Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am sorry I had to leave at a very contentious time. Notes were given to me of what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said, that 90 percent of everything that Inhofe said is wrong. I didn't say anything. I am quoting scientists. I am quoting groups that are making analyses, and three of the quotes I made were from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He can say what I said is wrong, but he is saying that the scientists were wrong, and they never asserted that hurricanes have increased. It is a little confusing to me because maybe in the last few days he hasn't asserted that, but look at the movie. It talks about hurricanes. Those statements are made with regularity. In fact, they made the prediction that this past year was going to have more and more severe hurricanes. As it turned out, we had less and less severe hurricanes. I agree the models aren't perfect. I don't know what he said about the Byrd-Hagel amendment but, again, you can't find any of these studies on any of the plans----

Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not. You can't find any of the studies that are out there that haven't somehow talked about the fact that it is going to do economic damage. We know it is. No one can possibly say that there is a way to approach this where it is not going to cause the economy to be damaged. So that was in the Byrd-Hagel amendment. The Byrd-Hagel amendment also said we don't want to ratify anything. We are not going to ratify anything. Every Senator said: We are not going to ratify anything that does not require that the developing nations do the same thing that the developed nations do. Obviously, we have not seen one plan that has come along that addresses the cap and trade and greenhouse gas, anthropogenic gas emissions, that doesn't inflict damage that the developing nations are willing to do. IPCC was not written by politicians. I never said the report was. I said the summary for policymakers was written by politicians. Sea level rise is not going backward. All I can say is, if you are going to hang all your hopes on the IPCC, look at the report. This was this year, 2007. I have said this several times. I don't know why I have to keep repeating it. Yes, it has been cut in half, their estimate as to how much sea level rise was going to take place. This isn't the first time that has happened. This happens almost every time they have it in one of the reports. So the sea level rise, no sense repeating that. Inhofe shouldn't distort. He is the only one I know of who says Chirac speaks for America. Chirac speaks for America--ye gods. Since he accused me of saying that this is some kind of a global conspiracy, I was quoting the person who said that, who I am sure is a much better friend of the Senator from Massachusetts than he is of mine, and that was Jacques Chirac. Jacques Chirac said: Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance. That is not me. That is Jack Chirac. It answers the question why are these countries over in Europe so interested that we do something in this country that is going to hurt our economy. The answer came from Margot Wallstrom, Minister of the Environment for the European Union. She said: Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide. Yes, there are other countries that would love to have America be overtaxed and have all these economic problems that we don't have right now. It could inure to their benefit; there is no question about that. No one would deny that. Best economists don't say controlling carbon will be costly. How many economists and how many scientists do I have to quote? I could use the rest of my time and not repeat one of the scientists, read another whole list, but I have done it so many times. Here are some I haven't talked about. This is the cost. Going back, if you want to catch 60 at one time, let's take the 60 scientists in Canada, the ones I said earlier were the ones who recommended to the Prime Minister, 15 years ago, that they sign onto, ratify the Kyoto treaty. Now they say: If back in the mid-1990s we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we would have to conclude that it was not necessary. That is 60 scientists there. You can try to discredit all 60 of them at one time and maybe you can do it. I don't know. But there are others. You can't look at these guys with the qualifications they have. Read what they have said. The fact that they have reversed their positions and say the scientists are not, there is some consensus because there is no consensus. Senator Kerry quoted the Stern report, which has been discredited by even the economists who are climate change believers. I guess he was saying that I said there is a group of industries and we had a hearing on this. I wish the Senator from Massachusetts had attended the hearing. Yes, it is true there are several large corporations in America that are now embracing any kind of reduction, cap and trade or a tax or anything else because it inures to their benefit. I was specific as to how many millions and how many billions of dollars each one of these corporations would have. How dare me say that. Again, if I were on the board of directors of any of these, I would say: Let's do the same thing. The whole idea is to make money. The problem is, it is as if no one is paying for all this fun we are having. Yes, it would have to be more money. But if we did that, somebody has to pay for it. Again, even the CBO says that all this money it is going to cost, the tax increase on the American people, whichever of these schemes we decide on, is going to be disproportionately on the poor and those who are on fixed incomes. By the way, one of the statements on here was that no one has said we were going to have a worse hurricane season. I will quote one person I think the junior Senator from Massachusetts would know. It is Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Teresa Heinz-Kerry, the chair of the Heinz Foundation, has helped financially bankroll the Environment2004 campaign coalition, which is placing billboards throughout Florida claiming ``President Bush's environmental policies could result in stronger and more frequent hurricanes.'' That is a quote. I don't know how much time we have left. We are now repeating each other. Nothing new has come out. I will have maybe a short final statement. I am willing to yield back the balance of my time. I ask unanimous consent at this point, while we are both resting, that Senator Warner be recognized for up to 4 minutes to make a statement as in morning business and that those 4 minutes be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be recognized for up to 4 minutes to speak as in morning business and his 4 minutes not be charged against either Senator Kerry or myself.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Well, here we go again. This is exactly the same thing. If I responded to everything he said then, I have already done it before. I have read and I have talked about this. I have more scientists, if anyone wants to hear from more scientists. Also, as far as peer-reviewed studies, I have documented it, I have said where they are. So I can just say that so many times. But here is what I would suggest: What we are talking about is an amendment to this bill, an amendment to the bill which addresses the Corps of Engineers and asks them to report to us on every project, from this point forward, certain types of things, and it describes what they are. We had a hearing the other day, I say to my good friend from Massachusetts. It was May 11, 2007. That was, what, last week. We have had John Paul Woodley, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. This is a quote from his testimony. He said: The United States Army Corps of Engineers has the capacity and necessary authorities to comprehensively examine the uncertainties, threats and vulnerabilities on water infrastructure and to implement the necessary adjustments as part of a proactive adaptive management program. They can do it now. They can do it. This is the head of the Corps of Engineers. So they do not need this amendment. Now, I wish to say this. We were supposed to have this vote at 5:30. It is now 10 after 6. I am prepared not to say anything else and to yield back the remainder of my time, if the Senator from Massachusetts will do the same thing.

Mr. INHOFE. On your time, go ahead.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond to that question. Of course I do not have that.

Mr. INHOFE. But I do have peer-reviewed studies that say specifically the amount of change that is attributable to human activity is so small it is not measurable, like .07 of 1 degree in 50 years. Now, that is significant. I have several peer-reviewed studies. I would be glad to respond to your question by reading those. I have a peer-reviewed study published in the April 18, 2007, issue of the science journal Geophysical Research Letters, which found that if the world continues to warm, vertical wind shear--which literally tears apart storms--will also rise. These winds will decrease the number and severity of storms we would otherwise have.

Mr. INHOFE. We have approximately 20 peer-reviewed studies.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at this time, if the Senator wants, we can yield back our time. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. No. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and the manager of this bill. Let me say I agree with everything the Senator said. I thought we were going to finish it tonight, but if it is tomorrow, it is tomorrow. It is too significant not to finish it. I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts joining me in yielding back the remainder of our time. We are going to be ready to take a vote here shortly.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is an important issue, one I have raised many times over the years. I have testified before the Banking Committee, and introduced numerous bills. It is not a new issue. There have been at least four high-profile times in the last 12 years where proposed foreign acquisitions in the U.S. have threatened our security. In 1998, President Clinton tried to turn over management of a 144- acre terminal at the former U.S. Naval Station in Long Beach to the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company, COSCO--a subsidiary of the People's Liberation Army. I am going to quote from an LA Times article from that time: The embattled COSCO deal came to an end Thursday night, when congressional conferees submitted to Congress the 1998- 99 Defense Authorization Bill . . . Leading the effort to block COSCO from the facility were Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Duncan Hunter [of the] San Diego area. That was one battle that we won. Since working in 1995 to prevent Los Angeles ports from being controlled by Chinese interests, I have continued my pressure on the issue. For example, I expressed my concern with the CFIUS process over 2 years ago in the spring of 2005 when I delivered four speeches on China. While examining this issue I came across a disturbing example of China buying the U.S. company, Magnequench Inc., and moving it piecemeal back to mainland China. Let me read from the floor speech I gave on April 4, 2005: I believe that CFIUS does not have a broad enough conception of U.S. security. One example of CFIUS falling short is with Magnequench International Incorporated. In 1995 Chinese corporations bought GM's Magnequench, a supplier of rare earth metals used in the guidance systems of smart- bombs. Over twelve years, the company has been moved piecemeal to mainland China, leaving the U.S. with no domestic supplier of a critical component of rare-earth magnets. CFIUS approved this transfer. The United States now has no domestic supplier of rare earth metals, which are essential for precision-guided munitions. That was one we lost. Following this series of four speeches that spring, on July 20, 2005, I introduced Senate amendment No. 1311 as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. My amendment prompted the very beginning of the legislative pursuit of this issue in recent years. For example, my amendment prompted another, later, second-degree amendment, Senate amendment No. 1335, by Senator Shelby, then the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. I also testified before the U.S.-China Commission on July 21, 2005. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission is a bipartisan committee created in 2000 to monitor, investigate, and submit to Congress an annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The Commission is composed of 12 members, 3 of whom are selected by each of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the Speaker and the minority leader of the House. The Commissioners serve 2-year terms. Their recommendations are consistent with the amendment I introduced to the Defense authorization bill that would have made some of the necessary changes to CFIUS. On September 28, 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on CFIUS that is right in line with the recommendations of the US-China Commission. So this has not just been me saying that CFIUS is in need of critical change--it's the U.S.-China Commission and the GAO as well. When my amendment stalled over a committee jurisdictional point, on September 29, 2005, I chose to introduce the changes as a stand-alone bill, the Foreign Investment Security Act of 2005, S. 1797, which was referred to the Banking Committee. That bill was the first bill introduced in recent years on this topic. Later the Banking Committee held a hearing on the GAO report, and I testified before them on October 20, 2005, at that hearing. In all of these ways I have just mentioned, the Banking Committee was prompted by me to pursue this topic. In the past couple of years, several high profile business deals have been approved by CFIUS that would allow foreign-owned companies, in particular companies that are owned or controlled by foreign governments, to acquire other companies doing business in the United States. More recently I was concerned with China's state-owned CNOOC attempted to buyout Unocal, a US oil company. We won this one because of Congressional pressure, and CNOOC withdrew its bid. Over the past 2 years, I have been pointing out that the CFIUS process has ignored some major issues which threaten our national security. The most publicized deal was the state owned Dubai Ports World, DPW, purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, P&O, that would have allowed DPW to take over the operations at various east coast ports in the United States. The public outcry against this deal lead DPW to abandon its plans to operate the U.S. ports and that portion of the takeover was sold to U.S. based companies. However since the DPW- P&O deal was canceled, other transactions have been approved by CFIUS that are just as questionable. CFIUS has received over 1,600 notifications and investigated under 40. Of those, only one acquisition has been stopped by the President. This is a critical issue at a critical time. CFIUS seems to only get scrutiny when some major deal is in the papers. I have been paying attention to it all along. It needs reform, and I hope we can make some progress. I am glad that Congress is now taking a closer look at CIFIUS reform. Rest assured that I continue to push for this badly needed reform and as Congress addresses this issue, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Note too that I will ensure in particular that the national security aspects of this work are appropriately attended to. I will not stand idly by and allow a bill that is weak on national defense to pass. Let us all work together to ensure that the legislative process performs appropriately to defend our Nation, and let this bill I am introducing today be a new start.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during yesterday's discussion of the motion to proceed to the Water Resources Development Act, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, inserted into the Record a chart that shows which Member or Members requested each project-related provision in the WRDA bill. This chart, of course, was our effort to comply with the intent of S. 1, the Legislative Transparency bill. For some of the WRDA provisions, however, it was in fact a particular Member who secured inclusion of the provision in the bill. Since the chart discloses each request, however, that distinction is not clear. With that in mid, I would like to provide the following list of provisions and the Members who secured them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Let Mon Lee, a fellow from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's consideration of the Water Resources Development Act.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I also ask unanimous consent for Senator Feingold to be recognized at noon today for up to 1 hour. Then at 1 o'clock, we will have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the leader and the chairman of the committee. Let me make one comment which I think is very important. We had such a short period of time to talk before this, and I hope anyone who has any concern over this bill at least will go ahead on the motion to proceed. Let me make one comment that surprises a lot of people. It is true I used to chair this committee before the Democrats took the majority, and now Senator Boxer is the chairman. Senator Boxer is a very proud liberal Democrat and I am a very proud conservative Republican. I think it is important for people to understand that, because there are areas where we agree. We understand we have a crisis in this country on infrastructure. I have often said--and I am ranked No. 1 as the most conservative Member of the Senate--I feel we need to spend in areas of national defense and infrastructure, and this bill is the second most important infrastructure bill that is out there. We are far beyond the time we should have had this. It has been some 7 years since we have had an infrastructure bill. Let me say to my conservative friends, it was misreported that this is going to be a $30.5 billion bill. It is less than half of that. It is less than the House has sent over. I can tell my colleagues this: If we don't pass this--this is not a spending bill; this is a reauthorization bill. This is not an appropriations bill. So if we don't do this, then it will be done without any guidelines. We followed guidelines. Perhaps they are not quite as good as they were a year ago, but still, they are guidelines in terms of what we will consider and what we won't. But if we don't pass this, then we will be doing it without any type of discipline at all. So I think it is very important that we agree to move on to the bill. I yield my last minute to the Senator from Georgia, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to again invite Members to come to the floor. The order is H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. We have had a chance now to act on a motion to proceed. We are on that right now. I know there are several Members who have said they want to come to the floor with statements and amendments. I join Senator Boxer, the chairman of our committee, in encouraging people to bring their amendments down and give us a chance to look at them. I have to say, I was a little disappointed that we did not have a unanimous vote on the motion to proceed. Let me again say this, and I say this to my conservative friends, the Water Resources Development Act that is under consideration now is very similar to the one we acted on a year ago. In fact, it started out to be the same thing. I wanted to use the same criteria on the current bill that we used last year. However, on environmental infrastructure projects, there are a lot of people who wanted some of those to be considered. Frankly, I would have preferred not to. But nonetheless, that is now part of the criteria. There is a limited number of those projects. We have criteria that go along the line of making sure there is local support. We do not have any waivers for local support of these efforts, so the participation has to be there from the local governments to demonstrate clearly these are important projects to be considered. Speaking as a conservative, let me emphasize there are certain things conservatives believe Government should be doing. The top two in my category are armed services--we have to defend America; that is our function; that is what we are supposed to be doing--and second is infrastructure. Way back in the Eisenhower administration, we started a system of national highways. It has been very successful. But we have a problem in the way we have been funding them with user fees, with a Federal gasoline excise tax. It has worked fairly well. However, we are to the point now where the last bill we passed 2 years ago, the Transportation reauthorization bill, was one where, even though it was a very large bill in terms of spending that amount of money, it did nothing more than maintain what we currently have. That is not adequate. You might say that has nothing to do with the Water Resources Development Act. It does. Right now, looking into the future, I see nothing but serious problems. We know 10 years from now the traffic on our highway system throughout America is going to double and probably triple in 20 years. If something is not done to increase the road capacity, it is going to be chaotic. The two things that have the most favorable effect on surface transportation are our rail and waterway system. That is what this is all about, our waterway system. We are going to be talking in a lot more detail about this, but I want to say, particularly to those out there who believe there may be projects they don't like: These projects meet a criteria. If we were not to pass the Water Resources Development Act, if we were to say we are not going to pass it--maybe people are fabricating some reason, they don't like one or two projects that are in there--No. 1, as it is now, those projects have met the criteria, and, No. 2, if we do not pass this bill, we will have no spending discipline on these projects. They will simply go and get appropriations, and they can be things that have nothing to do with meeting important criteria. Look at this as a criterion bill to reduce spending, runaway spending; to reduce money being spent on things that do not meet the criteria in terms of the Corps of Engineers' reports to make sure they meet environmental and other requirements. It may surprise a lot of people to know that in my State of Oklahoma, we actually have a navigational waterway. A lot of people are not aware of that. In fact, it was the best kept secret for many years. But we carry grain and oil products and petroleum products back and forth all the way from my city of Tulsa, OK, it is called the Port of Catoosa, down through the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers and distributed throughout the water system. It is something absolutely necessary. If we did not have that, if we were not able to pass legislation to expand that capacity, then that traffic is going to fall on our highways. I can assure you right now the same committee considering the water bill now is going to be considering the highway reauthorization, probably in a couple of years. It is going to make it that much more traumatic if we do not get this done. I will give an example. In the State of Oklahoma, 98 percent of the way we have a 12-foot channel. However, if it is only 2 percent that is a 9-foot channel, that restricts the entire channel. I think we all understand that. While that is not in this bill--I don't have anything self-serving about this comment because that has already been authorized, that has been authorized for years--it is that type of thing that, if we are to shut down for any reason or dramatically restrict our waterways, all that is going to fall on our highways. It is a serious problem. I reemphasize to those who are my conservative friends--we have rankings around here. One of the unique things about the Senate and House of Representatives is that if people want to know how their Members are voting, if you are concerned about overtaxation, you have a number of organizations--the National Taxpayers Union, the National Tax Limitation Committee, and others--that rank us as to how we vote on tax increases. If you are concerned about overregulation of small business--I spent 35 years in small business so I know a little bit about overregulation--if you are concerned about that, the National Federation of Independent Businesses ranks all Members, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, as to how they vote on regulatory issues that might inhibit the expansion of small businesses. The same thing is true with how people vote on defending America. The Center for Security Policy ranks all Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, on how they vote on defense issues, which is a real critical thing that we are dealing with right now. The same is true in terms of people who are conservatives. The American Conservative Union ranks all Members of the House and Senate. I have to say to my conservative friends, I am, as of 2 weeks ago, again, considered and ranked as the No. 1 most conservative Member of the Senate. I am proud of that. So I don't want anyone to run around saying we are passing a bill that is somehow going out and doing projects that should not be done. Sure, there are some projects in here that I don't like as well as others. I might not have had the same criteria as someone on the other side of the aisle might. But I have to say this, with the chairman of our committee, Senator Boxer, she and I have worked for a long time on this. She, as I said before, is a proud liberal Democrat. I am a proud conservative Republican. We agree on these things. We know Government has the function of making sure we do certain things. Certainly, the greatest Nation in the world has to have an infrastructure system that will accommodate transportation. This is a very important part of that. When we deploy units for training out of Oklahoma, we send the heavy equipment via channels. I have not told this story in a long time, but since I see Senator Boxer, I will tell it. Many years ago when I was in the State Senate, it occurred to me that our navigation way that makes us navigable in the State of Oklahoma was something nobody knew about. They said: We know about the Intercoastal Waterway, we know about the Arkansas River, we know about the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, but they didn't know anything about the State of Oklahoma and the fact you can get all the way up there with barge traffic into my hometown of Tulsa, OK. A guy came to me with an idea. This is years ago. He was from Kellyville, OK. His name was Kelly. That must tell you something. He was the head of the World War II submarine veterans. He came to me and said: If you want to get the message across that we are navigable in Oklahoma, I can raise money to get a World War II surplus submarine from Orange, TX. With volunteers we can, together, if you will do the legislation in the State of Oklahoma and come help us on this, we can bring that submarine all the way from Orange, TX, up their waterway, up the Mississippi, over the Arkansas, to the Port of Catoosa--actually, the Port of Muskogee is where it ended up--and we can let the whole world know we have this navigation way. We did. All my political adversaries were against it. They said, in the State Senate, we are going to sink Inhofe with the submarine. It didn't work. The submarine is there now. It is proudly displayed in Muskogee, OK, letting all the world know we are able to barge material in and out of the State of Oklahoma. I have to say it is the Nation's most inland port. I invite you to come out and take a trip, I say to my friend Senator Boxer. The bottom line is this. We have to get the heavy stuff moved around. If it is not going to be on rail, if it is not going to be on the channel system, the waterway system we are talking about today, then it will have to be on the other surface transportation or highway system that is going to be so congested. That is what this is all about. I renew our request for Members who have amendments they want to bring to the floor, bring them now. We have lots of time. We have all day to be looking at these. We want to consider them. We want to give them our best consideration. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks made by the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer. I do agree. It is very unusual that we agree so much on one bill, and we do on this one. It is important that everyone understands, this bill is actually less than the House bill is. This bill is less than the bill when I was chairman of the committee a year ago. But the most important part is, it offers discipline. When you say you need a chief's report, you are saying a project has to be economically justified, environmentally sound, and technically feasible. Without this bill, there is no discipline. That is what I keep saying to my conservative friends. One of the Members who has been very helpful was the chairman of the subcommittee--and I was ranking member--out of which this bill emerged, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson. So we can lock in the next two speakers, if there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Isakson be recognized for up to 8 minutes, followed by Senator Grassley from Iowa for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. INHOFE

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last year I said that this Nation of immigrants requires an official language. An overwhelming majority of the Senate agreed with me on my amendment to that effect on the immigration bill. I am convinced that official English will command another majority should it receive a rollcall vote in this session. That is why today I am introducing S. 1335 to make English the official language of our Nation. The English language has played a critical role in establishing the unity of this Nation from its beginning. As I have said before, a common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor in our Nation, from Maine to California. A resident of Tulsa can seek work in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Georgia without having to learn a second language. A company based in Oklahoma City can readily sell its products from Portland, ME, to Los Angeles. In Europe, by contrast, a resident of Berlin cannot look for work in Paris or Warsaw without surmounting considerable language barriers. A German company cannot usually sell its product in Madrid, again, in part, because of language barriers. The European Union is an effort to create a U.S.-like common market in Western Europe. Among other things, Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we in America have enjoyed for free these past 230 years. Recognizing that English is necessary for successful business and a growing economy, the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce recently announced that it is spearheading a multimillion dollar campaign to help about 50,000 of its residents to learn the language. I regret to report that we have spent the last few decades giving away this priceless linguistic unity. Clinton Executive Order No. 13166 demands that all recipients of Federal funds function in any language anyone speaks at any time, burdening taxpayers with extraneous costs of an enabling policy while providing incentives for immigrants to circumvent learning English and, regretfully, hurt their chances at effective assimilation. My constituents agree that foreign language ballots deserve no place in an American election. My bill will eliminate these foreign language voting materials and multilingual voting mandates imposed on Oklahoma and other States. Only citizens are allowed to vote in our Nation, and one of the requirements to become a good citizen is to show an understanding of English. Money to provide foreign language ballots would be better spent on such constructive activities as simply teaching people how to speak English. Not only does my bill repeal foreign language ballots, it is aimed at the entire forest of mandatory multilingualism. My legislation basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our official language and states explicitly that English is our official language and provides English a status in law it has not held before. Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English and will end the practice of providing translation entitlements at taxpayer expense. My bill declares that any rights of a person, as well as services or materials in languages other than English, must be authorized or provided by law. It recognizes the decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin and discrimination do not create rights to government service and materials in languages other than English. While my bill will end federally mandated and funded foreign language entitlement, it certainly still allows for Democratic and Republican activists to offer palm cards and sample ballots in any language they wish--from Cherokee to Chinese--on election day and for individuals to bring along their own translaters to any Federal Government office. It is important to note that my bill only affects the language spoken by the Government, not the language choices of people speaking among themselves. Official English is popular even among Hispanics. As I have cited before on the floor of the Senate, in 2006, a Zogby poll found 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe that English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, a poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States. Allow me to conclude by remembering the founder of the official English movement, U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa. The son of Asian immigrants, S.I. Hayakawa became a professor of English, a college president, and, in 1976, a U.S. Senator. Senator Hayakawa became the leader of the official English effort in this Chamber when he introduced an official English bill on April 27, 1981. Senator Hayakawa used to say ``bilingualism for the individual is fine but not for a country.'' While I never served with Senator Hayakawa, I would like to honor his efforts and continue his important work by offering the S.I. Hayakawa Official English Act of 2007, which is S. 1335. Let me say, it seems so ridiculous that as we travel around the world, there are some 51 countries that have English as their official language, and yet the United States doesn't. I was recently in Ghana, West Africa. They have English as their official language. We don't have it in the United States. Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe have English as their official language but not the United States. This is something that should be a no- brainer. Of the 80-some percent of the people polled, up to 91 percent want English as the official language, and yet, for some unknown reason, people seem to be catering to some maybe small, radical group that doesn't want it. I think it is time for the majority of the American people to realize this could very well be the reality. Let me also say, when I had this amendment on the floor before, there were all kinds of objections that came down that didn't have any credibility at all. One of them that came down said: Well, you have all these flags of the various States that have foreign languages; you would have to do away with State flags. This has nothing to do with that. One came down that said: You would no longer be able to use Spanish on the floor of the Senate. It has nothing to do with that. They said: You would be drowning Hispanics. I said: Explain that to me. They said: Well, we have ``no swimming'' signs in the Potomac where the currents are very strong, so people would go in there and they would drown. This is how desperate people are to find something objectionable about something that 90 percent of the people in America want. So we are very serious about this. We are going to carry on the works of the good Senator from California and hopefully respond to 90 percent of Americans who want English as an official language.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last year I said that this Nation of immigrants requires an official language. An overwhelming majority of the Senate agreed with me on my amendment to that effect on the immigration bill. I am convinced that official English will command another majority should it receive a rollcall vote in this session. That is why today I am introducing S. 1335 to make English the official language of our Nation. The English language has played a critical role in establishing the unity of this Nation from its beginning. As I have said before, a common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor in our Nation, from Maine to California. A resident of Tulsa can seek work in New Hampshire, Oregon, or Georgia without having to learn a second language. A company based in Oklahoma City can readily sell its products from Portland, ME, to Los Angeles. In Europe, by contrast, a resident of Berlin cannot look for work in Paris or Warsaw without surmounting considerable language barriers. A German company cannot usually sell its product in Madrid, again, in part, because of language barriers. The European Union is an effort to create a U.S.-like common market in Western Europe. Among other things, Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we in America have enjoyed for free these past 230 years. Recognizing that English is necessary for successful business and a growing economy, the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce recently announced that it is spearheading a multimillion dollar campaign to help about 50,000 of its residents to learn the language. I regret to report that we have spent the last few decades giving away this priceless linguistic unity. Clinton Executive Order No. 13166 demands that all recipients of Federal funds function in any language anyone speaks at any time, burdening taxpayers with extraneous costs of an enabling policy while providing incentives for immigrants to circumvent learning English and, regretfully, hurt their chances at effective assimilation. My constituents agree that foreign language ballots deserve no place in an American election. My bill will eliminate these foreign language voting materials and multilingual voting mandates imposed on Oklahoma and other States. Only citizens are allowed to vote in our Nation, and one of the requirements to become a good citizen is to show an understanding of English. Money to provide foreign language ballots would be better spent on such constructive activities as simply teaching people how to speak English. Not only does my bill repeal foreign language ballots, it is aimed at the entire forest of mandatory multilingualism. My legislation basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our official language and states explicitly that English is our official language and provides English a status in law it has not held before. Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English and will end the practice of providing translation entitlements at taxpayer expense. My bill declares that any rights of a person, as well as services or materials in languages other than English, must be authorized or provided by law. It recognizes the decades of unbroken court opinions that civil rights laws protecting against national origin and discrimination do not create rights to government service and materials in languages other than English. While my bill will end federally mandated and funded foreign language entitlement, it certainly still allows for Democratic and Republican activists to offer palm cards and sample ballots in any language they wish--from Cherokee to Chinese--on election day and for individuals to bring along their own translaters to any Federal Government office. It is important to note that my bill only affects the language spoken by the Government, not the language choices of people speaking among themselves. Official English is popular even among Hispanics. As I have cited before on the floor of the Senate, in 2006, a Zogby poll found 84 percent of Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe that English should be the national language of government operations. According to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, a poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States. Allow me to conclude by remembering the founder of the official English movement, U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa. The son of Asian immigrants, S.I. Hayakawa became a professor of English, a college president, and, in 1976, a U.S. Senator. Senator Hayakawa became the leader of the official English effort in this Chamber when he introduced an official English bill on April 27, 1981. Senator Hayakawa used to say ``bilingualism for the individual is fine but not for a country.'' While I never served with Senator Hayakawa, I would like to honor his efforts and continue his important work by offering the S.I. Hayakawa Official English Act of 2007, which is S. 1335. Let me say, it seems so ridiculous that as we travel around the world, there are some 51 countries that have English as their official language, and yet the United States doesn't. I was recently in Ghana, West Africa. They have English as their official language. We don't have it in the United States. Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe have English as their official language but not the United States. This is something that should be a no- brainer. Of the 80-some percent of the people polled, up to 91 percent want English as the official language, and yet, for some unknown reason, people seem to be catering to some maybe small, radical group that doesn't want it. I think it is time for the majority of the American people to realize this could very well be the reality. Let me also say, when I had this amendment on the floor before, there were all kinds of objections that came down that didn't have any credibility at all. One of them that came down said: Well, you have all these flags of the various States that have foreign languages; you would have to do away with State flags. This has nothing to do with that. One came down that said: You would no longer be able to use Spanish on the floor of the Senate. It has nothing to do with that. They said: You would be drowning Hispanics. I said: Explain that to me. They said: Well, we have ``no swimming'' signs in the Potomac where the currents are very strong, so people would go in there and they would drown. This is how desperate people are to find something objectionable about something that 90 percent of the people in America want. So we are very serious about this. We are going to carry on the works of the good Senator from California and hopefully respond to 90 percent of Americans who want English as an official language.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I once again today introduced S. 1269, the ENFORCE Act, because this body has failed to move forward with sound immigration legislation. My bill is a strong step in the right direction to help solve our growing problem of illegal immigration. I did this already. I did this last year. We had a chance to talk about it, but we never were able to get this up to a vote. I do want to keep this subject moving because people are not talking about this anymore. This bill focuses on securing our borders and empowering our citizens and law enforcement officers to fight the all-time high flood of illegal immigrants. There are around a million illegal aliens infiltrating our borders each year. It also addresses some of the lesser known but equally destructive exploitations of our Nation by some of these illegal immigrants. I wish to be clear, for some reason--I am not sure why--- I have been honored over the years to speak at nationalization ceremonies. It is one of the emotional things a person can go through. When you see people coming into this country and doing it the way they are supposed to, they learn the history. Those who have gone through the legal process know more about the history of America than the average person you run into on the street. I am very strongly in favor of legal immigration. In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform stated that ``measured, legal immigration has led to create one of the world's greatest multiethnic nations.'' I agree with that statement. I also agree with their statement that when immigrants become ``Americanized,'' they help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity'' in our Nation. That is legal immigration. I agree with that. However, I am quoting now from Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA. He stated: A presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens-- I think the figure is now approximately 12 million-- in this country is a sign that this country has lost control of its borders and the ability to determine who is a member of this national community. And a country that has lost that ability increasingly loses its ability to determine the rules of its society--environmental protections, labor protection, health protections, safety protections. Further quoting: In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of other countries who manage to move in illegally. With that being said, I cannot and I will not stand idly by and watch our great Nation collapse under the pressures of uncontrolled illegal immigration. This is a crisis, one that must be addressed aggressively. While I would not belabor the point, I will chronicle some of illegal immigration's specific threats to our Nation's vitality and how this bill will address them. First and foremost, the issue of border security must be addressed. My bill would help ramp up border security by providing a way for civilians and retired law enforcement officers to assist the Border Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings. Keep in mind, if you are a retired Federal law enforcement officer, they have a mandatory retirement age of 57. There are many of these who would work for expenses. What we are advocating is a three-tiered system where you have the Border Patrol who are skilled the way they are today but have them fortified by this army of retired law enforcement officers and then bring in the third tier which are those which we have watched in the past that have been very effective in adding to the numbers on the border. It is already working. It is very similar to the National Border Neighborhood Watch. I know in my State of Oklahoma it has been a very effective program. It is more eyes to watch and more talent to arrest, when necessary. A more obscure issue that also warrants reform is the legal status of what has become known as anchor babies. To better their odds of remaining in the United States, illegal immigrants have taken advantage of a constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, by providing citizenship to these ``anchor babies,'' as they are known, our Nation rewards the illegal entry of their parents and facilities the further exploitation of our borders and national resources. This trend has contributed to the alarming fact that the illegal immigrant population is growing faster than the birthrate of American citizens. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, based on numbers from the National Center of Health Statistics, in 2002, there were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represented about 3.3 percent of the total U.S. population. That same year, there were about 383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represents about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002. This problem continues to grow exponentially and serves as a strong incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country in hopes of shortcutting citizenship requirements. Language included in the ENFORCE Act will put an end to this much exploited practice. Another ``supposed'' obligation we face is the education of illegal aliens. Some States, such as my State of Oklahoma, allow the illegal aliens the advantage of receiving in-State tuition at our State colleges and universities. I believe it is inexcusable to give away State-subsidized educations to those who do not pay taxes. This act will address this problem by making it unlawful for illegal aliens to receive this particular handout. The ENFORCE Act includes several provisions to halt illegal immigrants' continued exploitation of our tax laws and our Social Security benefits. One of the greatest problems in this area is illegal immigrants' abuse of the individual tax identification number. That is the ITIN program. Currently, it so closely resembles the Social Security number that many illegal immigrants are able to use it in place of a Social Security card to bypass our tax laws or receive wrongly awarded benefits. The ENFORCE Act will require a change in the physical appearance of this particular document so its identity can no longer be mistaken for that of a Social Security number, and it will also prohibit that document from being used for identification purposes. Additionally, my bill will require Social Security numbers to expire as soon as a person's permission to be in the United States expires. So it would expire at the same time that permission expires. It will prohibit illegal immigrants who gain legal status from collecting Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally in the country. Finally, the legality of day-labor centers is a topic that must be addressed by any comprehensive immigration reform package. These day- labor centers exist within illegal immigration-friendly ``sanctuary sites'' and not just in San Francisco. Day-labor centers are State- designated and funded sites where illegal aliens congregate and wait for employers to pick them up for a day of illegal work. One such site was approved in 2005 in Fairfax County, VA, to be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Sanctuary cities such as these enable and encourage unlawful activity by both illegal aliens and the employers who hire them. The ENFORCE Act will outlaw the creation of those particular centers. Illegal immigrants continue to cause a myriad of problems for our country and for law-abiding citizens such as you and me. Illegal immigrants not only drain our economy through their exploitation of public services and resources, but we must not forget the national security threat posed by would-be terrorists who have entered our country illegally or remain here unlawfully by overstaying their visas. The Center for Immigration Study says: Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant. Illegal immigration is straining our economy, jeopardizing our security, and burdening our education and health care systems. So this ENFORCE Act will provide solid tools to eliminate illegal immigration and strongly enforce the existing U.S. immigration laws. The seriousness of this crisis warrants that Americans of all political stripes come together to address this problem. One thing that is not included in this legislation that I think should be included in any kind of reform--and some of my colleagues can remember I had on the floor of the Senate the legislation making English the official language of the United States--and it is interesting that some 88 percent of the American people want this, and some 70 percent of the Hispanic population want this also. It is also interesting that there are 50 countries around the world that have English as their official language, including Ghana in West Africa and some other countries, and yet we do not have it for ourselves. But that is going to be handled separately at a different time. History shows us that declaring ``immigration bankruptcy'' does not work. We saw that in the amnesty of 1986. Simply granting citizenship to immigrants who are currently in our country illegally is not the answer. We have to enhance our border security, hold those accountable who encourage illegal immigration, and ensure that those who violate our laws by entering our country illegally do not remain here and are not easily welcomed back. So I am introducing that legislation, and I am going to be bringing it up at the appropriate time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I once again today introduced S. 1269, the ENFORCE Act, because this body has failed to move forward with sound immigration legislation. My bill is a strong step in the right direction to help solve our growing problem of illegal immigration. I did this already. I did this last year. We had a chance to talk about it, but we never were able to get this up to a vote. I do want to keep this subject moving because people are not talking about this anymore. This bill focuses on securing our borders and empowering our citizens and law enforcement officers to fight the all-time high flood of illegal immigrants. There are around a million illegal aliens infiltrating our borders each year. It also addresses some of the lesser known but equally destructive exploitations of our Nation by some of these illegal immigrants. I wish to be clear, for some reason--I am not sure why--- I have been honored over the years to speak at nationalization ceremonies. It is one of the emotional things a person can go through. When you see people coming into this country and doing it the way they are supposed to, they learn the history. Those who have gone through the legal process know more about the history of America than the average person you run into on the street. I am very strongly in favor of legal immigration. In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform stated that ``measured, legal immigration has led to create one of the world's greatest multiethnic nations.'' I agree with that statement. I also agree with their statement that when immigrants become ``Americanized,'' they help cultivate a shared commitment to ``liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity'' in our Nation. That is legal immigration. I agree with that. However, I am quoting now from Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA. He stated: A presence of 8 to 11 million illegal aliens-- I think the figure is now approximately 12 million-- in this country is a sign that this country has lost control of its borders and the ability to determine who is a member of this national community. And a country that has lost that ability increasingly loses its ability to determine the rules of its society--environmental protections, labor protection, health protections, safety protections. Further quoting: In fact, a country that cannot keep illegal immigration to a low level quickly ceases to be a real country, or a real community. Rather than being self-governed, such a country begins to have its destiny largely determined by citizens of other countries who manage to move in illegally. With that being said, I cannot and I will not stand idly by and watch our great Nation collapse under the pressures of uncontrolled illegal immigration. This is a crisis, one that must be addressed aggressively. While I would not belabor the point, I will chronicle some of illegal immigration's specific threats to our Nation's vitality and how this bill will address them. First and foremost, the issue of border security must be addressed. My bill would help ramp up border security by providing a way for civilians and retired law enforcement officers to assist the Border Patrol in stopping illegal border crossings. Keep in mind, if you are a retired Federal law enforcement officer, they have a mandatory retirement age of 57. There are many of these who would work for expenses. What we are advocating is a three-tiered system where you have the Border Patrol who are skilled the way they are today but have them fortified by this army of retired law enforcement officers and then bring in the third tier which are those which we have watched in the past that have been very effective in adding to the numbers on the border. It is already working. It is very similar to the National Border Neighborhood Watch. I know in my State of Oklahoma it has been a very effective program. It is more eyes to watch and more talent to arrest, when necessary. A more obscure issue that also warrants reform is the legal status of what has become known as anchor babies. To better their odds of remaining in the United States, illegal immigrants have taken advantage of a constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, by providing citizenship to these ``anchor babies,'' as they are known, our Nation rewards the illegal entry of their parents and facilities the further exploitation of our borders and national resources. This trend has contributed to the alarming fact that the illegal immigrant population is growing faster than the birthrate of American citizens. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, based on numbers from the National Center of Health Statistics, in 2002, there were about 8.4 million illegal aliens, which represented about 3.3 percent of the total U.S. population. That same year, there were about 383,000 babies born to illegal aliens, which represents about 9.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2002. This problem continues to grow exponentially and serves as a strong incentive for more aliens to illegally cross into our country in hopes of shortcutting citizenship requirements. Language included in the ENFORCE Act will put an end to this much exploited practice. Another ``supposed'' obligation we face is the education of illegal aliens. Some States, such as my State of Oklahoma, allow the illegal aliens the advantage of receiving in-State tuition at our State colleges and universities. I believe it is inexcusable to give away State-subsidized educations to those who do not pay taxes. This act will address this problem by making it unlawful for illegal aliens to receive this particular handout. The ENFORCE Act includes several provisions to halt illegal immigrants' continued exploitation of our tax laws and our Social Security benefits. One of the greatest problems in this area is illegal immigrants' abuse of the individual tax identification number. That is the ITIN program. Currently, it so closely resembles the Social Security number that many illegal immigrants are able to use it in place of a Social Security card to bypass our tax laws or receive wrongly awarded benefits. The ENFORCE Act will require a change in the physical appearance of this particular document so its identity can no longer be mistaken for that of a Social Security number, and it will also prohibit that document from being used for identification purposes. Additionally, my bill will require Social Security numbers to expire as soon as a person's permission to be in the United States expires. So it would expire at the same time that permission expires. It will prohibit illegal immigrants who gain legal status from collecting Social Security benefits for the time they worked illegally in the country. Finally, the legality of day-labor centers is a topic that must be addressed by any comprehensive immigration reform package. These day- labor centers exist within illegal immigration-friendly ``sanctuary sites'' and not just in San Francisco. Day-labor centers are State- designated and funded sites where illegal aliens congregate and wait for employers to pick them up for a day of illegal work. One such site was approved in 2005 in Fairfax County, VA, to be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Sanctuary cities such as these enable and encourage unlawful activity by both illegal aliens and the employers who hire them. The ENFORCE Act will outlaw the creation of those particular centers. Illegal immigrants continue to cause a myriad of problems for our country and for law-abiding citizens such as you and me. Illegal immigrants not only drain our economy through their exploitation of public services and resources, but we must not forget the national security threat posed by would-be terrorists who have entered our country illegally or remain here unlawfully by overstaying their visas. The Center for Immigration Study says: Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant. Illegal immigration is straining our economy, jeopardizing our security, and burdening our education and health care systems. So this ENFORCE Act will provide solid tools to eliminate illegal immigration and strongly enforce the existing U.S. immigration laws. The seriousness of this crisis warrants that Americans of all political stripes come together to address this problem. One thing that is not included in this legislation that I think should be included in any kind of reform--and some of my colleagues can remember I had on the floor of the Senate the legislation making English the official language of the United States--and it is interesting that some 88 percent of the American people want this, and some 70 percent of the Hispanic population want this also. It is also interesting that there are 50 countries around the world that have English as their official language, including Ghana in West Africa and some other countries, and yet we do not have it for ourselves. But that is going to be handled separately at a different time. History shows us that declaring ``immigration bankruptcy'' does not work. We saw that in the amnesty of 1986. Simply granting citizenship to immigrants who are currently in our country illegally is not the answer. We have to enhance our border security, hold those accountable who encourage illegal immigration, and ensure that those who violate our laws by entering our country illegally do not remain here and are not easily welcomed back. So I am introducing that legislation, and I am going to be bringing it up at the appropriate time.