Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we move towards conference on the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations and authorization bills, it has come to my attention that the authorizers and appropriators may be receiving differing information regarding the necessity for funding in fiscal year 2007. I have a letter from the Air Force's Deputy for Budget dated August 2, 2006, stating that the Air Force needs a minimum of $70 million in research, development, test & evaluation funds for fiscal year 2007 in addition to the funds remaining in the tanker transfer fund. I want to make certain that both the Armed Services Committee and Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations are receiving identical funding information from the Air Force. To that end, I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that we are all receiving the same information and have the same understanding of the needs for this program to move forward. Further, Mr. President, while I understand that the subcommittee's recommendation to reduce funding was based upon their belief that there are sufficient funds remaining in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to support systems development and demonstration, the Air Force has stated that they would need at least $70 million in fiscal year 2007 to move forward and award a contract in 2007. I greatly appreciate Chairman Stevens' assistance with this program and look forward to continuing to work with him to replace our aging tanker fleet.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the Leahy-Bond amendment for 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Ten minutes. I will try to do it in less.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, at this point I rise to discuss the legislation currently before the Senate, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy bill. I am an original cosponsor of this bill and strongly support its passage. Over the last few years, we have seen drastic increases in the prices of crude oil and natural gas. While demand for these products in our country continues to grow, the domestic supply of these commodities remains stagnant at best. This lack of domestic productivity and the volatility of the global energy market are causing the everyday lives of Alabamians and people all across this Nation to become increasingly difficult. I have no doubt that my colleagues have heard the same stories that I have heard from my constituents in Alabama--that they are having trouble making ends meet because of the prices at the pump. They tell me they cannot afford to commute to and from work, pay their monthly bills--particularly with record high temperatures--or run their small businesses. These are not luxury costs. These are the basic costs of everyday life. Alabamians have asked that the Congress do something to alleviate the burden of rising energy prices, just as constituents have all over America. While the Gulf of Mexico energy bill will not immediately lower gas prices, it will take a significant step forward in addressing many of the problems that cause rising prices. Whether short or long- term effect, one thing is abundantly clear: The status quo is unacceptable. More importantly is the fact that because we have neglected to tap domestic resources that are currently available to us, we are forced to purchase energy sources from foreign nations that are often hostile to U.S. interests. Economic security is the underpinning of national security. Energy independence, as I have said many times, is vital to economic stability. To achieve a higher level of energy independence, we must increase domestic capacity and production. While no single solution will immediately solve our current problem, there are immediate steps we can and must take toward that end. I believe the legislation before us, crafted by Senator Domenici, myself and other Senators, represents a critical step in that direction. According to the Minerals Management Service, MMS, S. 3711 would open more than 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing. MMS estimates these 8.3 million acres contain at least 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, perhaps more. Tapping these resources would reduce the cost of energy nationwide and serve to move us further down the path of energy independence as we continue to explore and develop new sources of energy. For Gulf States--and my State of Alabama is one--that choose to allow drilling off their coast, the legislation also contains a long overdue revenuesharing mechanism. Gulf States allowing oil and gas production off their shorelines will receive 37.5 percent of revenues from new leases. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenues will go to the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of parks and recreation facilities across the Nation. The remaining 50 percent will flow into the coffers of the Federal Treasury. Some in this Chamber will surely object to the provisions of S. 3711. They will say that the legislation diverts needed revenue from the Federal Treasury and bestows upon gulf producing States a financial windfall. It is important to point out that CBO estimates this legislation will produce nearly $1 billion in new and unexpected revenue for the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years. In my view, assertions that the gulf producing States should not receive a share of these revenues assumes that those States have done and sacrificed nothing to deserve a share of the revenues. For too long the gulf producing States have borne the brunt of our Nation's domestic energy needs while receiving virtually nothing in return. I would also point out that 37.5 percent is less than the 50 percent currently provided to States with onshore production. And I would dare to guess that the impact to our coasts is as significant as any impact from onshore drilling. I would also reiterate that the bill provides 12.5 percent of the stateside LWCF which will be made available to all 50 States. The Gulf States portion will ensure that the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas are compensated for the decades of oil and gas exploration and production that has taken place off their coasts, the impact the production has had on our coastal areas and the billions of dollars this production has brought into the Federal Treasury. The legislation clearly lays out a formula that compensates the States according to their proximity to drilling as well as their historic production and does so while positively impacting the budget. The legislation also ensures that the coastal counties and parishes that are impacted the most have a dedicated funding source to address the needs of their communities. This agreement also represents a commitment by the gulf producing States to continue energy exploration and production off their coasts. This commitment contributes to the energy independence of the Nation. It is time that the gulf producing States were rewarded for their contributions and sacrifices. And while it is difficult to estimate what this will mean in the way of revenues over the next 60 years, there is no doubt it will be a great resource to the Nation and provide substantial revenues to Federal and State treasuries. I have no doubt this legislation will provide billions of dollars to Alabama and its producing partners in the Gulf of Mexico. These funds will be available to our State and local coastal governments to address the problems that come with drilling production and its required infrastructure. It will ensure we can begin to reverse the coastal erosion and begin barrier island restoration that will protect our States from the all-too-familiar hurricanes. These funds will allow Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana to enhance their fisheries and coastal infrastructure and put hurricane mitigation programs in place to help us better prepare for the storms of the future. The sponsors of this legislation have also worked closely with the State of Florida to address the longstanding concerns of the State regarding offshore drilling on their coast. Specifically, the legislation includes a 125-mile moratorium on drilling off the coast of Florida until the year 2022. I strongly believe all revenues leading to U.S. energy independence should be aggressively pursued. We should continue to develop alternative sources of energy. We should promote energy efficiency. We should encourage refinery capacity expansion, and we certainly should continue to explore and develop resources that are currently available to us. We recognize that some of these options will take time to affect our current crisis. Others, however, remain current capabilities. S. 3711 provides that leasing must commence in a substantial portion of the 8.3 million acres within at least 1 year of enactment. It says that leasing must occur in the remainder of the 8.3 million acres as soon as practicable. In the context of Federal energy policy, these are tangible measures that would have a considerable and direct effect in the short term on consumers and businesses and on the Nation's economy as a whole. In closing, this legislation is the product of careful coordination among affected States on behalf of the needs of the entire country. It makes much needed contributions to the Nation's energy supply and compensates participating States justly. At the same time it accommodates the concerns of those who do not want oil and gas production to occur off their shorelines, and it provides a mitigating mechanism for States that elect to participate. The American people rightly expect their elected representatives to act on their behalf to stem the escalation of our current energy crisis. While this measure alone is not sufficient to solve our energy crisis, it is absolutely a necessary component of the overall solution. I urge my colleagues' strong support for this crucial legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 474, S. 3549.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the antiflag desecration resolution that is before the Senate this afternoon. Mr. President, 229 years ago this month, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution giving the United States a flag, the stars and stripes, the American flag that we know today. There is no greater symbol of our freedom and our liberty. The stars and stripes epitomize the underpinnings of the United States, that which was envisioned and created by the Founders of this great Nation, solidified by the Framers of the Constitution, and represented at that first Continental Congress. Old Glory was raised at Iwo Jima, was placed on the Moon, and drapes the coffin of every servicemember who has sacrificed his life for our Nation. Our flag is emblematic of liberty and democracy. It honors all those who have defended our Nation from enemies at home and abroad, and all those who carried it into battle and never returned. Yet there are some throughout this country who have chosen to express their views and opinions by defacing and even burning the flag. They believe the flag is simply a piece of fabric upon which stars and stripes have been sewn. They refuse to respect and revere the flag as a true monument to the freedoms and ideals of our great Nation. These notions were bolstered by a 1989 Supreme Court decision that protected the desecration of the flag. Throughout the history of our Nation, the flag has been protected by laws. In fact, before the Supreme Court decision in 1989, 48 States and the District of Columbia had laws regulating the physical misuse of the American flag. Even today, a majority of Americans continue to believe the flag should be protected, that the Court was basically wrong in their decision. It is that strong support and my firm belief that we must protect the flag that has sent me here today to advocate for this resolution. While some have argued we should simply accept court interpretations of first amendment issues as final, irreversible truths, I disagree. Our system of government is based upon checks and balances and allows for legislative reactions to judicial decisions. While rarely invoked, amending the Constitution is a reasonable reaction to a controversial and clearly wrongheaded court decision. The American system of government provided for amendments, and there are some issues that deserve that attention. I believe protecting the flag is one. In debating this issue, we must look beyond burning the flag and protecting one's freedom of expression. This issue must be considered in a broader context. We must remember that this issue is about respecting the single unifying symbol of this great democracy, the American flag. Defacing the U.S. Capitol or the Washington Monument would never be considered legitimate acts of free speech. The flag should be entitled to the same considerations. The flag is a national treasure, a monument, even, and like other national treasures, it deserves to be protected and respected. Our flag is a unique national symbol that represents common values, shared aspirations, and the sacrifices of millions of Americans. The argument is not about legitimate free speech, in my judgment, but, rather, the extent to which free people must tolerate offensive acts. While some will say that a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning unduly inhibits free speech, I respectfully disagree. Let me be clear. It will not diminish the Bill of Rights, in my judgment, to allow Congress to define and enforce a law which protects the American flag much like other national treasures are protected. To desecrate the American flag, in my judgment, is to desecrate the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep our flag flying. It is to destroy everything this country represents. There are some things that just need to be treated with respect and reverence for no other reason than to honor all those who have served and died for this country. When we look at our flag, I believe we should see more than a piece of fabric colored red, white, and blue. We should see our Nation and all that it symbolizes. Our Armed Forces put their lives on the line daily to defend what Old Glory represents. We have a duty and a responsibility to honor their sacrifices by giving the flag the constitutional protection it deserves. At this time, before I yield the floor, I thank Senator Hatch for all of his work in this regard and also for yielding me time.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today, I wish to honor the life of Jean Sullivan, who was instrumental in making the Alabama Republican Party what it is today. Jean gracefully represented Alabama for 20 years while serving as a powerful force on the Republican National Committee. She was a close personal friend of mine, and I deeply respected her. Long before Alabama became a red State on the national election map, Jean was fighting to gain popularity for the party she so adamantly supported. She worked on the forefront of molding what the Republican Party would mean for Alabama. Her efforts in promoting and electing Republican candidates are undeniable. She was outspoken and unafraid to fight for what she believed. Her energy will be missed in our State. Jean was hard-working, energetic, and a true Republican icon. I am proud of her efforts, and I am grateful for her endless dedication to Alabama politics. I know she will be missed not only by her three sons, Kent, Arthur, and Jim Sullivan, her two daughters, Teresa Collins and Connie McAfee, and her many friends, but also by the many people she worked with and inspired in Alabama politics.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of religious freedom. The freedom to believe and worship how one chooses is essential. However, as we strive for greater religious freedom and tolerance throughout the world, we have witnessed activist judges chip away at our own religious freedoms. These activist judges have worked diligently to restrict our rights to express our religious beliefs under the guise of separation of church and state. Many of the court decisions that have broadened Americans' first amendment right to free speech, overreach. In an effort to promote tolerance, religious expression is in fact, being censored. Our Founding Fathers proclaimed liberty to be an unalienable right bestowed by our Creator--``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .'' Yet unelected, activist judges are rewriting history. They have decided that, in fact, the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be freedom of religious expression but, rather, freedom from religious expression. Thirty years of public opinion polls have shown that more than 75 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment to protect voluntary school prayer. However, the Supreme Court has said such an act violates the constitutional separation of church and state--again, another act that forces freedom from religious expression rather than freedom of religious expression. It is not simply this decision but a growing and disturbing trend in our Federal courts to deny the rights of our States and our citizens to acknowledge God openly and freely. In fact, reciting the words ``one Nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance has been ruled unconstitutional as has displaying the Ten Commandments in a State building in my home State of Alabama. These tortured legal decisions distort our Constitution, our Nation's history and its tradition in an effort to secularize our system of government and divest morality from our rule of law. We simply cannot divest God from our country. Our country has no foundation without a basic recognition that God invests us at birth with basic individual rights that we all enjoy as Americans. In fact, our Government and our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values and a recognition of God as our Creator. Our motto is ``In God We Trust.'' It is enshrined on our currency. Our national anthem recognizes our motto as ``In God is Our Trust.'' As Federal officials, each of us has taken an oath of office. The President takes a similar one. State and local officials and our military personnel all swear a similar oath. Jurors and witnesses in our State and Federal courts take an oath as do witnesses before Congress. We all swear to uphold the Constitution or tell the truth, ``so help me God.'' Our courts, including the Supreme Court, recognize God in their official proceedings, both the House and Senate acknowledge God through an opening prayer every morning. Our public buildings and monuments honor this heritage through various depictions of the basic moral foundations of our laws and system of government. My point is that you simply cannot divest God from our country. Despite the actions of these activist judges, our country has no foundation without a basic recognition that God invests us at birth with basic individual rights--such as the blessings of liberty--that we all enjoy as Americans. Again, I believe that the courts have exceeded their power. They have overreached. To that end, I have introduced the Constitution Restoration Act. This legislation recognizes the rights of the States and the people as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--9th and 10th amendments--to acknowledge God. The Constitution Restoration Act goes to the very foundation of our country and the legitimacy of our system of government. Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address said that ``The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heros have been devoted to [the] attainment'' of our liberty and form of government. If we are to maintain our form of government, we must ensure that activist judges are not permitted to take away our religious liberties. The very foundation of our government cannot and should not be expunged from public view--an unelected Federal judiciary should not be allowed to outlaw all public acknowledgments of God. We must protect our very basic freedom of religious expression. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to work with me to protect this basic freedom by supporting the Constitution Restoration Act.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, last night the U.S. military, as we know now, working hand in hand with the Iraqi counterpart, located and killed al-Qaida terrorist Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi. We know who this terrorist is. He is a brutal terrorist who has repeatedly encouraged violence against Americans and Iraqi citizens. Al-Zarqawi is credited with ordering kidnappings, beheadings, and killings of innocent civilians with insurgent attacks. Al-Zarqawi was the operational mastermind of the al-Qaida network in Iraq. He sought to destroy America and our coalition partners to create a sanctuary for the al-Qaida organization in the Middle East. His death marks the fragmentation of al-Qaida's primary leadership and the silencing of a ruthless terrorist. The military operation against al-Zarqawi was performed by our dedicated, professional Armed Forces in concert with our coalition partner. Our military servicemembers should be commended for their remarkable efforts in eradicating the enemy of a free and democratic Iraq. Our war fighters worked tirelessly with our Iraqi counterparts tracking the movement of al-Zarqawi's followers, leading to his demise in last night's airstrike. We are proud of the success of this operation, but even prouder of the job that our Armed Forces have accomplished in their commitment to peace and stability in Iraq. Although this is positive development and significant step in the global war on terror, our fight in Iraq is far from over. We are making significant strides toward eradicating terrorism, developing a free government, and reviving the economy. But Iraq will not become a democracy overnight. While our involvement continues to be difficult, our resolve must remain strong. We must remain focused on our fundamental goal--preserving the freedom and security of the United States. This is an enormous challenge that will take determination, global cooperation, and fortitude to succeed. I am confident the United States will triumph over global chaos and tyranny, as it always has. But whatever it is, we must back our troops.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Would the Senator from Iowa let me speak for 2 or 3 minutes as in morning business? I support the nominee. There is no objection by Senator Dorgan.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong and unwavering support for a full repeal of the estate tax, or the death tax, as we often refer to it. Until World War I, the Government only imposed an estate tax or inheritance tax to raise revenue to fund expenses directly related to the necessities of war. Even then, the rate was measured. However, that practice changed after World War I, and unlike four previous occasions, the tax was not repealed once a peace agreement was reached. In fact, the tax continued to increase until it reached 70 percent during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. What was once a means to finance war eventually became a significant revenue stream that funded all aspects of a growing Federal bureaucracy. Today, the estate tax continues to provide a significant revenue stream to the Federal coffers and functions as a redistribution of personal wealth and punishment, basically, to those successful business owners seeking a better way of life. The death tax places an undue burden on our Nation's family-owned farms and small businesses. These individuals work tirelessly day in and day out to make their own way, to contribute to society and the economy, only to be told their loved ones will be punished when they die. Too often I hear sons and daughters forced to sell a piece--if not all--of the legacy their parents worked to create and sustain simply to pay the estate tax. That scenario is wrong. We should not punish hard work and entrepreneurship; we should reward it. We should reward those who choose to continue their family businesses rather than shut them down. These people work hard to promote prosperity and growth in their local communities, only to be told by the Federal Government that in addition to the taxes they have paid each and every year, they must now pay an additional tax, the death tax, because someone died. Taxing death has a negative impact on the desire of Americans to invest and to save. A basic economics class will teach you that savings and investment are positive for individuals, families, and our economy. Punitive taxes such as the estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and the gift tax all have a negative impact on our overall economic growth. In 2001, as my colleagues well know, Congress acted to eliminate the estate tax by January 1, 2010. Unfortunately, this provision sunsets in 2011, just 1 year after it is fully repealed. As it currently stands, in 2011 the Tax Code is set to completely reverse all progress we have made to reduce the tax burden on our Nation's entrepreneurs. So those who are not fortunate enough to die, can you imagine, in 2010 will be faced with the prospect of their loved ones being responsible for as much as 55 percent of the estate's assets. Whether it is a construction company, a cattle farm, a medical practice, or any of 100 other businesses, they all require significant capital investment in land, equipment, and materials that quickly overcome the threshold we will return to in 2011. These investments are not part of the business; in most cases, they are the business. I am also concerned that, like other taxes I mentioned earlier, the estate tax serves as a second bite at the apple. Our current tax system too often taxes income and then asks for more. The estate tax or death tax is one of the more egregious examples of this situation. I believe the Federal Government should work to minimize the burden on the American taxpayer and to simplify our tax system. The estate tax is contrary to both of these purposes. It not only taxes assets a second time, it also is one of the more complicated taxes to comply with in our bloated Tax Code. I believe repeal of the estate tax is one of the many steps we as elected representatives of our respective States and people should take to spur economic growth, remove the burden on small business, and simplify our tax system, and I urge my colleagues to support immediate and full repeal of this tax. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Oh, it will.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Marriage Protection Amendment before the Senate. If you had told me 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, that I would be standing before the Senate advocating a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I would have thought you had lost your mind. Why in the world would you ever need to do that, I would have asked? Doesn't it go without saying that men and women get married? Yet tonight I do stand in the Senate advocating a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing else. What was once thought preposterous is now reality. We are faced with this new reality because activist judges throughout the Nation have decided to redefine marriage. The courts, not the people, not the States, are redefining a fundamental institution of our society, the very foundation of our civilization. Ironically, this new definition of marriage runs contrary to what a majority of Americans believe. In fact, 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else. On average, those measures have passed with more than 70 percent of the voters' support. Today, the voters in my home State of Alabama--and we will know the outcome later tonight--will vote on a State constitutional amendment regarding marriage. I think I know what the outcome will be in my State. Regardless, no judge should be able to impose his or her will on Alabama or any other State if the voters have decided otherwise. What appears to be a broad consensus throughout the country for protecting the institution of marriage is being undermined and redefined by activist judges. These judges have struck down numerous State laws intended to protect the traditional definition of marriage. State courts in California, Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Washington have overturned laws or amendments protecting marriage, and a Federal judge in Nebraska invalidated a State amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. I have long thought that it was the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, not make the law. However, these activist judges across the country have taken it upon themselves to make laws that, in many cases, redefine the definition of marriage. These judges have taken it upon themselves to make decisions reserved for State legislatures who have worked to be responsive to their constituencies and to define marriage in the traditional sense. The difference is that these activist judges do not have to be responsive to anyone and are accountable to no one. Abraham Lincoln reminded us in the Gettysburg Address that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Activist judges, accountable to no one, should not be allowed to govern this country. The basic foundation of our Constitution does not invest total control in the judiciary. It is not government by the judiciary; rather, it is a government by the people. On this issue, the people have spoken and will speak again. Activist judges should not be permitted to redefine the sacred bond of marriage. For generations, humanity has defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman upon which families are built. It is the institution of marriage upon which our society has flourished. Mr. President, States, in my judgment, must be allowed to continue to exercise their will. States that pass laws on constitutional amendments should not be overridden by an overactive judiciary that believes it has the power to redefine the moral character upon which our Nation was built. I believe the President recently summed it up when he said: The union of a man and a woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. Therefore, tonight I stand before you in strong support of this constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. I believe that is going to happen today.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, while S. 2611, the immigration bill, contains important titles addressing border security and worksite enforcement, the bill, as everyone knows, also contains titles relating to amnesty for illegal aliens and the creation of a massive new guest worker program which will undermine true immigration reform, in my opinion. The most problematic provisions of S. 2611 are as follows: One, I want you to know I opposed amnesty 20 years ago. It did not work then, and I do not believe it will work now. Two, our first priority should be to secure our borders. Any discussion of amnesty takes away from that priority, in my judgment. Three, supporters of these amnesty provisions say it is not amnesty but what they call ``earned legalization.'' I am not here to argue about semantics or labels. Whether you call it: ``amnesty,'' ``status adjustment'' or ``guest worker,'' the result is that individuals who came here illegally will now be considered legal workers and on their way toward citizenship. That is the bottom line. Four, under the so-called compromise that is working here, those who have broken the law the longest are treated the best. Five, those who can prove they have been here 2 to 5 years still do not have to leave the country and are, hence, still treated better than those waiting to enter legally. Six, the bill has minimal requirements on proving that an illegal alien has worked or will work in the future. What few provisions there are seem very vulnerable to fraud. Seven, this bill mandates that illegal workers are paid a higher wage than many American workers in the same position with the same qualifications. Eight, the supporters of this bill claim that back taxes will be paid for past labor. But a close reading of the bill shows that these back taxes will only be paid, if at all, 8 years down the road when applying for a green card, not as a requirement to receive the H-2C visa. Nine, this bill drastically increases the number of employment-based green cards issued annually. What will happen to the American worker when unemployment goes up and so many foreign workers, who are willing to work for less, have been given citizenship? Ten, today, before the implementation of any reforms, the ability of our immigration officials to process applicants who are following the law is severely taxed. This bill will surely have a negative impact on those foreign workers who have followed the rules and are waiting patiently in their home country to legally come to this country. Eleven, while others say comprehensive immigration reform must include these amnesty provisions, I feel strongly they will only serve to encourage further illegal immigration in the years to come. And my 12th reason, the bottom line is, this bill, in my judgment, rewards past lawbreaking and encourages future lawbreaking. I am willing to bet that if this bill is enacted, we will only revisit this problem 20 years--perhaps before 20 years--down the road. Only then, we might be talking about 20 million to 30 million illegal immigrants. Those are some of the reasons--and there are many others--why I will vote ``no'' on the final passage of this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 99 yesterday, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today we continue to debate the provisions of H.R. 4939, the bill providing additional 2006 supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Other supplemental appropriations bills have been previously signed into law dealing with the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, but none of those bills directly support the needs of the devastated fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico. The Senate's funding recommendations affecting the gulf coast fishing industry were developed by the States Fisheries Commission and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to meet local needs in cooperation with Federal partners, including NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. The Gulf of Mexico is home to a significant share of the U.S. fishing industry, representing almost 20 percent of commercial landings and roughly 30 percent of saltwater recreational fishing trips. The 2005 hurricane season had a major impact on both of these maritime sectors, but it also devastated their shore-based infrastructure, ports, and facilities that commercial harvesters and fishermen rely on, such as docks, wharves, processing plants, distribution centers, and marinas. Offshore, the hurricanes annihilated entire oyster beds along the gulf coast which has an immediate and long-term impact to the oyster harvesting industry. Considering that it will take years for many of the oyster beds to rebound, the current economic impacts are only part of the assessment. Throughout the gulf coast, over 2,300 vessels were federally permitted for shrimping. The Presiding Officer, coming from Alaska, knows a lot about fishing boats. The exact number of shrimp vessels damaged or destroyed by the 2005 hurricanes is still largely unknown. However, one only needs to visit coastal communities such as Bayou La Batre, Gulfport-Biloxi, and Empire-Venice to see the overwhelming effects these hurricanes had on the entire fishing-based communities along the gulf coast. With their boats gone and shoreside facilities destroyed, many businesses are having to rebuild literally from the ground up. It is logical to presume that the damage from last year's hurricanes, coupled with the rise of diesel fuel costs, could result in the increase in the percentage of fishermen filing for bankruptcy. This bill will stabilize the number of vessels in the fishery and rebuild fishing facilities, allowing fishermen the opportunity to harvest a greater proportion of the annual fish crop and increase their economic returns. Finally, I want to touch on the funding that has been included in this bill for seafood marketing efforts because it has been the target of much criticism on the floor. I believe this funding is extremely important to the overall effort to restore this industry. We cannot deny the fact that many consumers became increasingly wary of gulf coast seafood following Hurricane Katrina. That is natural. To that end, I believe it is imperative that we restore consumer confidence. All the work that has been done and all that we propose to do with the additional spending in this bill will be wasted if no one purchases the seafood that comes from the gulf. Therefore, marketing efforts to reassure consumers that the seafood is safe are not wasteful but, rather, essential to the efforts to restore this industry. The 2006 supplemental appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, contains significant funding to address many needs of the devastated fishing industry in the gulf coast. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill as reported and oppose any amendments that might propose to strike funding provided for fisheries assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Jessie Tehranchi was a passionate advocate for improved public transportation and universal health care from my State of Alabama. Jessie dedicated her time to helping others as she worked to advocate on behalf of the issues that shaped her life. Jessie's passion was personal; diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1987, she spent much of her adult life confined to a wheelchair. Faced with seemingly insurmountable odds, Jessie used her experience to better the lives of many others with similar handicaps. A fixture in transportation activist groups, she spoke across the country on behalf of her causes. Jessie testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2002 at a Housing and Transportation Subcommittee meeting. Jessie emphasized the need for effective public transportation and cited her own experiences as a person unable to drive. Her testimony was powerful and useful as the Senate worked on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Jessie was optimistic, energetic, and passionate. I am proud of her efforts, and I am grateful for her dedication to this important cause. I know that she will be missed not only by her husband, Jim Tehranchi, and two sons, David and Michael, and her many friends, but by the many people whose lives she touched through her devotion to public transportation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.