Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Clean Air Attainment Enforcement Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, OK as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office.'' Mickey Mantle emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, charity, and sportsmanship. He is a shining example of how commitment and dedication can lead to great success. I seek to name the post office in Commerce, OK, in Mickey Mantle's honor. He is still known to Commerce by the nicknames ``Commerce Comet'' or ``Commerce Kid''. At age 4 Mickey Mantle moved with his family to Commerce where he grew up, having been born in Spavinaw, OK. By his father who was an amateur player and fervent fan, Mickey Mantle was named in honor of Mickey Cochrane, the Hall of Fame catcher from the Detroit Tigers. Signing with the New York Yankees in 1949, Mantle made his Major League Debut in 1951. He played his entire Major League career with the Yankees. He was a twenty-time All Star and named American League MVP three times. Mantle was a part of 12 pennant winners and 7 World Championship clubs. Some of Mantle's records still hold today. He holds the record for most World Series home runs (18), runs batted in (40), runs (42), walks (43), extra-base hits (26), and total bases (123). Mantle announced his retirement on March 1, 1969. He actually retired on Mickey Mantle Day, June 8, 1969. In addition to the retirement of his uniform number 7, Mantle was given a plaque that would hang on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium, near the monuments to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Miller Huggins. In 1974, as soon as he was eligible, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame demonstrating his importance to baseball and community. Sadly, Mickey Mantle's father died of cancer at the age of 39, just as his son was starting his career. Mantle said one of the great heartaches of his life was that he never told his father he loved him. After a bout with liver cancer himself, Mickey Mantle was given a few precious extra weeks of life due to a liver transplant. The baseball great was overwhelmed by the selfless gift of a liver from a stranger; therefore, Mickey became determined to give something back at the end of his life. Thus, in 1995, the year he died, the Mickey Mantle Foundation was established to promote organ and tissue donation, and Mickey Mantle will be remembered for something more than his heroic baseball career. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding athlete so that future generations will be as inspired by his example of sportsmanship and charity as we have been.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say I have listened with some interest. Unfortunately, the committee I chair has had meetings all day, and I have not had a chance to really get involved in this discussion. But I have been listening to people criticizing Secretary Rumsfeld, talking about the war, and I just wonder what war they are talking about and what Secretary they are talking about because it certainly is not what is going on right now. I can remember so many times during the 1990s when we had this euphoric attitude that somehow the Cold War was over and so we no longer needed a military and so we knew we could do some downgrading at that time. I can remember so many times on the floor saying we will rue the day we did this, we are going to have to rebuild, not knowing at that time that this would have to be during a time of war. At that time, our Army divisions went down by about 50 percent. The tactical air wings went down by about 50 percent. Ships went down from 600 to 300. And again, people were thinking, there is no need to have this strong of a military. And they did not seem to think there was any kind of a threat out there. Nobody really thought about what we call today the asymmetric threat. Now, that is what Secretary Rumsfeld inherited. I remember so well, about 6\1/2\ years ago, at his confirmation hearing, I asked a question. I said: Right now, we have downgraded the military to the point where we are going to have to build it up again. And as we try to anticipate the problems we will be facing that we must prepare for today, that will come 10 years from now, you are going to have all the four star generals, who are all smart people, but they are not going to guess it right. I can remember one time, in 1994, I was in the House Armed Services Committee, and we had someone testify that in 10 years from then we would no longer need ground troops. That was in 1994. So I asked: What is the answer to this? If we are going to try to have our kids, our troops go into the field on some future date 10 years from now, how are we going to be sure they have the best of everything? He said: Well--I am going from memory now, but he said--all throughout the 20th century the amount we spent on defense equaled 5.7 percent of GDP. At the end of the 1990s, we were down to 2.7 percent. I said: Where should it be? He said: Probably, in order to be prepared for any contingency in the future, we would have to be somewhere between 4 and 4.5 percent or maybe even 5 percent of GDP. That is the problem he inherited. And he was hired because he has had the vision to restructure this and set about doing that job some 6\1/2\ years ago. During his first month, he called for flowcharts to be created that would detail the interdepartmental relationships at the Pentagon. What he received back looked like a bowl of spaghetti. It was totally disorganized. He had to expose this, and we all know now what he did. He started in on reforming the Pentagon. Nobody else did it prior to him. He was the one who did it. We know the big picture changes and takes time when we shake up the very foundation of the Pentagon, but he did it. We were shifting from a division-oriented force to a modular brigade combat force, from a conventional base enemy toward an asymmetric war, while maintaining our ability as a modernized nation. Much progress has been made in the Army's system of dealing with divisions and organizing them into modular brigades, combat teams that are more capable and faster to deploy. He increased force size from 33 brigades to 42 brigades. I didn't agree with him at first. I remember that out in Oklahoma we were shocked when he made the announcement as to one of the programs that we had, that we were working on, the development of a modern nonline-of-sight cannon called the Crusader. It was going to take us out of the World War II technology. Right now, the best thing we have in terms of artillery is the Paladin, and that is World War II technology. It is one where you have to swab the breach after every shot. That is what we were faced with at that time. I criticized him for junking that program. He had a bigger picture in mind. It was a future combat system for the Army. He looked at the Navy and said the biggest problem was spare parts. Donald Rumsfeld concentrated on that and now has ships ready to be deployable. Another change in the Navy was instead of bringing a ship all the way with a crew out to a battle area, he leaves the ship there and flies the crew back and forth and increases the ship's efficiency at sea by about 50 percent. That is common sense, but it is something that nobody else did. It took Donald Rumsfeld to come along with the idea to do that. In the Air Force, he recognized at that time that--I think it was probably under his supervision that General Jumper had the courage to stand up and say: Now we are sending our airmen out with equipment that isn't as good, potentially, as the enemy's. He talked about our strike fighters, and the best that we had were the F-15 and the F-l6. We slowed down the F-22 development, the joint strike fighter. But General Jumper stood up and said--and Rumsfeld agreed--that now the potential is that the enemy has better equipment than we do. What he was referring to was the SU series the Russians were making, SU-27s, SU- 30s, and SU-35s were, in many ways, superior to what our airmen and women were flying. So, anyway, we got this back on schedule and now we have some 66, 68 F-22s flying. I see a couple of the Senators on the floor who will join me in wanting to enhance that program of F-22s and move the joint strike fighter forward. That is something that this Secretary did, which others were not willing or capable of doing and didn't have the foresight to do. I have to tell you this, Mr. President. I was there during the confirmation hearing, and I said publicly on the Senate floor that the liberals are not going to like Rumsfeld for one major reason: they cannot intimidate him. He is not one to be intimidated. He has stood up to them, and he tells the truth; he tells it like it is. People in politics, many times, don't like that. Turning to Iraq, the positive things that have changed in Iraq are economic change, where the economy is recovering after 30 years of a bloody dictatorship that we are aware of. In 2005, the Iraqi economy grew an estimated 3 percent. It is estimated to be some 10 percent in 2006. The International Monetary Fund is anticipating that. Under Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iraqi standard of living deteriorated rapidly. The per capita income there dropped from $3,800 in 1980 to $715 in 2002. Today, the economic recovery is picking up, with GDP growing from $18.9 billion in 2002 to $33 billion in 2005. I have to say this, also. So many of the people who criticize what is going on over there in the war don't go over there and see. If you watch CNN and the networks and read the New York Times, you will not get an accurate picture of what is going on. I have been there more than anybody else. I have been in the Iraqi AOR 11 times, during all of the elections. I was in Fallujah during that election. I recall very well a general there named Mahi, who had been the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein; he had hated Americans. He hated Americans until the Marines went into Fallujah and started this embedded training. He learned to love them so much that he looked across at me and he said, ``When they rotated the Marines out, we all cried.'' Then he renamed the Iraqi security forces in Fallujah to be the Iraqi Marines. Then, up in Saddam's hometown, I was there when they blew up some of the Iraqi security forces who were training. Forty were either killed or near dead. What you didn't get in the media was the success story, the support from the Iraqis. Each family of the ones who were killed in Tikrit supplied another member of the family to take the place of the one who died. You don't see that in the news. I was fortunate to have arranged to be there at the same time that their Government took over. The Prime Minister, Defense Minister Jasim, and the National Security Advisor were there. I asked them basic questions. Some are talking about the civil war that is going on. A civil war is not going on. If you go there and sit down and talk to them, I believe it was Jasim who said that he is Shia and his wife is a Sunni. He didn't even know what some of the other members of the Cabinet were. I wasn't sure I believed this, I say to my friend from Alabama. I went out on my own with an interpreter and I saw an honor guard force, the very elite of the group; there were nine of them. One was the leader. I said to the leader: I would like to know about the civil war, about what is happening between the Shia and the Sunnis. He said: That is just not a real thing. I have been with these guys 8 days now, and I cannot tell you which are Shia and which are Sunni. He said--and this is interesting because he repeated what Dr. Rubai said--he said: That is a Western concept. I wish that some of these people who are criticizing what is going on would hear the testimonials we hear. A woman told me ``now my daughter can get married.'' I said: Why couldn't she get married before? She said it was because the wedding celebrations take place outdoors. Many times, the forces would come by--and we know, of course, Saddam's sons would capture and rape all of the girls and bury them alive. That is not happening anymore. For the first time, we have women going to school there. You have to go there and talk to them before you realize it. The security forces that we criticize on the floor of the Senate are up now to 275,000 trained and equipped. I have talked to them, visited with them. I was in Fallujah when they voted. They voted 2 days ahead of time because they were risking their lives to vote. They are looking forward to the day when they are going to be able to take care of their own security. It is difficult for people to say when that day is going to come. That is a military decision. Many of the military people tell me that when they have 10 divisions trained and equipped, they will be able to do it. Now they have 275,000, so that would be about 325,000. They are making great progress. I heard the distinguished minority leader of the Armed Services Committee talk about a poll taken about how the Iraqi people are responding to us. If a question is worded: Do you want to have the coalition forces here from now on? Of course, they don't. They are a very proud people. They want to take care of their own problems. But they are not ready for us to leave right now. In a poll taken about two trips ago, they said 94 percent of the Iraqis support a unity government. Now they have that unity government. In the same poll, 78 percent of the Iraqis said they were opposed to Iraqis being segregated by religion or ethnicity. And so we can show you that the Iraqi people are so appreciative. It is spooky when they recognize you as an American and come running up to you. You never know for sure what they have with them. But they come up and embrace you and they are recognizing that what we and the coalition forces have done is a remarkable thing. Also, what do a lot of these critics I heard on the floor have in common? They are all running for President of the United States. This is going to be their issue. If they can go to the Democrats and say, I am more liberal than anybody else, I am heading up the surrender, cut- and-run caucus, that is what they are going to try to do. I suggest that we are very fortunate that Donald Rumsfeld was here at this time. I have thought often about what might have been the alternative. The greatest possible disservice we can do, not just to the Iraqi people but to our troops there, is to use Rumsfeld and the war for political advancement. I have spent time with them over there, and I assure you that we did the right thing. People who say there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq don't realize that three major terrorist camps were actually in Iraq at that time. They are not open for business anymore. So I am very proud to stand here and defend our Secretary of Defense, who has done a great job, and also to say that our troops are doing an incredible job under most difficult circumstances. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, OK as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office.'' Mickey Mantle emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, charity, and sportsmanship. He is a shining example of how commitment and dedication can lead to great success. I seek to name the post office in Commerce, OK, in Mickey Mantle's honor. He is still known to Commerce by the nicknames ``Commerce Comet'' or ``Commerce Kid''. At age 4 Mickey Mantle moved with his family to Commerce where he grew up, having been born in Spavinaw, OK. By his father who was an amateur player and fervent fan, Mickey Mantle was named in honor of Mickey Cochrane, the Hall of Fame catcher from the Detroit Tigers. Signing with the New York Yankees in 1949, Mantle made his Major League Debut in 1951. He played his entire Major League career with the Yankees. He was a twenty-time All Star and named American League MVP three times. Mantle was a part of 12 pennant winners and 7 World Championship clubs. Some of Mantle's records still hold today. He holds the record for most World Series home runs (18), runs batted in (40), runs (42), walks (43), extra-base hits (26), and total bases (123). Mantle announced his retirement on March 1, 1969. He actually retired on Mickey Mantle Day, June 8, 1969. In addition to the retirement of his uniform number 7, Mantle was given a plaque that would hang on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium, near the monuments to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Miller Huggins. In 1974, as soon as he was eligible, he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame demonstrating his importance to baseball and community. Sadly, Mickey Mantle's father died of cancer at the age of 39, just as his son was starting his career. Mantle said one of the great heartaches of his life was that he never told his father he loved him. After a bout with liver cancer himself, Mickey Mantle was given a few precious extra weeks of life due to a liver transplant. The baseball great was overwhelmed by the selfless gift of a liver from a stranger; therefore, Mickey became determined to give something back at the end of his life. Thus, in 1995, the year he died, the Mickey Mantle Foundation was established to promote organ and tissue donation, and Mickey Mantle will be remembered for something more than his heroic baseball career. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding athlete so that future generations will be as inspired by his example of sportsmanship and charity as we have been.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there are many things we take for granted that have made our Nation prosperous. The Founding Fathers spent their lives seeking to create a United States of America that could survive against the great powers of England, France, and Spain. These men knew that America had at least one advantage over the European powers: size. President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase of 1803 effectively doubled the size of the United States and provided a means by which America's inland farmers would have a guaranteed way to ship their products to market. Even today, the comparison remains striking when you ask, ``How far will one gallon of fuel move one ton of freight?'' One gallon of fuel can move a ton of freight 59 miles by truck and 386 miles by rail. That same gallon of fuel will move a ton of freight by water 522 miles. One of the main reasons for the economy of waterborne shipping lies in something physics students know as friction and we pilots know as drag. The more that friction or drag increase, the more that fuel economy decreases. There is a lot of friction between a road and a truck. There is far less between a ship and a river. This simple rule led me to lead the fight for the Water Resources Development Act a few days ago. As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal Government are to provide for national defense and public infrastructure. Efficiency and economics require the Government to not only plan but to construct and maintain public infrastructure. Investments in real public infrastructure, like waterways and barge canals, create economies of scale that have made the American economy a wonder of the world. My determination to stand up in this Chamber at every opportunity on behalf of national defense and public infrastructure is a large part of the reason I am introducing legislation today to make English America's official language. A common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor 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, CA. 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 easily sell its products in Madrid, again, in part because of the language barrier. The European Union is an effort to create a United States-like common market in Western Europe, among other things. Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we Americans have enjoyed for free these past 230 years. There are too many signs that we are allowing this great advantage of an American nation united by a common language to slip through our fingers. President Bill Clinton created the most radical language policy 6 years ago when he signed Executive Order--E.O.--13166 on August 11, 2000. E.O. 13166 declared that all recipients of Federal funds had to be ready to provide all services in any language anyone wished to speak at any time. E.O. 13166 means that while Canada has only two official languages and the United Nations just six, the United States now has over 200 official languages. Efforts to repeal E.O. 13166 have run aground because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what repeal would mean. After the debate on my official English amendment, S.A. 4064, to the Senate immigration bill, S. 2611, E.J. Dionne, Jr., told readers of the May 23 Washington Post that he was still going to pray over his children in French. I have only one word to say to Mr. Dionne: relax. Neither my earlier amendment to the immigration legislation nor the legislation I am introducing today will have any impact whatsoever on the prayers of the Dionne family or, for that matter, a dinner table chat in Spanish or a family discussion in Navajo. Official English laws are not directed at the language people themselves choose to speak but, rather, in what language the Government speaks to the American people. My bill basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language. It states explicitly that English is our national language and provides English a status in law it has not before held. Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English. My legislation 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 services and materials in languages other than English. If passed, my bill will also repeal all bilingual, or foreign- language, ballot mandates. There is a reason bilingual ballots make so many of my constituents upset. Gathering together at the polling place is one of the few remaining civic rituals we perform as Americans. I can remember going along with my mother on election day; the American flag behind the table where voters signed in and were verified as eligible; the sound of the ``thunk'' of the levers on the voting machine. I remember thinking even then that voting was a privilege to be approached seriously. In all too many places these days, the local polling place resembles nothing more than a branch of the Mexican consulate or an outpost of the United Nations--signs in two, three, or even more languages; people yelling at weary poll workers because a Cantonese speaker was summoned to translate for a speaker of Mandarin Chinese. My constituents ask me all the time how people are supposed to cast an informed vote if they cannot follow the debates, which are in English, and read the campaign literature, also in English. Bilingual ballots strike many of my constituents as an invitation to all kinds of voting fraud. Of course, when the Government attempts to please everyone by translating important documents into multiple languages, mistakes are inevitable. To mention just one example out of many, in 1993, the Chinese ballot in New York City had the Chinese characters for the word ``no'' as a translation of the English word ``yes.'' One can only imagine the confusion that ensued. Official English is popular, even among Hispanics. As I said before during the debate on my amendment, if you look at some of the recent polling data, such as the Zogby poll in 2006, it found 84 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of Hispanics, believed that English should be the national language of government operations. A poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States, according to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. I wish to conclude by saying that I think it would be a tremendous demonstration of good faith by the White House to support my legislation. America has plenty of language problems already. If the Senate version of the President's immigration proposals should become law, every guest worker and ever recipient of amnesty would arrive on our shores as a little bundle of linguistic entitlements. Local government offices and public schools will be simply overwhelmed by the costly language mandates each of these individuals and their families will trigger. A nation certain of its language and culture can continue to be a welcoming nation to legal immigrants. A nation with uncontrolled borders and no convictions about what it expects immigrants to do once they arrive will soon become a nation in name only. Mr. President, my legislation is good for America and good for everyone in America. I urge its speedy passage by my colleagues.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I, too, want to echo the comments of my colleagues. I share their concern in regard to the issue that they have raised.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there are many things we take for granted that have made our Nation prosperous. The Founding Fathers spent their lives seeking to create a United States of America that could survive against the great powers of England, France, and Spain. These men knew that America had at least one advantage over the European powers: size. President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase of 1803 effectively doubled the size of the United States and provided a means by which America's inland farmers would have a guaranteed way to ship their products to market. Even today, the comparison remains striking when you ask, ``How far will one gallon of fuel move one ton of freight?'' One gallon of fuel can move a ton of freight 59 miles by truck and 386 miles by rail. That same gallon of fuel will move a ton of freight by water 522 miles. One of the main reasons for the economy of waterborne shipping lies in something physics students know as friction and we pilots know as drag. The more that friction or drag increase, the more that fuel economy decreases. There is a lot of friction between a road and a truck. There is far less between a ship and a river. This simple rule led me to lead the fight for the Water Resources Development Act a few days ago. As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal Government are to provide for national defense and public infrastructure. Efficiency and economics require the Government to not only plan but to construct and maintain public infrastructure. Investments in real public infrastructure, like waterways and barge canals, create economies of scale that have made the American economy a wonder of the world. My determination to stand up in this Chamber at every opportunity on behalf of national defense and public infrastructure is a large part of the reason I am introducing legislation today to make English America's official language. A common means of communication has created one giant market for goods and labor 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, CA. 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 easily sell its products in Madrid, again, in part because of the language barrier. The European Union is an effort to create a United States-like common market in Western Europe, among other things. Europeans are spending billions of euros to try to replicate what we Americans have enjoyed for free these past 230 years. There are too many signs that we are allowing this great advantage of an American nation united by a common language to slip through our fingers. President Bill Clinton created the most radical language policy 6 years ago when he signed Executive Order--E.O.--13166 on August 11, 2000. E.O. 13166 declared that all recipients of Federal funds had to be ready to provide all services in any language anyone wished to speak at any time. E.O. 13166 means that while Canada has only two official languages and the United Nations just six, the United States now has over 200 official languages. Efforts to repeal E.O. 13166 have run aground because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what repeal would mean. After the debate on my official English amendment, S.A. 4064, to the Senate immigration bill, S. 2611, E.J. Dionne, Jr., told readers of the May 23 Washington Post that he was still going to pray over his children in French. I have only one word to say to Mr. Dionne: relax. Neither my earlier amendment to the immigration legislation nor the legislation I am introducing today will have any impact whatsoever on the prayers of the Dionne family or, for that matter, a dinner table chat in Spanish or a family discussion in Navajo. Official English laws are not directed at the language people themselves choose to speak but, rather, in what language the Government speaks to the American people. My bill basically recognizes the practical reality of the role of English as our national language. It states explicitly that English is our national language and provides English a status in law it has not before held. Making English the official language will clarify that there is no entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English. My legislation 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 services and materials in languages other than English. If passed, my bill will also repeal all bilingual, or foreign- language, ballot mandates. There is a reason bilingual ballots make so many of my constituents upset. Gathering together at the polling place is one of the few remaining civic rituals we perform as Americans. I can remember going along with my mother on election day; the American flag behind the table where voters signed in and were verified as eligible; the sound of the ``thunk'' of the levers on the voting machine. I remember thinking even then that voting was a privilege to be approached seriously. In all too many places these days, the local polling place resembles nothing more than a branch of the Mexican consulate or an outpost of the United Nations--signs in two, three, or even more languages; people yelling at weary poll workers because a Cantonese speaker was summoned to translate for a speaker of Mandarin Chinese. My constituents ask me all the time how people are supposed to cast an informed vote if they cannot follow the debates, which are in English, and read the campaign literature, also in English. Bilingual ballots strike many of my constituents as an invitation to all kinds of voting fraud. Of course, when the Government attempts to please everyone by translating important documents into multiple languages, mistakes are inevitable. To mention just one example out of many, in 1993, the Chinese ballot in New York City had the Chinese characters for the word ``no'' as a translation of the English word ``yes.'' One can only imagine the confusion that ensued. Official English is popular, even among Hispanics. As I said before during the debate on my amendment, if you look at some of the recent polling data, such as the Zogby poll in 2006, it found 84 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of Hispanics, believed that English should be the national language of government operations. A poll of 91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeed in the United States, according to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. I wish to conclude by saying that I think it would be a tremendous demonstration of good faith by the White House to support my legislation. America has plenty of language problems already. If the Senate version of the President's immigration proposals should become law, every guest worker and ever recipient of amnesty would arrive on our shores as a little bundle of linguistic entitlements. Local government offices and public schools will be simply overwhelmed by the costly language mandates each of these individuals and their families will trigger. A nation certain of its language and culture can continue to be a welcoming nation to legal immigrants. A nation with uncontrolled borders and no convictions about what it expects immigrants to do once they arrive will soon become a nation in name only. Mr. President, my legislation is good for America and good for everyone in America. I urge its speedy passage by my colleagues.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters in support of Jerome Holmes be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me thank the junior Senator from Oklahoma for the time he spent on the floor and the time he spent defending this man, not that he should ever need any type of defense against some of the accusations. I didn't realize that there is an article referred to where he stated: There are other ways to get minority students on college campuses besides handing out benefits based solely on skin color. I am proud of it. I am also proud of the fact that I have known Jerome Holmes for some 5 years. Frankly, prior to this nomination, I made recommendations to the President that he consider this man because he is so incredibly qualified. We all agree he is a man of great character and undeniably fit for the bench. He has connections with both Oklahoma City and throughout Oklahoma, as well as the District of Columbia, a family history that goes back. He was one of the prominent figures in the Oklahoma City bombing that took place 11 years ago. He was on the Oklahoma City bomb prosecution team, and I believe it was his distinguished service as assistant U.S. attorney that really began to set him apart in the legal field. When asked about Mr. Holmes, most lawyers in Oklahoma begin their compliments with his work as U.S. assistant attorney in some public corruption cases in our State. He is someone who is willing to get in there and criticize and open up things other people aren't, a great characteristic and I think very important. But if I were to single out another one, I would say his chairmanship of City Rescue Mission in Oklahoma. This is their mission statement: Serving the homeless both with help, hope, and healing in the spirit of excellence, under the call of Christ. I have certainly made my position known for quite some time concerning him and how he limits his opinions to the facts, the litigants, and law before him in any case. At a time when our Nation is faced with the onslaught of judicial activism, he is a breath of fresh air and I believe he is a man of character and principle; that he will rule justly within the parameters of the law. We have a resolution from the Oklahoma Bar Association. I have the former president of the American Bar Association, the president-elect of the local Federal bar association, I have the deans of all three of the Oklahoma law schools praising him in the highest of terms. Judge Holloway, currently sitting on the Tenth Circuit, noted Mr. Holmes's compassion for people whose cases were before the court. John Richter, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, who worked with Mr. Holmes, can speak from the prosecutor's perspective and has said that Mr. Holmes is a man of integrity and character and possesses a rock-solid work ethic. Mike Turpen is someone with whom Senator Coburn is very familiar. I don't believe in the years I have known Mike--and we have one of these very honest relationships. He is a very partisan Democrat. I don't think he has ever said anything nice about a Republican in his life except Jerome Holmes. Dan Webber--we have all these Democrats who are lined up without anyone dissenting from the idea that this guy is the perfect nominee to be confirmed to the Tenth Circuit. Judge Ralph Thompson--I was elected to the State legislature with Judge Thompson. I considered him not just one of my closest personal friends, but he is certainly a judge of distinction in Oklahoma and has been for over 30 years. He ought to know a thing or two about judges. He said: Mr. Holmes is dedicated completely to the rule of law, the proper role of the judiciary and to applying and interpreting the law without regard to personal views on given issues. I don't think there is any judge, any Federal judge in the history of Oklahoma, who is more highly regarded than Judge Thompson. He also went on to affirm Mr. Holmes's honesty and compassion. I have a letter from Pastor George Young, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League, who showed great character in voicing his support for Mr. Holmes. He said: I trust Mr. Holmes, and so in light of our differences I support his nomination. Now, he is one who doesn't agree with everything, every statement that Jerome Holmes has made, and yet he supports his nomination. He is for him. He is supporting him, head of the NAACP and the Urban League. I talked with various attorneys in the State, and they all have good things to say about him. What I want to do, Mr. President, is submit for the Record a list of letters, if this has not been done by my colleague from Oklahoma. It has been done, so it is already in the Record. I thank my colleague for the time he spent in the Chamber. It happens I am on the Armed Services Committee, and we have a critical meeting that is going on even right now, so I haven't been able to be here, but my absence from the floor is no indication that I don't hold this person in the highest regard. I worked hard in getting his name to the President, made that recommendation early on, and I believe he will be confirmed and history will reflect later on that he would be one of the greatest circuit judges, and I certainly encourage my colleagues to support his nomination to the Tenth Circuit. I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill prohibits transporting minors across State lines to obtain an abortion without parental notice or consent. I have and will continue to fight for the protection of children in the womb as well as the safety of minors. I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and that children in the womb deserve the same rights and protection as all other human beings. The Child Custody Protection Act will not only help protect these children in the womb, it will also protect their young mothers and families by involving parents who have their best interests at heart. I believe we can all agree that our young girls must be protected, and the laws put in place for that purpose must be upheld. Currently, 45 States have laws that require notification, consent, or some type of consultation with a minor's parent or guardian before she can legally have an abortion. However, there are no laws to prevent a minor from crossing State borders and having an abortion performed in a State without such laws. This practice disregards abortion policies of individual States, implicates interstate commerce, and endangers young girls by allowing them to have dangerous abortion procedures performed without the guidance of their parent or guardian. The Child Custody Protection Act prohibits transporting a minor across a State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if doing so circumvents a parental notification or consent statute in the minor's residing State. The Child Custody Protection Act will not change the parental notification or consent laws of any individual State, but will help to enforce these laws by helping to prevent minors from being taken out of a State for an abortion without a parent's knowledge or consent. This bill will actually reinforce State policies that are already in place. Sadly, many young girls have been taken out of State by an individual other than her parent or guardian to obtain an abortion and have been subjected to unsafe and unlawful abortion procedures that endanger them physically and mentally. Abortion can cause physical and emotional complications for a young girl, and these dangers are greatly increased by taking her away from of the influence of her parents or guardian, placing her in the hands of an individual who does not have her best interests in mind. Crystal Farley Lane was one such victim. When she was 12 years old, she became pregnant after tragically being raped by a 19-year-old man. Rosa Hartford, the man's mother, then took Crystal from her home in Pennsylvania, without her mother's knowledge or consent, to New York, where there were no parental consent laws, to have an abortion. After the procedure, Ms. Hartford abandoned young Crystal, who had serious medical complications, 30 miles from her home. When Crystal's mother, Joyce Farley, found out what happened and tried to help by asking the abortionist for Crystal's medical records, she was denied. Fortunately, Ms. Farley was able to help her obtain the medical care she needed in time, despite this obstacle by the abortionist. Crystal's near-death experience could have been prevented had the Child Custody Protection Act been in place. Instead, there are currently no laws to prevent people like Ms. Hartford from taking Crystal out of Pennsylvania to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Ms. Farley poignantly testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that, ``situations such as this are what the `Child Custody Act' was designed to help prevent. I am a loving, responsible parent whose parenting was interfered with by an adult unknown to me.'' In another instance, Marcia Carroll's 14-year-old daughter was forced into having an abortion by her boyfriend's family. The family took her from Pennsylvania to New York without Ms. Carroll's knowledge or consent, left her alone to have an abortion that she did not want to have, and then left her a block from her home in Pennsylvania. This 14- year-old girl had to go through a frightening and painful abortion procedure on her own and was then left to deal with the physical and emotional pain from an abortion that she did not want to have. I find it terribly unjust that there are no laws to prevent situations such as these from happening and that families have no recourse against those who are responsible. Very often, adult men, who are on average 6 to 7 years older than their victims, are the culprits of this violating crime against these young girls. Two-thirds of these adult men are 20 years of age or older. Additionally, more than half of the time it is a girl's boyfriend who takes her to another State to have an abortion without her parents' consent. An abortion performed in a jurisdiction that prohibits release of the medical records destroys any evidence that might have been used against a perpetrator to prosecute him for statutory rape and leaves him free to continue preying on these young girls without consequence. The incongruity of this status is striking. There are so many restrictions to protect our minors from making bad decisions by requiring parental consent for their actions. They must have parental consent to take medication at school, even an aspirin. They cannot go on a school field trip without a permission slip signed by a parent. Why, then, can a young girl who cannot take an aspirin without the consent of her parents, cross a State border and have an abortion without notifying them? And why can an adult be prosecuted for giving a child aspirin but not for taking her to another state to have an abortion? By reinforcing State abortion laws requiring parental notification or consent, the Child Custody Protection Act will protect our young daughters from making or being coerced into poor, irreversible, life- changing decisions. I believe we can all agree that action must be taken to prevent the evasion of laws created to protect minors and their families and help preserve the precious lives of children in the womb. I ask that this Chamber quickly pass this lifesaving legislation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish medicare health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare medical savings accounts, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices. My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, for Medicaid, I introduced S.1754, a bill to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014 on September 22, 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits. I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to expand access to life-saving implantable cardiac defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250-yard rule for critical access hospitals. As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have cosponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. I also introduced S. 96, the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act, to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removes suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill frees American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities. As a result of my sister's death from cancer and treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced S. 1956, the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act--ACCESS--on November 3, 2005. This bill would offer a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician. On April 4, 2006, my resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' passed by unanimous consent. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 million people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. Additionally, I have consistently cosponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week: in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the Federal hospital mortgage insurance program. As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and health care initiatives I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law. To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high-deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA. In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage. As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care. Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA. My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare. Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish medicare health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill will make HSAs available under Medicare in lieu of Medicare medical savings accounts, MSAs. I have long been dedicated to quality health care and believe that seniors should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health care, so they can receive the health care they need and deserve. As a senior myself, I appreciate how imperative it is that we seniors be provided with a wide array of choices. My desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care is evidenced by my involvement in various health-related issues. I have always been a champion of rural health care providers. In 1997, I was one of the few Republicans to vote against the Balanced Budget Act because of its lack of support for rural hospitals. At that time, I made a commitment to not allow our rural hospitals to be closed and am pleased we finally addressed that important issue in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 by providing great benefits for rural health care providers as well as a voluntary prescription drug benefit to seniors. In 2003, I also co-sponsored the Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act, to protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care in rural regions. In order to assist my State and other States suffering from large reduction in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, for Medicaid, I introduced S.1754, a bill to apply a State's FMAP from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal years 2006 through 2014 on September 22, 2005. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent drastic reductions in FMAP while revision of the formula itself is considered. I am a strong advocate of medical liability reform and am an original cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. These bills protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the effects of excessive liability costs. I am committed to this vital reform that would alleviate the burden placed on physicians and patients by excessive medical malpractice lawsuits. I have also worked with officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to expand access to life-saving implantable cardiac defibrillators and many other numerous regulations that would affect my rural State such as the 250-yard rule for critical access hospitals. As a supporter of safety and medical research, I have cosponsored legislation to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research and a bill to take the abortion pill RU-486 off the market in the United States. I also introduced S. 96, the Flu Vaccine Incentive Act, to help prevent any future shortages in flu vaccines in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. My bill removes suffocating price controls from government purchasing of the flu vaccine while encouraging more companies to enter the market. Also, my bill frees American companies to enter the flu vaccine industry by giving them an investment tax credit towards the construction of flu vaccine production facilities. As a result of my sister's death from cancer and treatment we learned about not accessible in the United States that might have saved her life, Senator Sam Brownback and I introduced S. 1956, the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act--ACCESS--on November 3, 2005. This bill would offer a three-tiered approval system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use by the seriously ill patient population. Seriously ill patients, who have exhausted all alternatives and are seeking new treatment options, would be offered access to these treatments with the consent of their physician. On April 4, 2006, my resolution to designate April 8, 2006, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day'' passed by unanimous consent. The intent of this resolution is to raise awareness of Cushing's syndrome, a debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 million people per million. It is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. Additionally, I have consistently cosponsored yearly resolutions designating a day in October as ``National Mammography Day'' and a week: in August as ``National Health Center Week'' to raise awareness regarding both these issues and have supported passage and enactment of numerous health-care-related bills, such as the Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006, which extends the exemption respecting required patient days for critical access hospitals under the Federal hospital mortgage insurance program. As the Federal Government invests in improving hospitals and health care initiatives I have fought hard to ensure that Oklahoma gets its fair share. Specifically, over the past 3 years, I have helped to secure $5.2 million in funding for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, the Oklahoma State Department of Health planning initiative for a rural telemedicine system, the INTEGRIS Healthcare System, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, St. Anthony's Heart Hospital, the Hillcrest Healthcare System, and the Morton Health Center. As a long supporter of HSAs, I believe all people should have access to them since they provide great flexibility in the health market and allow individuals to have control over their own health care. Medicare MSAs have existed since January 1, 1997, revised in December of 2003, but they have not worked. No insurer whatsoever has yet offered any Medicare MSA under the current law. To fix this problem, my legislation creates a new HSA program under Medicare that incorporates a high-deductible health plan and an HSA account while dissolving the existing Medicare MSA. In tandem with my efforts, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are launching an HSA demonstration project that would test allowing health insurance companies to offer Medicare beneficiaries products similar to HSA. This activity points to the administration's support of HSAs and desire to see all seniors receive the best possible coverage. As the July 13, 2006 edition of The Hill, explains, ``no legislation is pending that would integrate HSAs into the Medicare program . . .'' Thus, my legislation is necessary because real Medicare HSA reform is needed in order for seniors to have true flexibility and freedom of choice in their health care. Under my bill, beneficiaries who choose the HSA option will receive an annual amount that is equal to 95 percent of the annual Medicare Advantage, MA, capitation rate with respect to the individual's MA payment area. These funds provided through the Medicare HSA program can only be used by the beneficiary for the following purposes: as a contribution into an HSA or for payment of high deductible health plan premiums. However, the individual also has the opportunity to deposit personal funds in to the Medicare HSA. My bill also guarantees that seniors be notified of the amount they will receive 90 days before receipt to ensure they have time to determine the best and most appropriate HSA to accommodate needs. The bill also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deal with fraud appropriately and requires providers to accept payment by individuals enrolled in a Medicare HSA just as they would with an individual enrolled in traditional Medicare. Please join me in supporting this important legislation to give our seniors more choices regarding their health care.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during yesterday's debate on the Water Resources Development Act, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Jeffords, and I agreed to submit for the Record a colloquy clarifying the intent of a provision authorizing the Poplar Island expansion project in Maryland. Unfortunately, this colloquy was inadvertently left out. I ask unanimous consent that the colloquy be printed in the Congressional Record at this point and that the permanent Record be corrected so that this colloquy appears with the rest of yesterday's debate on the bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my intention to yield back some time. We have some colleagues we want to accommodate. I think if I do that, time will also be yielded back from the other side. While I don't agree with those who tried to argue that there are currently no prioritization projects, I do acknowledge that we can do a better job. That is exactly what the Inhofe-Bond amendment will do. The administration has priorities right now. They can set priorities. It is called the budget. The administration sets its funding priorities through the President's budget request. For the last couple of fiscal years, President Bush has relied on a measure called the remaining benefit-remaining cost ratio. The Inhofe-Bond amendment requires the Corps of Engineers to provide critical and easy-to-understand information to Congress that can then be used to make tough budgetary decisions that we have to make when the funds are so limited. The amendment sets out four national priorities--I mention this because this contradicts something said by the Senator from Wisconsin: No. 1, to reduce the risk of loss of human life and risk to public safety; No. 2, to benefit the national economy; No. 3, to protect and enhance the environment; and No. 4, to promote the national defense. Let me just say in closing that no one can vote either for their amendment or against our amendment saying that one of them is going to be spending more money or there is pork. It is a wash. They are both the same. Voting for the Inhofe-Bond amendment is not going to reduce the amount of money that is going to be spent on projects or voting for the other amendment is not going to do that, either. Not one of these is a large spending bill or a small spending bill. I would like to get that out of the way. Our amendment sets out our national goals. The Corps is directed to develop a relative ranking system to report how well each project meets these four priorities. I really think enough has been said on this issue. I am prepared at this point, if the other side is, to yield back and accommodate some of our colleagues. I do so at this time.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. INHOFE. My colleague on both the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees is correct. This Water Resources Development Act provision is simply to clarify existing authority. The other bill managers and I were informed that there was some confusion as to whether funds from the Department of Defense environmental remediation account for formerly used Defense sites could be used to remove abandoned marine camels located in the waters of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay. It was our intent to clarify that the Department could in fact use these funds to remove debris linked to a formerly used Defense site even if that debris has drifted off land and into the water. Of course, any debris in the water not linked to a formerly used Defense site could not be cleaned up using funds from this account, and I believe the language in the bill reflects that distinction.

Mr. INHOFE. Again, I agree completely with my colleague. There is absolutely no intent to change the Department's current policy of prioritization through this provision. Those sites presenting the greatest risk to the public should be cleaned up first. This provision is silent with regard to where on that priority list sites in Narragansett Bay may fall.

Mr. INHOFE. I do understand the concerns about the impacts of aquatic nuisance species. I want to assure the Senate that it is my intention to resume discussions on a bill and try to bring a comprehensive bill to the Senate floor this year.

Mr. INHOFE. Senator Martinez, I am aware of the CERP review process established in WRDA 2000, and during conference we will examine its established independent review process to ensure that Everglades restoration is not unduly impeded.

Mr. INHOFE. I am aware that section 2019 of the WRDA bill before us has some problems with how we have attempted to deal with balancing the needs of municipal water suppliers and hydroelectric power generation. Complicating the issue is how CBO has scored our proposals to achieve balance. I fully intend to resolve this issue and do not intend to preempt existing statutory authorities that govern the Corps' ability to reallocate storage and provide municipal and industrial water supply. I ask my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, to accept my assurances that I will work towards a compromise that treats all parties fairly.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think this may be the first time I have had occasion to stand on the floor and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York. I appreciate his thoughtful remarks.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., in open session to continue to receive testimony on military commissions in light of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.