outrageous to me. Like any employer, the Government has an obligation to provide treatment for injuries sustained while military personal are serving our country. And if workman's comp is a current exemption, why not VA care?

So, I set out to draft a bill to allow service-connected veterans who use VA for service-connected treatment to establish HSAs. But, the more I considered the arguments for allowing those who use VA for service- connected conditions to have HSAs, the more I realized that the arguments applied just as strongly to all VA patients. I would like to take a moment to explain my arguments.

First, the current law unfairly affects families of veterans when the veteran is the sole provider of income for the family. As everyone knows, VA is not a family health care provider except in the extreme case of a permanently disabled service-connected veteran. Therefore if a veteran--even a service-connected veteran--uses the VA health care system, current law does not even allow that veteran to contribute money on behalf of his family to an HSA. What good does that do? Why would we prohibit a veteran from providing health coverage to his or her family? In my opinion, that does neither the veteran nor his or her family any good. It is simply a well-intention policy when applied to HSAs, with a harmful, unintended consequence as applied to veterans.

Second, under current law VA is permitted to bill insurance carriers for the treatment of nonservice connected conditions. Further, many veterans are required to pay copayments to VA in order to receive that same care. So, veterans have out-of-pocket medical expenses and VA can bill their insurance provider. Yet we have a policy that disallows the establishment of a tax free account to pay for those medical expenses and--even worse--provides a disincentive for the veterans to buy an insurance policy that VA could one day bill. Again, I understand the genesis of the policy. However, it is having unintended consequences when applied to our veterans.

Finally, while it is true that more and more veterans are choosing to use VA as their provider of choice as a result of the excellent care provided by the system, there are still hundreds of thousands of veterans who use VA because they are financially unable to afford the private health system. I am proud that this Nation stands by those veterans who cannot provide for their own care in the private system. However, I do not think we should statutorily preclude them from even trying to take control of their own health care finances.

What harm would come if a veteran, who uses VA today because he or she has no other option, was suddenly allowed to purchase a low premium, high deductible plan and then begin to contribute to a savings account that he or she would now own. I say no harm at all. The only thing that could come of this is that the veteran may one day say to his government: I was there for you when you needed me. You were there for me when I needed you. Now, I no longer need you.

Again, I am not saying that veterans should feel as though I am trying to get them to leave the VA system. I am not. But, I certainly do not want to stop a veteran from choosing to buy insurance, start saving in an HSA, and one day leaving the system. I think one of the things government can do for its citizens is provide the tools and assistance that will allow Americans to provide for themselves. That is what this legislation is about.

I am confident that many of you will agree with the premise that it is a basic issue of fairness to support allowing service-connected veterans to establish HSAs. But, I also hope that I have demonstrated here today that it is sound public policy to extend the HSA option to all veterans who use VA's health care system.

I urge my colleagues to be cosponsors of this legislation and I urge passage of the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to allow veterans who use the VA health care system to establish health savings accounts, HSAs. This legislation will increase health insurance options for veterans and their families, provide future options in the choice of health care providers for veterans, and could ultimately allow veterans who are forced to rely on the VA health care system today to choose to receive care from the private health care system in the future.

As my colleagues are aware, current law allows individuals who purchase a high deductible health insurance plan to contribute funds, on behalf of themselves and their family, to a health savings account. Funds are contributed to the HSA on a pretax basis and then can be withdrawn for qualified health care expenses without any tax consequence.

In order for a person's HSA to be in ``good standing'' with the IRS, the individual cannot carry health insurance that provides coverage for any health services prior to reaching the deductible amount of the high deductible plan. Of course, like many government programs, there are exceptions to the rules for certain circumstance. Most notably, a person does not jeopardize an HSA by purchasing long-term care or accident insurance nor is the receipt of workman's compensation coverage disqualified from contributing to an account. Yet the IRS has advised the health insurance industry that VA health care would count as a health insurance plan that provides coverage for health care services prior to reaching the high deductible limit. Therefore, veterans who use VA are not eligible to establish health savings accounts.

At the time this issue was brought to my attention, the argument was limited to the narrow issue of service-connected veterans being denied an opportunity to avail themselves of the tax advantages of an HSA simply because they suffered an injury related to their service in the military and the government was providing care for that injury. Of course, that seemed outrageous to me. Like any employer, the Government has an obligation to provide treatment for injuries sustained while military personal are serving our country. And if workman's comp is a current exemption, why not VA care?

So, I set out to draft a bill to allow service-connected veterans who use VA for service-connected treatment to establish HSAs. But, the more I considered the arguments for allowing those who use VA for service- connected conditions to have HSAs, the more I realized that the arguments applied just as strongly to all VA patients. I would like to take a moment to explain my arguments.

First, the current law unfairly affects families of veterans when the veteran is the sole provider of income for the family. As everyone knows, VA is not a family health care provider except in the extreme case of a permanently disabled service-connected veteran. Therefore if a veteran--even a service-connected veteran--uses the VA health care system, current law does not even allow that veteran to contribute money on behalf of his family to an HSA. What good does that do? Why would we prohibit a veteran from providing health coverage to his or her family? In my opinion, that does neither the veteran nor his or her family any good. It is simply a well-intention policy when applied to HSAs, with a harmful, unintended consequence as applied to veterans.

Second, under current law VA is permitted to bill insurance carriers for the treatment of nonservice connected conditions. Further, many veterans are required to pay copayments to VA in order to receive that same care. So, veterans have out-of-pocket medical expenses and VA can bill their insurance provider. Yet we have a policy that disallows the establishment of a tax free account to pay for those medical expenses and--even worse--provides a disincentive for the veterans to buy an insurance policy that VA could one day bill. Again, I understand the genesis of the policy. However, it is having unintended consequences when applied to our veterans.

Finally, while it is true that more and more veterans are choosing to use VA as their provider of choice as a result of the excellent care provided by the system, there are still hundreds of thousands of veterans who use VA because they are financially unable to afford the private health system. I am proud that this Nation stands by those veterans who cannot provide for their own care in the private system. However, I do not think we should statutorily preclude them from even trying to take control of their own health care finances.

What harm would come if a veteran, who uses VA today because he or she has no other option, was suddenly allowed to purchase a low premium, high deductible plan and then begin to contribute to a savings account that he or she would now own. I say no harm at all. The only thing that could come of this is that the veteran may one day say to his government: I was there for you when you needed me. You were there for me when I needed you. Now, I no longer need you.

Again, I am not saying that veterans should feel as though I am trying to get them to leave the VA system. I am not. But, I certainly do not want to stop a veteran from choosing to buy insurance, start saving in an HSA, and one day leaving the system. I think one of the things government can do for its citizens is provide the tools and assistance that will allow Americans to provide for themselves. That is what this legislation is about.

I am confident that many of you will agree with the premise that it is a basic issue of fairness to support allowing service-connected veterans to establish HSAs. But, I also hope that I have demonstrated here today that it is sound public policy to extend the HSA option to all veterans who use VA's health care system.

I urge my colleagues to be cosponsors of this legislation and I urge passage of the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues from Oregon and Washington in introducing S. 3522, the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act, FRIMA, of 2006. It is important that we pool our resources and work together in the region to get serious about fish restoration. FRIMA has proven to be cost effective and efficient at this goal and, therefore, should be reauthorized.

The FRIMA program exemplifies the great potential of forward-thinking public-private partnerships, and the wisdom of working closely with local communities. Since it was enacted in 2000, we have achieved real results. In my home State of Idaho, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, 13 projects have been completed and 206 miles of streams have been ``protected, enhanced, or made accessible to fish.'' One example of work being done is in the Salmon River Basin near Salmon, ID, where partners such as the Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation District and the U.S. Forest Service have installed fish screens on three irrigation water diversions. These screens protect salmon and other fish species and allow farmers to continue to irrigate their farms. And let me emphasize in supporting the reauthorization of this program that there remain important projects such as these yet to be completed.

This program makes sense, especially from a financial perspective. FRIMA extends the reach of Federal dollars by enlisting other interested parties. This results in more money for FRIMA projects and more talent and experience working to achieve success. In fact, from fiscal years 2002 to 2004, local and State government, businesses, irrigation districts, and environmental groups, to name just a few, have shouldered 58 percent of the cost. This cost-sharing surpassed the 35 percent threshold required in the original legislation.

An important aspect of this legislation reduces the hurdles for public and private restoration dollars to participate in the Fish and Wildlife Service's cost-sharing program to protect, enhance, and restore important fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest. This clarification is important so that the Bonneville Power Administration's nonfederal dollars can be used to make other Federal and private money go further to recover salmon.

Finally, this program has received the support of our new Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne. When he was Governor of Idaho he remarked:

The FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of

government and private land owners working together to

promote conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions

plays a key role in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon

populations while protecting rural economies.

The Idaho Fish and Game Department and the Idaho Water Users Association are also strong advocates of the program.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. has been rescheduled for Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on the implementation of Public Law 108-148 (The Healthy Forests Restoration Act).

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Merry Trudeau, a longtime employee of the Internal Revenue Service in Idaho.

Merry started with the IRS in 1976 in the collection division holding various positions, quickly advancing from clerical to Revenue representative to Revenue officer. She then advanced to problem resolution officer, which was the predecessor to the taxpayer advocate. This turned out to be Merry's true calling, and it is where my staff and I got to know her well.

All of us work with our constituents on a daily basis to help resolve issues with the IRS. Having a helpful, energetic, pleasant person at the IRS to work with makes our job so much easier. Merry is that person. She knows her job well and she consistently seeks to serve Idahoans well. For that I am grateful.

On behalf of the hundreds, if not thousands, of Idahoans Merry has helped, I say thank you. Merry, we wish you the best in your next endeavor, knowing you will continue to serve your neighbors and community well.

Mr. President, it is an honor and a privilege to stand with my fellow cosponsors in support of S.J. Res. 12, an amendment designed not merely to protect the physical integrity of the American flag but the very heart of our democratic republic. From 1776 to today, from the Marines who fought their way to plant the flag at the top of Iwo Jima to the firefighters who lifted the flag above the ruins of the World Trade Center, it is clear that ``Old Glory'' represents so much more than a nation. In truth, the American flag represents thousands of years of struggle in human history to achieve political liberty, religious autonomy, and freedom from want. More important, our flag represents the inspiration of the life of our Nation and what humanity has the potential to accomplish.

Throughout our Nation's history, the American flag has enjoyed the protection not only of its people but its laws.

Unfortunately, this safeguard was eroded in 1989 by the Supreme Court decision in Texas vs. Johnson. This decision, which many of my colleagues and I agree was misguided, found within the Constitution a right that had never before existed: the right to physically assault the flag under the First Amendment. Since then, Members of Congress have been faced with reconciling the tension between ``free speech'' and the symbolic importance of the American flag. Many have argued that this tension exists between matters of fact and matters of the heart. But in my view, protecting our flag is a matter of both.

Whether we choose to acknowledge them or not, acts of violence or desecration towards our flag have become a grave reality in our country. Since the Texas decision in 1989, there have been more than 120 reported cases of flag degradation across the United States, and this number reflects only those events that were publicized by the media. Even with that reality in mind, we must remember that the point is not how often the flag has been burned, defaced, trampled, or torn or even those responsible for such heinous acts. Rather, the point has to do with our response--especially our official response--to those events. As citizens, we can no longer allow flag burning to be considered a ``norm'' in our society. Although we can do nothing when terrorists or those with anti-American sentiments defile our flag abroad, we owe it to our brave service men and women, to ourselves, and to our children to do something when it happens on our own soil.

Prior to the Texas decision, 48 out of our 50 States had statutes prohibiting flag desecration on the books. And since 1989, support for protecting our flag has only increased. Today, as the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator Frist, has said, an overwhelming 80 percent of the American public and all 50 State legislatures agree that the Constitution should allow States and the Federal Government to protect the flag. This is exactly what this resolution was designed to do. The amendment does not prohibit flag desecration itself, but will give Congress and democratically elected State legislatures the opportunity to deliberate and ultimately decide how they will guard the United States flag.

It is important to note that the amendment process is not something that we as citizens or Congressmen should take lightly. However, when we look back in history, it is clear that constitutional amendments have only taken effect when both citizens and legislators have joined together to demand change, after prolonged periods of social unrest. As we look forward to our Nation's birthday next week, it is clear that now is the time to put an end to this political dissension and embrace the freedom and the responsibility we inherited from our forefathers. The amendment process is a fundamental provision of the Constitution, and by making use of it, we not only reaffirm its foundation, but we reveal the virtue embedded in democracy.

Ultimately, we must remember that democracy, from 2500 years ago when originally articulated by philosophers like Aristotle, to more modern discussions about democratic nation-building in the Middle East, has always encompassed much more than a structural or institutional framework for government. Although elements such as free elections, dispersed power, basic human freedoms, equality, and an involved citizenry are important in thinking about democratic governments, the idea itself revolves around a vision. That vision acknowledges human beings are capable of securing their liberty but also establishing a free, prosperous, and ultimately, unified society. It is a vision that has inspired people everywhere, but especially Americans, with hope, optimism, and an unwavering sense of loyalty. Such a vision is best expressed in the waving stars and stripes of Old Glory.

We often warn our children ``If you can't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.'' Today, it is my hope that we will come together and agree that there is nothing we would rather stand up for than the American flag.

Let me speak specifically to a provision--the Durbin amendment--that should be troubling to all of us.

Just this past month, this body voted unanimously to support, and the President has just signed, an act called the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act.

The legislation that was authorized and moved out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee speaks to those who choose to demonstrate during periods in the ceremony at a cemetery in the burial of one of our fallen heroes.

This body rightfully protected those families and those mourners in certain demonstrations at the VA's 223 national cemeteries and at Arlington National Cemetery. We differed a little with the House, and the reason we differed with the House is quite clear. There were two constitutional reasons for differing with the House.

The first amendment right to assemble peacefully was one of those, and the second one was a federalism principle that I think the Senator from Illinois walks all over--that recognizes we only have the right to shape those activities on Federal property.

The Durbin amendment fails miserably to adhere to the federalism principles--the very principle that drove my amendment to the House- passed version of the Fallen Heroes Act. Therefore, I am here today to urge my colleagues to oppose the Durbin amendment on two grounds.

First of all, the courts have said we can't legislate as it relates to flag burning; secondly, we ought not be telling States what to do as it relates to private cemeteries or State cemeteries. I think that is very clear.

I said at the time we voted on the Fallen Heroes Act that I would ask that federalism be protected.

I must say in conclusion that there is no commerce nexus in what the Senator from Illinois is attempting to do. This clearly is a federalism argument. It is a State and local responsibility to protect that which the Senator from Illinois is asking us to protect.

We have already acted in defense of our fallen heroes on Federal property, as we should rightfully have done.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I regret that I will not be able to vote on the nomination of Andrew Guilford. I have been called back to Idaho because of a family emergency. Had I been present to vote, I would have voted in his favor. It is my understanding that there are no known votes against this nominee, so his certain confirmation will not be affected by my absence.