Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and also for the great job he has done in bringing this Defense authorization bill to the floor. Mr. President, on early Thursday morning, about 5:30, my radio alarm went off and I heard the three words--al-Zarqawi is dead. I think that affected me by just hearing that. I sat up in bed, and I thought it did work. It is happening. I told the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that I have to go to Iraq. The two most significant things that have happened in Iraq since bringing down Saddam Hussein happened on the same date, coincidentally. It is just remarkable: first of all, bringing down al-Zarqawi, the monster, and at the same time confirming the ministers in Iraq. We thought that would be a long, enduring battle. It sailed through, and it happened on the same day. I can't tell you what a profound effect it had on the people of Iraq and on our troops over there. And now we find out about the surprise visit by the President. I figured out that our planes crossed on the way. I was coming back from Iraq and he was going to Iraq. If I had known that, I would have stayed. But it was a pretty well-guarded secret. Of the two places I spent most of my time, this one was where al-Zarqawi was actually killed, just a couple of miles north of Balad Air Force Base and then in Baghdad. It was such an incredible thing to be there after it happened and to talk to the different ministers. Defense Minister Jasim is the new Defense Minister, and he had a lot of things to say. In fact, he asked me to bring back this message for the American people. I am going to read this, because this came just a few hours ago from Defense Minister Jasim to me to take to the American people. He said: Tell them their sacrifice is for a very noble cause, they have given freedom to 26 million people. I believe they are waging a just war for humanity. The terrorism must be stopped or it will spread all over the world, like a carbon copy of fascism and communism. This is the first world war of the 21st century. The American victims have borne the price of a freer world . . . We are very grateful . . . The war in Iraq is a just war and we have no option but victory. It is not a war that affects Iraq alone, but is truly a world war. The terrorists are a sickness that must be eliminated . . . There is great transformation taking place in Iraq but the international media does not focus on positive things happening. They only focus on the negative, the bad things happening . . . what the terrorists are doing . . . they will publish anything bad . . . They try to say Americans are leading the way and we the Iraqis are in the back. This is the opposite. We are in the front and Americans are in the back. We started with the multi-national forces in front and us at back. Then we worked side by side as very good partners. Now we are often in front and the multinational forces are in a supporting role. Your presence here is very important. From the beginning to now, we have always had an American partner. I am sad when my American partner leaves me. But, when he leaves and returns to the U.S. I feel we have a voice going back to America. I fell in love with the American people. That is Abdul Jasim, who is the newly confirmed Minister of Defense. He said so many other things when we were there that I would like to share, but it is very difficult to do that because he was so emotional at the time. Well, this happened to be my 11th trip over to the Iraq AOR, and I have been watching, as the months have gone by--every other month or so being over there--and seeing the differences, seeing the changes that are taking place. Just to give you an example, one of the tests we use to determine how strong the Iraqi people are supporting us is the number of qualified tips that come in. The way they come in is where someone says, for example: There is a safe house over here. We suspect something. These are Iraqi people saying where the terrorists are. And those numbers of tips have increased tenfold in the last 12 months. I can remember when there were only 30 or 40 tips a month. There are now 5,000 tips a month, and they are qualified tips. Some of these tips led to not just bringing down al-Zarqawi but also some 17 others on the same day. So these things are going on. These things are happening. As to the quality of the Iraqi security forces, I think Minister of Defense Jasim is right. He sees that our media is not accurately reporting what is going on over there. How many people in America know that as of the current time, 75 percent of the special operations by Iraqis are actually led by Iraqis, not by Americans? We are leading 25 percent. I remember when it was zero percent. Now, they are leading 75 percent. And 62 of the 112 battalions are at level 2 or level 1. That means they are capable of going out and fighting. That is half of them. One of the statistics we got from Dr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser--a real sharp guy and one who really has his hand on this--says 66 percent of the hospital beds are occupied by Americans and 34 percent by Iraqis. However, 66 percent of the surgeries are on Iraqis and 34 percent are on Americans. That kind of tells you what is happening over there and the change that is taking place. They are the ones who are doing it. While we were over in Balad, we had occasion to learn there were several attacks on Iraqis. Some 50 Iraqis were killed last night, and they were killed by the terrorists. Here is the important thing. Zarqawi was not an Iraqi; he was Jordanian. Osama bin Laden is not an Iraqi; he is Saudi. Now, this new guy, al-Muhajer, we don't know about him. All we know is he is not an Iraqi. In other words, this is a war being waged by people from outside of Iraq on the Iraqis, and the Iraqi people are very sensitive to it. They know it. It is interesting, one of the things the Minister of Defense said is that a lot of things are American issues, they are not really issues over there. For example, all we talk about in the media here is, well, we have the Shiites and the Sunnis, and they do not like each other. And he said that is not true at all. He said: We are Iraqis first, and then we are Sunnis or Shiites or Kurds second. To demonstrate that, there is a structure over there in Baghdad which is comparable to our Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We stopped there. They had an honor guard there. The honor guard had nine people. They had one leader and eight others. When I asked him the question, through a translator: What about the problem that exists between the Shias and the Sunnis, he said: No, that is not true at all. He said: I am a Shia. My wife is Sunni. And I have been working on the honor guard with these people for several days here at our Unknown Soldier event, and I don't know who they are. I can't tell you who one of the eight is in terms of being a Sunni or a Shia. So those are American problems. Those are not things resonating over there. And the quality of what they have done in terms of being quality soldiers is something the American people are not aware of. I had occasion to be up in Fallujah back when the last election took place, and I was there when the Iraqi security forces actually were doing their thing, voting. They were taking their lives in their own hands by doing it because this is Fallujah, one of the most dangerous areas over there. They came back very proud. No one was killed while they were trying to do it. They came back and said: We are participating in an election. That was during the last election. Now everyone is confirmed. The government is in place. They know what they are doing. And the most recent thing, which you may not have heard of because it just happened, is that Dr. Rubaie, the National Security Adviser for the Iraqis, said he believes that in a matter of a very short period of time--by the end of the year--he will ask our troops to leave, except for 100,000. In other words, we are slowly bringing it down. We have heard in the field a lot of things you do not hear when there are hearings here in Washington, DC. If you go over there and you talk to the people on the ground, talk to the commanders on the ground, they have said for a long period of time that when we can get to the point where we have 10 Iraqi divisions of trained and qualified and equipped Iraqi security forces--10 divisions--then they will be able to take care of their own security. Well, the number that equates to 10 divisions would equal 325,000 trained and equipped Iraqi troops. Well, we are right now, today, at 264,000 trained and equipped Iraqis. Now, some of the adversaries over here say they are not really trained to do a good job, they are not really good soldiers. Let me tell you, they are. All you have to do is talk to our soldiers who train them. Now they train themselves. Last week, I was over in Afghanistan, and they are doing a good job of training their own troops over there. And that model has worked very well in Iraq. So we are rapidly getting to that point. Will we be out altogether? No, we will not be out altogether, but they will be providing their own security. We still have troops in Kosovo and Bosnia and Sinai and other places but not providing the security. They will be providing their own security. We are getting so close to that point. What has happened in just the last few days is very significant. So as to al-Zarqawi, there is no one who has been a more brutal terrorist than he has been. He was the No. 1 terrorist in the world, and he is down now. Al-Zarqawi was the one responsible for the assassination of our U.S. diplomat, Lawrence Foley, in 2002. We all remember the horrific things we saw: the beheading of Nicholas Berg in 2004--that was al-Zarqawi--the 2005 bombing of three hotels in Jordan, the countless bombings and terrorist attacks against U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians. He was trying to create a sectarian civil war in Iraq by murdering Shiites and acting as al-Qaida's commander in Iraq. Osama bin Laden called him the ``Prince.'' I think most people considered him, if anything, to have been even worse than Osama bin Laden. So that was a great change. That was a great victory for the coalition forces, but, more importantly, it was a victory for the Iraqi people. So with these things happening--and you look at the good side that you do not get sometimes in the media--there are 18 provinces in Iraq, and 15 of them are relatively secure. There are hardly any incidents taking place there. Most of the problems are in just three of them. And keep in mind, these are not Iraqi terrorists; these are outsiders who are coming in. They are having a harder and harder time recruiting people to carry out their terrorist activities. We have found that recently they are actually changing their homicide vests for suicide vests so they can put them on individuals and force Iraqis to go and perform certain acts. And if they do not do it, they can, remotely, detonate and blow that Iraqi up. So things like that are happening right now. At the same time, good things are happening with the administration. The government is in place. I cannot tell you how impressed I was personally with Dr. Rubaie. I have known him for a long period of time. And I would say that the Defense Minister, Abdul Jasim, has already acknowledged, from the quotes I have given, that he is one of our very best friends. He is the one who said al-Zarqawi was suffering from the same disease as Hitler and Stalin, and he is one who is going to finish the job that we helped them with in the beginning. I would say this is a time when good things are happening, and we feel very good about the progress the Iraqi security forces are making, very good about the constitutional government that is in place, very good about the new Ministers who have been confirmed now. And we are light-years ahead of where we were only 6 months ago. So this, what I have characterized as probably America being in the most threatened position we have been in in our history, is now showing that we are at the core of the terrorist activities, which is in Iraq. We are now winning. The Iraqi people are winning. So I feel very good about that. Let me say to Senator Warner, the chairman of our committee, I am very proud of the bill we have put together. I have some amendments, and I will want to be recognized at the appropriate time to bring them up. I ask the Senator, do you have other people coming down wanting time right now?

Mr. INHOFE. That would be good. I thought maybe I could describe what amendment would be coming and why.

Mr. INHOFE. No. I say to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, this amendment is very significant, and I will have ample opportunity to explain it. Hopefully, we can do that this afternoon. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say this has not really been my issue. We have been involved in some other things, but it is one about which I cannot remain silent. I have to say I am probably the wrong person to talk about the marriage amendment for a couple of reasons. One reason is I am not a lawyer--one of the few in this body who is not a lawyer. However, I have to say sometimes that gives you a better insight into these things than if you are. I enjoyed listening to some of the liberal Democrats on the Sunday shows saying they are for a marriage between a man and woman, yet immediately starting to back down, backpedal, and think of every reason in the world. It reminds me a little bit of my English as the national language amendment that we had a couple of weeks ago. Everyone was saying they were for it, and then they turned around and thought of reasons to vote against it. That is what is happening now. What does that tell you? It tells you the vast majority of people in America want this amendment. When they talk about the polling being only 50 percent of the people in America supporting a constitutional amendment for marriage between a man and a woman, they normally are talking to people who are very much for that but think we can do it some other way. They think there is another way of doing it, that we can do it State by State or we can do it statutorily. But it doesn't work out that way. I think, even not being a lawyer, I can see that a State-by-State approach to gay marriage will be a logical and legal mess that will force the Federal courts to intervene and require all States to recognize same-sex marriages. Apparently, most people do agree that is the problem. I find all of those who are concerned about the very strong lobby, the homosexual marriage lobby, as well as the polygamous lobby, that they share the same goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage requirements to just one, and that one is consent. In doing so, they are paving the way for legal protection of such practices as homosexual marriage and unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children, group marriage, incest, and, you know: If it feels good, do it. When you look at the history of this country, you can see way back in the founding days that the marriage institution was one of the very basic values on which this country was based. Way back in 1878, Reynolds v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of Congress's antipolygamy laws, also recognized that the one-man/one- woman family structure is a crucial foundational element of the American democratic society. Thus, there is a compelling governmental interest in its preservation. That was 1878. That wasn't just the other day. Yet 3 years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its likely support for same-sex marriage and possibly polygamy and Federal jurisdiction over the issue when it struck down the sodomy ban in Lawrence v. Texas. That happened only 3 years ago this month. The majority opinion extended the reach of due process in the 14th amendment of the Constitution to protect that. Then they declared--this is significant--they declared: [P]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia stated: The reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. . . . That is really much of a concern, when a member of the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with my interpretation as to what that particular interpretation meant. Now we face a serious problem. Looking at the various States, right now we have 45 States that have passed laws, statutes, or have passed constitutional amendments to their State constitutions that would do away with gay marriage. Look at the percentages. For those people who say less than 50 percent of the people want a constitutional amendment to protect marriage between a man and a wife, look at the percentages. In my State of Oklahoma, it is 76 percent of the people. That is three-fourths of the people. Down in Louisiana, 86 percent of the people said marriage should be between a man and a woman. This is 45 States out of 50 States. Only 5 States have not had that type of either statutory change or a constitutional amendment. When you look at the percentages, it is very true that a very large percentage of people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Let me mention something that has not been mentioned quite enough in this debate. A lot of people are not as emotional about this issue as I am. For those who are not, if you look at just the numbers, look at what is going to happen in this country if we follow some of these countries such as the Scandinavian countries. In those societies, they have redefined marriage. In Denmark, as well as Norway, where they have now had same-sex marriages legalized for over a decade, things that are happening there in terms of the society--it has nothing to do with emotions. According to Stanley Kurtz's 2004 article in the Weekly Standard, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Kurtz says: Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. That is in Denmark. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Stop and think. What is going to be the result? The result is going to be very expensive. Many of these kids are going to end up on welfare, so it goes far beyond just the current emotions. I think my colleague, Senator Sessions, I believe it was yesterday, said: If there are not families to raise children, who will raise them? Who will take the responsibility? It will fall on the State. Clearly it will become a State responsibility. I am not sure. I have listened to many of my colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of respect, talk about some of the ways the language should be legally changed in one way or another to perhaps accomplish something or avoid another problem.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask if I could have a minute and a half more?

Mr. INHOFE. Maybe this isn't worded exactly right. But this is the only show in town. It is the only opportunity that we will have to do anything. Again, I said maybe I am the wrong person to talk about this. I was talking to my brother, Buddy Inhofe, down in Texas. He is a Texas citizen, I say to my friend from Texas over here. He and his wife Margaret--he is 1 year older than I am--they have been married for 53 years. Every time they have a wedding anniversary, it is just like getting married again. As you see--maybe this is the most important prop we will have during the entire debate--my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I am really proud to say in the recorded history of our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship. I think maybe I am the wrong one to be doing this, as I come with such a strong prejudice for strong families. When we got married 47 years ago, there were a couple of things that were said. In Genesis 2:24 it is said: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Matthew 19 says: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. . . . I can assure you that these 20 kids and grandkids are very proud and very thankful that today, 47 years later, Kay and I believed in Matthew 19:4, that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Thank you for the additional time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment. I have heard people say that perhaps this issue should be left to the States. As a general rule, you will not find anyone who is a stronger supporter of States rights than I am. But this is a national issue the definition of marriage is and has been a national issue. A May 22 Gallup Poll shows that a solid majority of Americans--58 percent--are opposed to granting gay marriages the same legal rights as traditional marriages. Additionally, same-sex couples are traveling across State lines to get married; as they do so, they will become entangled in the legal systems of other States, due to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. A State-by-State approach to gay marriage will be a logistical and legal mess that will force the Federal courts to intervene and require all states to recognize same- sex marriages. This is the only possible outcome. The definition of marriage must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. The homosexual marriage lobby, as well as the polygamist lobby, shares the goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage requirements to just one: consent. In doing so, they are paving the way for legal protection of such repugnant practices as: homosexual marriage, unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children, group marriage, incest, and bestiality. Using this philosophy, activist lawyers and judges are working quickly, State-by- State, through the courts to force same-sex marriage and other practices, such as polygamy, on our country. In 1878, Reynolds v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of Congress's antipolygamy laws, recognized that the one-man, one-woman family structure is a crucial foundational element of the American democratic society, and thus there is a compelling governmental interest in its preservation. The eroding of State common-law marriage requirements comes with a price--If we can remove the opposite-sex requirement today, then what would keep us from removing the one-at-a-time requirement, or legal-age requirement tomorrow? In June of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its likely support for same-sex marriage and Federal jurisdiction over the issue when it struck down a sodomy ban in Lawrence v. Texas. The majority opinion extended the reach of due process and the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to protect: . . . personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,'' and then declared that ``[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. In his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia pointedly cautioned: This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples . . . Additionally, there is a case pending in the Tenth Circuit where the petitioners are using the homosexual marriage lobby's success in Lawrence v. Texas to bolster their claim to a ``right'' to polygamous conduct and marriage. Not only are Federal courts ruling in favor of such marriages, State courts are, too. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples could marry. The State's high court ruling clearly ignored tradition-- even its own State legislature. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in his testimony on June 22, 2004, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated: We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from changing that definition. Not only has the Massachusetts court ruling affected that State, it has and will continue to open the floodgate of similar decisions by other State courts across the country. Lawsuits are now pending in nine States, including my State of Oklahoma, asking the courts to declare that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional. Same-sex couples from at least 46 States have received marriage licenses in Massachusetts, California, and Oregon and have returned to their home States. Many of these couples are now suing to overturn their home State's marriage laws. Unfortunately, using the equal protection and due process clauses in the U.S. Constitution, State and Federal courts have begun to strike down both the Federal and State Defense Of Marriage Act, DOMA, laws, which define marriage as between a man and a woman. The judicial branch is making this a Federal issue by stripping the power from the people's elected legislatures and forcing recognition of same-sex marriages. Today, 45 States, such as Oklahoma, have statutory and/or constitutional protection for traditional marriage. On average, State constitutional amendments have passed with more than 71 percent of the vote, including with 76 percent in Oklahoma. In societies where marriage has been redefined, potential parents become less likely to marry and out-of-wedlock births increase. According to Stanley Kurtz's 2004 article in the Weekly Standard, a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Kurtz says: Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents--not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Just last month, May, in a National Review Online article, Stanley Kurtz again addresses the issue saying: Europe's most influential sociologists are saying much the same things: Same-sex marriage doesn't reinforce marriage; instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a host of other mutually reinforcing changes (like single parenting, parental co-habitation, and multi-partner unions) that only serve to weaken marriage. In fact, liberal German sociologists, Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck- Gernsheim, have openly and honestly expressed their eagerness to expand the welfare state and destroy the traditional family. As Kurtz puts it, they want ``the government to subsidize the new, `experimental' forms of family that emerge in the aftermath of the traditional family's collapse.'' When this issue was on the floor 2 years ago, many of my conservative colleagues made statements and observations that sufficiently framed this debate. Senator Allard, the sponsor of this amendment, believes our Founding Fathers never envisioned that we would be changing the very structure of marriage and that we would be changing this core structure of society when he said: We are in danger of losing a several-thousand-year-old tradition, one that has been vital to the survival of civilization itself. As my colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, said: a small group of activists and judicial elite ``do not have a right to redefine marriage and impose a radical social experiment on our entire society.'' And my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, said: ``If there are not families to raise . . . . children, who will raise them? Who will do that responsibility? It will fall on the State.'' This, to me, is one of the most troubling outcomes of the whole gay marriage debate-- that the State will assume the parenting role of raising and financially supporting children. Even Senator Reid restated his personal view just yesterday, which he also expressed in 2004, when he said: I'm personally opposed to same-sex marriage. I think a marriage should be between a man and woman. So when 70 percent of the voters in Nevada amended their State constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and when they further amended it in 2002 with a State defense of marriage provision, with Senator Reid's full support, some of us are confused now that Senator Reid thinks restricting marriage to a man and a woman is ``writ[ing] discrimination into the Constitution.'' I would also like to point out that several prominent, respected religious voices in our country have spoken out against the idea of gay marriage and in support of the traditional definition. According to ``Focus on the Family,'' headed by Dr. James Dobson, family is the fundamental building block of all human civilizations. Chuck Colson, a man who most people in this body know quite well, was the founder of Prison Fellowship. He has this to say about the prospect of gay marriage: The redefiners of marriage are working tirelessly. Their agenda is to tear down traditional marriage and make it meaningless by removing its distinctives. The Reverend Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham, acknowledged that: There is a real movement for same-sex marriage. We could lose marriage in this country the way that we know it. Finally, Dr. Jay Alan Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, who has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court recognizes that ``for centuries marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman.'' That is really what this is all about--marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil authority did not create marriage. Marriage predates the state. Civil authority chose to recognize it as the preferred union between a man and a woman, because it is reproductive in nature and propagates the survival of civilization itself. We can dance around it and try to cater to certain groups, but I find something that has served me well for a number of years when something like this comes up, and that is to go back to the Law, go back to the Scriptures. In Genesis 2:18, 21-24, God said: It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him. . . . and the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said, ``This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.'' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. . . . In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus said: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh The reason I read these two Scriptures is because they were quoted at a very significant event that took place over 47 years ago. It was when my wife and I were married.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator asked a question. I will be glad to respond to that question.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am submitting for inclusion in the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office providing cost estimates for two bills ordered reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works on May 23, 2006 and reported without written report to the full Senate on May 24, 2006, S. 801 and S. 2650. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as chairman and on behalf of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I would like to recognize the dedicated public works professionals, engineers, and administrators who represent State and local governments throughout the United States and was pleased to introduce S. Res. 475 proclaiming the week of May 21-May 27, 2006, as National Public Works Week. As we celebrate the contributions of the tens of thousands of men and women in America who provide and maintain the infrastructure and services that Americans rely on every day, let us not forget these same people are our first responders too. More often than not, they are on the scene before police, fire, and medical personnel. They can be found clearing roads, restoring water and power as well as critical infrastructure lifelines following disasters. Only in the absence of these dutiful public servants, would we truly recognize how valuable their tireless efforts are in providing and maintaining the basic infrastructure that many Americans often take for granted. America's public infrastructure is the lifeblood of every community. It includes the roads, bridges, public transportation and airports, the drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, the solid waste services and facilities and other important utilities essential to our quality of life. These structures and services help sustain community life, safeguard the environment, protect our health, support our economy and allow people and goods to move safely and efficiently. These structures and services are truly public goods. Because of my work on the most recent transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59, I have a better appreciation of just how important a reliable, well maintained and fully functioning network of interstate highways and transportation infrastructure is to the Nation. America's transportation system is one of the world's most expensive, with more than 3.9 million miles of roads, 5,300 public-use airports, 26,000 miles of navigable waterways, and more than 173,000 route-miles serviced by buses and rail in urban areas. Transportation-related goods and services contribute more than $1.3 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product, about 11 percent of the total. Furthermore, every $1 billion invested in roads and bridges generates approximately 47,500 jobs. Not only are infrastructure investments of the most fundamental and important functions of government, but they are also financially wise. The Nation's 54,000 community drinking water systems supply drinking water to more than 250 million Americans, and municipal wastewater treatment systems each year prevent billions of tons of pollutants from reaching our rivers, lakes, stream, and coastlines. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants, these water utilities protect human health and preserve the environment. Additionally, our water infrastructure supports a $50 billion a year water-based recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year in basic manufacturing which rely on clean water. Clearly, public works professionals play a vital role in protecting the environment, improving public health and safety, contributing to economic vitality and enhancing the quality of life of every community of the United States. I am delighted to use this National Public Works Week to thank them for their diligent and continued service.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the minority leader has several speakers who want to speak. I also know that virtually everyone on our side is wanting to stay with the 4:15 vote. What I would like to do, of course, is encourage the minority leader to use his leader time if necessary but go ahead and allow anyone on the other side to use time at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to get into some of the legal background. For the legal analysis, let me start by mentioning Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld who was the author of the seminal Fundamental Legal Conceptions, a powerful and enduring analysis of the nature of rights and the implications of liberty. Hohfeld noted that rights correlate to duties. A has a duty to B if B has a right against A. If A has no duty, that means B has no right and A has liberty, are the terms that he used. Such Hohfeldian analysis applies here. My amendment makes clear that nobody has a right or entitlement to sue the Federal workers or the Federal Government for services or materials in languages other than English. In Hohfeldian terms, the Federal Government has no duty to provide services or materials in languages other than English, but the Federal Government is free to do so. In other words, they are not compelled to do it, but they may do it, they have the authority to do that. The question has been asked: How does this amendment affect the X program? Will the Federal Government be free to offer X service or material in Y language? The answer is, yes, the Federal Government is at liberty to offer, can offer, X services or whatever the program is, in whatever language seems to be appropriate, but the Federal Government only has the duty to offer X services and Y language if a statute creates that right. In other words, we are talking about English as the national language. We are talking about certain exceptions that are written into law, and we have said on page 2 that I have read several times, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.'' That means there are many cases where that would be the case. Again, such examples exist, such as the Voting Rights Act, which provides for bilingual ballots, and the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, which provides for translation services in the Federal courts. Prior to 1978, there was no such act, and that was not the case. This does not change the decision in the change in law that took place in 1978. For over 30 years, the courts have ruled uniformly and consistently on these matters, of providing services and materials in languages other than English. Federal courts have rejected attempts to equate a person's language with their national origin in dozens of court cases. This is what I referred to. It seems to me perhaps the other side is trying to say they are one and the same. But the Federal courts have rejected the attempts to equate a person's language with their national origin in dozens of court cases and court decisions going back more than 30 years. Therefore, any expansion of the concept of national origin to encompass a theory repeatedly rejected by the Federal courts must come explicitly from Congress. It must be a law. It must be something that Congress proposes and passes and not be imposed by a flawed or arbitrary interpretation of the law. Today the Senate is stating that there is no right, entitlement or claim to services and materials in any language other than English. That is assuming we pass our amendment. I will mention just three of the long, unbroken line of court cases spanning over 30 years. In 1983 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined in Soberal- Perez v. Heckler, which the Supreme Court let stand, that there is no right to government forms in languages other than English. In 1994 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined in Toure v. U.S. that there is no right to government deportation notices in languages other than English. The most recent United States Supreme Court case in this area is Sandoval v. Alexander, the Alabama driver's license case. Justice Scalia wrote the decision in Sandoval in 2001. The Supreme Court in Sandoval rejected the equation of language and national origin. Indeed, the Federal courts have repeatedly considered and rejected just this equation of the failure to provide foreign language services and materials with a violation of the prohibition against national origin discrimination. There is no support in the legislative history or judicial interpretations of title VI for the right or entitlement to Federal Government services or materials in languages other than English. Executive Order 13166 purported to interpret title VI, but it was written before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Sandoval. This amendment now clarifies in Federal statute the line of cases culminating in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Sandoval case. Here we are making clear that there is no legal basis for Executive Order 13166 that purported to direct services and materials in languages other than English. I state it again clearly: There shall be no right or entitlement to services or materials in languages other than English. I ask unanimous consent additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me go ahead and respond.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the manager has agreed to allow 45 more minutes for the other side; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Tennessee requires.

Mr. INHOFE. You will have an opportunity to have that in your side- by-side amendment that will be voted on after mine. My answer is no because we have already massaged this language. A lot of people are supporting this. If I start changing things now, as you well know, they are going to start peeling off, and I won't have the support I have right now. We will have an opportunity to vote on my amendment. Then we will have an opportunity to vote on whatever language you decide to put in, in your amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that the courts already have had some interpretations of that which perhaps are not the same as you are stating right now. What the courts have interpreted I stand behind because that means it is law. That is according to my amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. Do I personally want that? No, I don't. This amendment doesn't do that because it makes those exceptions because what you are referring to is the law.

Mr. INHOFE. That is acceptable.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor at this point.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know we can get bogged down. I suspect the reason this particular amendment that has been proposed numerous times in the past but not in the last 23 years, and that it is going to get bogged down on a lot of technical questions, is that perhaps some people do not want this amendment, so they come up with all kinds of technical reasons to oppose it. But what we are doing is declaring--we are making a declaration--that English is the national language for the United States of America. We are taking the exceptions, for example, the Court Interpreters Act. Before the Court Interpreters Act passed in 1978, defendants did not have a right to an interpreter. It was up to the Court's discretion. The Court Interpreters Act protects already existing constitutional rights such as in the sixth amendment, the fifth amendment, the 14th amendment, amendments on due process. It is very important to know that is one of the many exceptions that is written into law. It is a very important exception. You also have some exceptions found in the Voting Rights Act. Somebody mentioned this morning some disaster could take place in California, a tsunami or something such as that, and when the eviction notices come, obviously, if you are addressing Chinatown, it would be in Chinese. We know that. That protection is there. I believe we have covered the legitimate concerns that are out there. I know there are some people who do not want this to happen who are going to vote against this. I understand that. That is what this is all about. It has been 23 years since we had an opportunity to vote for it or against it. Those of you who want to vote against it, you are going to have your opportunity at 4:15 today. In the meantime I agree with the Presidents--almost every President of the United States going back long before Teddy Roosevelt. One of the things he said is, ``We must also learn one language and that language is English.'' As we remember, President Bill Clinton in his State of the Union Message in 1999 got a standing ovation when he said that our new immigrants have a responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life. That means learning English and learning about our Democratic system of government. I agree with that. I didn't agree with everything that President Clinton said, but I certainly was one who stood and applauded during that State of the Union Message in 1999. I think other Presidents have done the same thing as recently as a few days ago, when our President said that an ability to speak and write the English language, English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to renting offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to a diplomat career and a home of their own. This is an opportunity. We look at people who come to this country and, oddly enough, those individuals that I have spent many hours with--I say to my good friend from Colorado that when I was mayor of Tulsa, we had never had any kind of recognition of our Latin population. Yet I knew it was a very large population. I would say to you, at that time I used to be a commercial pilot in Mexico and I actually spoke the language fairly well at that time. It has been many years, 25, 30 years, I guess. But when I became a mayor I said: I know around here we are very rich in history and have a talented bunch of people who have come here and are good citizens of our city of Tulsa. So I formed the Hispanic Commission of the city of Tulsa. This may or may not surprise you. Some of them were kind of in hiding, not even recognizing that they were Hispanics, and they came out. We had the Cinco de Mayo and all the celebrations there. It is probably the most popular thing that has ever been done in the city of Tulsa. I went back and talked to these people. I said: Do you agree with the polling data that shows very clearly that Hispanics want to have English as the national language? And they said yes. This is a group I have been dealing with since 1978. I think it may be someone's impression that certain extremist groups--and I am sure there are some extremist groups that have a large number of Latinos in them. They may be offended. They may not want to have this. That is fine. Let them exercise their influence on every voter, each of the 100 Members of this body. That is the way the system works. But I will say this. Jumping from the ones I know and the ones I have had experience with back in my city of Tulsa, the Hispanic population is very proud of the fact that they are going to learn English, and it should be our national language. As recently as 2 months ago, a Zogby poll, in March of 2006, found that 84 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of the Hispanics, believe English should be the official language of Government operations. In 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation poll--which I don't think anyone is going to question--found 91 percent of the foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeeding in the United States. In 2002, there is also a Carnegie/Public Agenda poll that found by a more than 2-to-1 margin, immigrants themselves say that the United States should expect new immigrants to learn English. My favorite poll is this one. In 2004, the National Council of LaRaza found that 97 percent--strongly 86.4 percent or somewhat 10.9 percent-- agreed that the ability to speak English is important to succeed in this country. That is a no-brainer. We all know that. There is not a country you go to where that is not true. I would say this. There are 50 other countries around the world today that have English as their national language. In these countries, they expect you, when you come to their country, to learn English. But if you go to another country, if it is Italy or France or any other country, you are expected to be able to communicate in their language. In 1988, G. Lawrence Research showed 87 percent favored English as an official language with only 8 percent opposed and 5 percent not sure. That was 1988. Very consistent; about the same numbers. A 1996, national survey by Luntz Research asked, ``Do you think English should be made the official language of the United States?'' and 86 percent of Americans supported making English the official language and only 12 percent opposed and only 2 unsure. That was 1996. In 2000, Public Opinion Strategies, showed 84 percent favored English as the official language, with only 12 percent opposed and 4 percent not sure. In 2004 another Zogby poll, that was a different one than the one I quoted, but 92 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents favored making English the national language. Again, that was a March poll of Zogby. It is consistent throughout. You have some things working here. You have everybody wanting it, including the Latin community. You have more than half the States, 27 of the 50 States--27 States have accepted English as an official language, including Colorado, I might add, I say to my good friend from Colorado. Let's see where Illinois is. Yes, Illinois. You don't have a problem in Illinois. You already have it as a State concept that has been accepted. So if you have 27 States, you have 51 other nations accepting English as the national language, you have all the polling data showing this is what people want, you have an exception made so no one is going to lose anything by doing it this way, then I can only come to the conclusion that you don't want it as the national language. That is fine. That is good. If that is the case, we are going to have a vote at 4:15 and make that determination. Before I yield, let me ask how our time is coming along.

Mr. INHOFE. All right. I would rather wait until I am through, but go ahead.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I inquire as to the regular order and the time agreement reached on the next few amendments.