Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to expand the scope of the Equal Access Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to guarantee equal access for religious and other organizations to the facilities of public secondary schools that receive Federal funding.

Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in two cases involving the right of State and local governments to erect a public display of the Ten Commandments. One of those cases, Van Orden v. Perry, involves the public display at the State capitol grounds of my home State, the great State of Texas. The other case, McCreary County v. ACLU, arises out of the State of Kentucky.

These two cases are reminiscent of the Supreme Court's consideration last year of the Pledge of Allegiance--which contains the words ``under god''--in the matter of Elk Grove Unified School District v., Newdow. The

Court rejected the challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance in that case, but strictly on procedural grounds. So the Pledge of Allegiance, like the Ten Commandments, remains under attack and under danger of forced removal from our public square by judicial fiat.

We examined these issues at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights I chaired on June 8, 2004. The hearing was entitled ``Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square.''

That hearing was important, because it reminded us of an even broader, more systemic problem caused by the Supreme Court's previous rulings, than just these disturbing attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments--an unjustifiable hostility to religious expression in public squares across America.

Just as there is bipartisan agreement on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, so should there be bipartisan agreement that government should never be hostile to expressions of faith. As President Ronald Reagan stated in 1983: ``When our founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.'' And as President Clinton noted in 1995: ``Americans feel that instead of celebrating their love for God in public, they're being forced to hide their faith behind closed doors. That's wrong. Americans should never have to hide their faith. but some Americans have been denied the right to express their religion and that has to stop. That has happened and it has to stop.''

At the hearing, we heard from citizen witnesses and legal experts alike, who recounted example after example after example of government discrimination against religious expression generally--including both discrimination against religious versus non-religious expression in government speech, as well as discrimination against purely private expressions of faith. Just consider this sample of incidents throughout the Nation--incidents of hostility to religious expression in the public square:

A 12-year-old elementary school student was reprimanded by a public school in St. Louis, MO for quietly saying a prayer before lunch in the school cafeteria, according to a federal lawsuit. The case was settled after the St. Louis School Board announced a new policy protecting the religious expression rights of students. St. Louis Post-dispatch, July 11, 1996.

A second grade school girl in Wisconsin was forbidden from distributing valentines during a Valentine's Day Exchange because her valentines happened to contain religious themes. After a Federal lawsuit was filed, the school district settled the suit by publishing an apology to the student in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and issuing a new policy protecting the religious freedoms of its students. Capital Times, Madison, August 29, 2001.

A kindergartener in Dayton, OH was forbidden by her public school teacher from distributing bags of jellybeans with an attached prayer to her classmates, according to a Federal lawsuit. Associated Press, February 8, 2004.

Public high school students in Massachusetts started a Bible club and tried to hand out candy canes with a Biblical passage attached. The school suspended the students for distributing the candy canes. A federal district court issued a temporary injunction against the school. Westfield High Sch. L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. Supp. 2d 98 D. Mass. 2003.

A public school sixth grader in Boulder, CO tried to complete her book report assignment by presenting the Bible, but was forbidden from doing so by her teacher. She was also forbidden from bringing the Bible to school. Only after a lawsuit was threatened did the school eventually back down. Denver Post, December 13, 2002.

According to a Federal lawsuit, a public school teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School in Houston, TX, punished two sisters for carrying Bibles, confiscated and threw the Bibles into the trash, and threatened to call Child Protective Services, while another teacher forbade a third student from reading the Bible during free reading time and forced him to remove a Ten Commandments book cover from another book. The suit was ultimately resolved out of court. Houston Chronicle, May 24, 2000.

As explained in her Senate testimony, Nashala Hearn, a 12-year-old girl in Muskogee, OK, was suspended for three days by her public middle school for wearing a hijab, a headscarf required by her Islamic faith. The school eventually backed down after intervention by the Justice Department. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, June 8, 2004.

A Texas school district refused to hire a public school teacher for the position of assistant principal, because her children attended a private Christian school, in violation of the district's policy that the children of all principals and administrators attend public school. The district's policy was upheld by the Federal district court but subsequently rejected on appeal. Barrow V. Greenville Ind. Sch. Dist., 332 F.3d 844 5th Cir. 2003.

A Vietnam veteran and member of an honor guard at a New Jersey veterans' cemetery was fired for saying ``God bless you and this family'' to the family of a deceased veteran, even though the family had consented to the blessing beforehand. Winston-Salem Journal, April 26, 2003.

A public library employee in Logan County, KY, was fired for refusing to remove her cross-pendant necklace while at work. A Federal district court subsequently ruled that the library violated her constitutional rights. American Libraries, October 1, 2003.

According to another federal lawsuit, an employee of the Minnesota State Department of Revenue is barred from parking his car in the employee parking lot, because his car displays religious messages such as ``God is a loving and caring God.'' Other employees are allowed to display nonreligious messages on their cars. The employee is similarly barred from displaying religious messages in his office cubicle, even though other employees are allowed to display nonreligious messages in their cubicles. Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), July 2, 2004.

As he explained in his Senate testimony, Barney Clark and other members of the Balch Springs Senior Center in Balch Springs, Texas, were forbidden from singing religious songs and appointing someone to bless their food at the city-owned senior center. The city eventually backed down, but only after a federal lawsuit and intervention by the Justice Department. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, June 8, 2004.

I'm grateful to the Liberty Legal Institute, which has been an active champion of religious liberty, and which followed up on their testimony at the hearing last year by filing a 51-page report with the subcommittee last October. The Institute's report documented additional cases of hostility to religion in the public square, and noted the existence of a nationwide campaign to remove religious expressions from the public square--namely, liberal organizations in Washington that actively litigate against equal access for religious organizations in public schools, against school choice programs that give needy students equal access to parochial and nonsectarian schools alike, and against voluntary, student-led religious expression.

Thankfully, and despite the efforts of these organizations, we are starting to win the battle for religious liberty and against hostility to religious expression. The Court has upheld equal access for religious organizations on a number of recent occasions--albeit frequently by narrow, 5-4 majorities--including cases like Rosenberger, Good News Club, Zelman, and Mitchell. And thankfully, the Equal Access Act of 1984 has been affirmed, upheld, and enforced.

But the Equal Access Act applies only to postsecondary schools. It is time that equal access be extended to elementary schools as well, and that is why I introduce this legislation today. I know that Senators will be following closely the Supreme Court's consideration of the Ten Commandments cases and the people's right to display our nation's most revered documents in public squares across America. Regardless of the outcome of those cases. I hope that Senators will also support

this effort to extend equal access to all of our nation's public schools.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct a tax injustice affecting my home State of Washington, and all States that do not have a State income tax. My bill, the Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act, would prohibit States from imposing income taxes on individuals that are not residents of that State. I hear about this issue in the areas of my State that border Oregon and Idaho, both States that have income taxes. In fact, wherever I go in Vancouver and throughout Clark County, I hear time and again from constituents about the unfairness of living in Washington State--a State that does not have an income tax--and working in Oregon--a State that does have an income tax and being taxed on their income earned in Oregon.

According to the Oregon Department of Revenue, in 2002, there were 51,991 Clark County residents working in Oregon. Taxed on their income, these nearly 52,000 individuals remitted $104 million to Oregon that year.

Representing all of Washington State in Congress, it is not lost on me that an additional 30,181 Washington State residents outside of Clark County were also employed in Oregon in 2002, and these 30,000 paid the State of Oregon $49.8 million.

Furthermore, there are Washington State residents working in Idaho. In 2002, 19,467 of them owed the State of Idaho $18.9 million in income taxes.

While I would like to hope that most Washingtonians could find employment in Washington State, and I am grateful for the job opportunities presented to Washingtonians in Oregon, I find it antithetical to notions of lifting up the economy of Washington State to have the incomes of Washington State residents taxed in Oregon.

We have historical roots in this country related to the notion of no taxation without representation. Washington residents being taxed in Oregon is contrary to this whole premise--a premise upon which American independence rested over 200 years ago.

Good tax policy rests on the notion that individual's contribution to the

government through taxes brings benefits to those individuals--good schools, navigable roads, safe communities, clean water, and other services.

With incomes taxed in Oregon, Washington residents receive very little benefit for the contributions made to the State of Oregon. Granted, Oregon maintains the infrastructure used by Washingtonians to get to work; but there are a number of benefits that Washington residents never realize from the taxes they pay. For example, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive in-State tuition rates for college.

In addition, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive the benefit of paying less for fishing licenses. Examples of what this can mean: for 2005, an angling license for Oregonians is $24.75 for the year; for a Washingtonian who pays income taxes in Oregon, his/her angling license is $61.50--a 248- percent increase. The discrepancy in Idaho is even greater. For 2005, a combined hunting/fishing license for an Idaho resident is $30.50 and for a Washingtonian who is paying Idaho income taxes would be charged $181.50 for the same license--a 595-percent increase.

And first and foremost, Washington residents employed in Oregon and paying income taxes are not afforded voting rights in Oregon, thereby being taxed without representation.

The power for Congress to enact legislation to prohibit one State from assessing taxes on nonresidents working within that State exists in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. And Congress has exercised this authority in the past.

The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 prohibits States from taxing the compensation of nonresident military personnel who are stationed in that State.

In July of 1977, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, legislation prohibiting the States of Virginia and Maryland, or the District of Columbia, from imposing an income tax against Members of Congress who maintain homes in those jurisdictions.

Additionally, with the Amtrak Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1990, Congress granted tax immunity to employees of interstate railway, aviation, and motor carriers from paying State income taxes to any State other than an employee's State of residence.

It is time for Congress, once again, to utilize its authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the imposition of income taxes by States on nonresidents. It is my view that interstate trade in labor is important commerce that deserves to be treated fairly.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, trucks are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns and villages.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's interstate highway system forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would

otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities and is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multi-lane, limited access highway.

Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5-mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5-mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor, as well. Congestion is a significant issue and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.

A recent study, conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, found that the accident rate between 2000 and 2003--per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--was more than four times higher on two-lane roads than on the Maine Turnpike, which had four lanes at the time of the study. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits.

Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's interstate highway system.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Senator Inouye joins me in sponsoring this measure.

It is well known that tribal governments serve as the primary instruments of law enforcement and emergency response for the more than fifty million acres of land that comprise Indian country.

More than twenty-five Indian tribes have jurisdiction over lands that are either adjacent to international borders or are directly accessible to an international border by boat. These lands consist of over 260 miles of the 7,400 miles of the international borders the United States shares with Canada and Mexico.

But it is not only tribes located on or near international borders or waters that have a role to play in protecting the Nation's strategic assets. Energy resources located on tribal lands make up a significant snare of the United States' energy resources. Tribal governments hold title to 30 percent of the coal resources west of the Mississippi River, 37 percent of potential uranium resources, and three percent of known oil and gas resources in the United States.

There is also extensive infrastructure located on or near tribal lands that is critical to our Nation's security--including dams, hydroelectric facilities, nuclear power generating plants, oil and gas pipelines, transportation corridors of railroads and highway systems, and communications towers.

Like other governments, tribal governments need the necessary resources to develop their capacities to respond to threats of terrorism including access to information and information warning systems, law enforcement data bases, and health alert systems related to the possible use of chemical and biological warfare.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides the authority for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the various duties and responsibilities of the Department and its employees. Many provisions of the Act reference State and local governments, but unfortunately, Indian tribal governments were erroneously included in the definition of ``local government'' in the Act as if tribal governments were political subdivisions of each State.

The Federal government has long recognized that Indian tribes are separate, I distinct sovereigns, with which the United States has a government-to-government relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently sustained this status and the United States' relationship with the tribal governments. The United States' policy of tribal self- governance and self-determination has proven to be the most successful for Indian tribes.

The measure that I introduce today would treat Indian tribes as the separate political entities that they are, consistent with the Federal policy of tribal self-governance and self-determination. The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by removing Indian tribes from the definition of ``local government'' and instead including the terms ``Indian tribe'' and ``tribal government'' in the appropriate

places where the terms ``State'' and ``local governments'' are used.

This bill would also explicitly vest the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the discretionary authority to provide direct funding to Indian tribal governments. Because Indian tribes are already eligible for funding by virtue of their inclusion in the definition of ``local government,'' this bill will not require additional funding nor will it divert any resources away from States or local governments.

It is clear that Indian tribal governments have a vital role to play in the protection of our Nation's security, and I would urge my colleagues to give their favorable consideration to this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to call attention to the extraordinary public service of Judge William B. Bryant. Last July, I introduced S. 2619, a bill that would have designated the new annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., the ``William B. Bryant Annex.'' It was the Senate companion bill to legislation introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia.

While the House bill passed by voice vote, the Senate bill was stalled by objection. There was concern that a courthouse annex be named for a judge still serving. This objection was adhered to despite the numerous exceptions to such a rule, including another exception enacted last year.

It would have been worthy of celebration this last month, during Black History Month, if we could have held such a naming ceremony involving Judge Bryant. Others prevented that from taking place. I believe it important that we continue every month to recognize the extraordinary contributions of African Americans. Congresswoman Norton has been willing to seek to accommodate those Senators who objected by revising this bill to delay the effective date of the naming until after Judge Bryant steps down from the Court. It is sadly ironic that Judge Bryant's continuing historic service is held against honoring him. He continues to perform duties as a senior

Federal judge at the age of 93. I commend Congresswoman Norton for her efforts and determination. I hope that this change will remove the final impediment and allow the District of Columbia and the Nation to honor Judge Bryant before his 94th birthday this September.

The value of Judge Bryant's service has been recognized by his colleagues. Judge Bryant and his lifelong service to the law was celebrated in a September 16, 2004 Washington Post article. The article details a life spent dedicated to public service.

Judge Bryant began his legal career with the belief that lawyers could make a difference in eliminating the widespread racial segregation in the United States. He became a criminal defense lawyer in 1948, taking on many pro bono cases and was soon recognized by the U.S. Attorney's office for his skills as a defense attorney. The U.S. Attorney's office hired him in 1951 and he became the first African American to practice in Federal court here in the District.

Judge Bryant was nominated by President Johnson to the Federal bench in 1965 and became the first African American Chief Judge for the United States District Court in D.C. Forty years later, Judge Bryant still works at the courthouse four days a week and the Washington Post reports that he handled more criminal trials than any other senior judge on the court last year. Judge Bryant said in an interview with the Post: ``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork. I have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this courthouse.''

The Washington Post article mentions that E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., the son of the judge for whom the Federal courthouse is named, praised the recommendation that the annex be named after Judge Bryant. He said that his father ``admired Judge Bryant tremendously'' and would have wanted the annex to be named after him.

Before my introduction of this bill last year, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, requested for himself and all the other judges on the court that the newly constructed annex be named after Judge Bryant. They appreciate the historic significance of Judge Bryant's service.

I urge the Senate this year to move ahead with this important commendation of Judge Bryant's lifetime of service and dedication to the principles of the Constitution and the law.

I ask unanimous consent that an article and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.