A resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the missions and performance of the United States Coast Guard in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend and praise the extraordinary response of the U.S. Coast Guard to Hurricane Katrina, to demonstrate why that response exemplifies the imperative of providing that service with the modern assets required to carry out these lifesaving missions, and to submit a resolution recognizing the awe- inspiring efforts of the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard.

I just visited the gulf coast region on Monday with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Tom Collins, and we were guided by Eighth District Commander ADM Robert Duncan. What I saw and heard on that day is a story of heroism and a relentless can-do attitude that is nothing short of miraculous. The human spirit I witnessed was truly transcendental and a level I had never before experienced.

As we well know, Hurricane Katrina was the worst natural disaster ever to visit itself upon the United States, with an almost unimaginable magnitude of devastation and loss. The scale of the destruction has been most horrifically reflected in the faces of those we have seen over the past week, faces etched with an indelible and almost unimaginable sorrow, suffering, and burden. Their images have reverberated throughout a country in solidarity with their terrible plight. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama lives have been forever transformed along with the landscape, as we have witnessed untold scenes of homes that no longer exist, floods that ravaged entire neighborhoods and cities, fires that consumed what remains of buildings, and men, women, and children missing loved ones. We have also seen and heard the stories of those individuals who have rushed to the aid of our fellow man, demonstrating that no human or natural act can deprive us of our unyielding and singularly determined spirit. While the hurricane winds and rain have long since dissipated--and now we have anticipation of Hurricane Rita--we all have the collective concern and strength of this Nation that continues unabated, unbroken, undaunted, and unflagging.

We must now bring to bear all of our collective will and resources over what will undoubtedly be a long but ultimately victorious process of reclaiming the gulf coast towns and cities for the future. I extend my thoughts and prayers to my colleagues, Senators Cochran, Lott, Sessions, Shelby, Landrieu, and Vitter, as they work to guide their constituents and their families through these most difficult of times. I will certainly do everything I can to assist them and the citizens of their States.

Today, as chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee, I believe it is entirely appropriate to focus the Nation's attention on the performance of the U.S. Coast Guard in response to Hurricane Katrina, as I believe it is an

exemplary model for future responses. As I do so, I also thank all of our military Active-Duty and Reserve for their heroic service in the gulf shore region. Their performance under these conditions has been outstanding and unprecedented on American soil.

As a result of the U.S. Coast Guard's unparalleled performance and operations responding to the unfathomable destruction along the Gulf of Mexico, the plans for which were put into motion even before the storm subsided, thousands of children, senior citizens, and entire families are sleeping safely tonight. Indeed, the heart-wrenching stories I heard during my visit to the Coast Guard--of crews rescuing families trapped in attics, of children separated from their parents, rescue swimmers tapping on roofs seeking signs of life in submerged houses-- will be forever etched in my own mind. People waving towels from windows signifying the need for help, pregnant women about to go into labor being hoisted into awaiting helicopters, rescue crews busting into windows and roofs because there was no means of escape for the occupants--the stories are real, seemingly endless, and all faced with an unrelenting sense of duty and humanity by the men and women of the Coast Guard.

Indeed, over the past few weeks, as we see in this chart, we have witnessed time and time again from news sources and television stations the perilous helicopter rescues occurring each and every day. There is an outstanding example of one on this chart that shows exactly the kind of circumstance the Coast Guard has to perform in which to save life after life. Incredibly, the Coast Guard, as of September 20, has saved 33,544 lives. That is the equivalent of the number of rescues performed by the Coast Guard in 8 to 10 years. They accomplished those rescue missions in just the past 2 weeks. The Coast Guard air station in New Orleans, which I visited on Monday, under the incredible leadership of CAPT Bruce Jones, has saved 6,471 lives, almost double the 3,689 lives the station had saved over its previous 50 years of operation.

This chart shows the level of catastrophe to which the Coast Guard responded. I talked to a rescue swimmer who genuinely believed that if he had completed 15 rescues that day, it somehow wasn't enough. What is perhaps most remarkable is that the Coast Guard simply did not rescue these people and deliver them to a nearby field or highway overpass until they could get further help. Nor did they forget that other family members remained in peril, not yet rescued. Rather, the men and women of the Coast Guard took it upon themselves to ensure to the best of their ability that families would be kept intact and assisted those they rescued even after the rescue operation was complete. They actually returned to overpasses to follow up with those whom they had rescued. And if they still needed additional assistance or they hadn't been taken to where they should have been going with the medical rescue crews, they made that happen.

They got them water if they needed it. If they required food, they brought them food. As ADM Robert Duncan, District Commander for the gulf region, so eloquently expressed:

When the Coast Guard rescue teams touched a person, they

owned them.

This meant the Coast Guard was making itself responsible for their continued well-being. I ask my colleagues, what could be a more touching or profound testament to the boundless will and compassion that the U.S. Coast Guard exhibited during this operation? The people of the Coast Guard have conducted themselves oblivious to the true level of their own personal sacrifice and seemingly without regard to the horrific conditions in which they serve. Seventy percent of them alone lost their houses; lost everything, that is, but their sense of duty to their fellow human beings in distress and despair.

The fact is, the Coast Guard has been, is, and will always remain a vital component of America's national security and disaster response. Coast Guard personnel risk their lives each and every day protecting our Nation and saving lives, no more so than during this national tragedy. Leadership, as we all know, starts from the top. For the U.S. Coast Guard, that individual is ADM Tom Collins. Admiral Collins has been a solid steady force in ensuring the rapid and safe execution of rescue operations.

In the midst of the storm and bureaucratic interagency chaos, the Coast Guard remained resolved, organized, focused, and responsive to those in desperate need.

The bottom line is that the members of the Coast Guard did not wait to be told to conduct their mission. They knew their mission. They refused to let anything, including redtape, get in their way. When they needed fuel for helicopters, they found fuel. When they needed water for their crews or for those they rescued, they found water. They did not ask if an operation was actually a State responsibility or local responsibility or another Federal agency's responsibility. They made it their responsibility. They took ownership of the life-and-death tasks at hand. Again, the can-do attitude of the Coast Guard is what allowed them to shine.

As Vice Admiral Allen, the principal Federal officer in charge of the relief operation, so simply stated:

The Coast Guard has a bias for action.

And from all I have seen, I could not agree more.

Indeed, the results are a living testament to the service's efficiency and organization and the superlative leadership of Admiral Collins.

The Coast Guard had the foresight and the wherewithal to pre-position its assets before the storm struck and to respond rapidly to its aftermath. Moreover, the Coast Guard's exceptional planning led to not a single loss of a Coast Guard plane or boat and enabled it to be on the scene immediately upon the passage of the storm. This planning expertise and management of assets should be the example for all Federal agencies to follow.

The Coast Guard also sent to the area personnel from Coast Guard stations from around the country to help with the effort as part of its well-conceived plan. These personnel specialize in different fields and had never previously worked together yet got the job done as if they had been on the same team forever.

I think of the 160 crew members attached to the Coast Guard cutter Harriet Lane, a 270-foot cutter I visited on Monday, docked in New Orleans, that normally berths just 100 crew members. Yet all of those aboard worked flawlessly together, overcoming obstacle after obstacle.

In one instance, due to the cutter's inability to make water from oil-polluted river water, the crew set out to procure water from wherever possible. This mission led them to the discovery of water held in tanks controlled by the Forest Service on the pier. Unable to simply give them the water due to bureaucratic hurdles, the Coast Guard found a contractor who was able to pump water from their tanks into the cutter.

This is a ridiculous hurdle that should never have existed in the first place. Yet, once again, the Coast Guard didn't waste time with bureaucratic paperwork; instead, they got the job done.

The bottom line is, from what we have seen to date, I believe that the Coast Guard's Herculean efforts provides a model for the proper planning and execution of a mission to respond to a national emergency or crisis. And on that note, I was certainly pleased that Vice Admiral Allen was selected to coordinate the Federal response to Katrina. He will bring that Coast Guard sensibility to the entire operation.

These astounding results, however, do not come without a cost. The Coast Guard has already used the funds allocated for search and rescue operations for the entire year and beyond. Furthermore, the extensive rate of use during the rescue mission is also degrading Coast Guard assets faster and delaying necessary maintenance.

Supplemental funding, which the Coast Guard has not yet received, is essential to ensure that cutters, small boats, and aircraft can operate and continue its heroic service in the coming months.

The Coast Guard has sustained damage to several small boat stations and air stations and to other facilities throughout the region. The Coast Guard station in Gulfport, MS, simply no longer exists.

The Coast Guard is actively assisting Americans, and we in the Congress must return the favor and start helping the Coast Guard by providing them with crucial supplemental funding to cover the entirety of their operational requirements and to provide the necessary funding to replace its lost infrastructure.

In that light, I have sent a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget encouraging him to include a funding line in the next supplemental appropriations bill for the Coast Guard. I thank my many colleagues who have joined me in support of this request.

In addition, the Coast Guard is charged with maintaining all the aids to navigation within the region, including those of the Mississippi River. These aids were either totally lost or severely damaged.

Again, it shows on this chart that Congress has also mandated the Coast Guard to respond to marine environmental pollution, which is now reaching untold levels of hazardous contamination throughout the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico, and I think it is an indication of all the responses to the contamination of oil spills in the region to which the Coast Guard has had to respond. More than 7 million gallons of oil has polluted the water in New Orleans.

The bottom line is, not only have the people of the Coast Guard been risking their own lives to save the 33,544 other individuals, but they have also responded to hazardous liquid spills in the region, conducted 4,688 sorties, carried out 11,548 small boat and cutter sorties, repaired vital aids to navigation to facilitate the flow of commerce in the Mississippi, and have assisted in the replenishment of critical supplies to thousands of displaced persons.

Yet, as capable and successful as the Coast Guard has been in carrying out all of its missions, including opening the ports and the waterways and drug interdiction--they are even doing that down there in combination with all of these other missions--this service was already stretched thin in the aftermath of 9/11. Unless Congress pledges to equip the service with modern equipment, we jeopardize the success of any future missions. The Coast Guard requires new cutters and aircraft now, and it can start this process only if Congress fully funds Deepwater, the service's recapitalization program for procuring new cutters, small boats, and aircraft.

The Senate version of the Coast Guard bill authorizes a total of $8.2 billion for the Coast Guard, $400 million over the administration's request. Within that request, Deepwater authorized $1.1 billion, $134 million over the administration's request. We must ensure our numbers, the Senate numbers, which are the higher numbers, are maintained in conference of this legislation.

By accomplishing this, it will allow for a targeted acceleration of required assets, those resources deemed most critical to the Coast Guard now.

The current situation can only be categorized as dire. It is a national disgrace that this service that is integral to search and rescue operations, integral to our homeland security, as we saw in the aftermath of September 11 when they immediately secured New York Harbor, integral to our fishing industry, would be operating the 40th oldest fleet out of 42 in the world. Only the Philippines and Mexico have older fleets. Deepwater is designed to remedy this situation, but in 20 to 25 years, rather than as I have insisted and I have requested, that Deepwater needs to be completed in 10 to 15 years at the outset.

If anyone questions the condition of the Coast Guard assets, I suggest they go out and sail on an aging cutter, go fly on an aging airframe, and you will witness firsthand the conditions that we continue to place upon the dedicated members of the Coast Guard. You only have to recall the graphic portrayals of what occurred during Hurricane Katrina, when these Coast Guard men and women performed under such perilous circumstances, when they were able to save so many thousands and thousands of men and women--in fact, more than 33,544 individuals under very hazardous circumstances and conditions.

At my subcommittee's June 21 hearing on the revised Deepwater implementation plan, we once again revisited the Coast Guard's current status of its legacy assets and the extremely high maintenance costs associated with them. The inescapable conclusion was the Coast Guard cannot continue on the path it is currently being forced to walk. It requires the additional money, the additional cutters and aircraft, and the latest technologies associated with command, control, and communications.

On my visit to the cutter Harriet Lane in New Orleans this last week, I was briefed on the extreme difficulties encountered in trying to establish effective communications among Federal, State, and local agencies. This cutter does not have the communications capabilities of what a new Deepwater cutter would be able to provide.

In fact, when cell phones didn't work and text messages were limited, they tried to find old satellite phones to use to communicate. We know that the new equipment on the new ships would provide this kind of capability that is absolutely essential. They would be paramount in streamlining and making these rescue efforts more efficient.

Yet, even without this new technology, the Coast Guard, as I said, made it work with the resources they had at their disposal. With an inadequate amount of satellite receivers, the cutters still prioritized and switched communication channels to effectively prosecute the mission.

Yet the undeniable truth is, such a workaround should not have to happen and would not happen on new Deepwater cutters.

The Coast Guard is a service clearly already populated with heroes. We should not ask them all to be MacGuivers, as well as jury-rigging and Rube Goldberging rescue operations already perilous enough.

Doesn't America deserve better? Don't the men and women of the Coast Guard who perform so heroically deserve more from us than fighting 21st century threats and the war on terrorism with equipment from World War

Yes, I am happy to yield.

Yes, I will be happy to.

I am delighted to add my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, as a cosponsor. She has been an ardent advocate and supporter of the Coast Guard. I thank the Senator.

I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Maryland as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to support the nomination of John G. Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He has the experience, judicial temperament, and qualifications necessary to be Chief Justice, and his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee has given me reason to believe he is not an ideologue and that he will make decisions based on sound legal reasoning that is within the mainstream of judicial thought in this country. I do not believe that he has an agenda to reverse our Nation's historic commitment to civil rights, and I take him at his word when he says that he will take each case on its facts and apply the law regardless of his personal views. It is for these reasons that I intend to vote in favor of Judge Roberts' nomination.

Many people have raised legitimate concerns about views that Judge Roberts expressed in the past. As a 26-year-old staff attorney in the Reagan White House Counsel's Office, Roberts wrote a series of memos that raised concerns about his commitment to civil rights. At his confirmation hearing he said that he no longer held certain views and it was important to distinguish between his personal views and those of an advocate seeking to uphold the policies of his client.

Due to the limitations the Senate faced in obtaining documents, in making my decision I had to primarily rely on Judge Roberts' testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The assurances he provided in his testimony give me what I believe is a reasonable expectation regarding how he will approach cases if placed on the Court. I would like to take a moment to briefly discuss some of these expectations that I believe are reasonably based on what he said at that set of hearings.

First, Judge Roberts repeatedly stressed that he respects the rule of law and recognizes the importance of considering stare decisis in the decision making process. I agree that looking to settled precedent should always be the starting point in this process. It is essential that the decisions of the Supreme Court provide reliable guidance to the American people, Congress, and the executive branch, and I believe that the whimsical reinterpretation of settled law is not in the best interest of our Nation. Based on the answers that

Judge Roberts gave, I believe it unlikely that Judge Roberts will chart a new right-wing course for the Court based on his own personal views. His answers indicate that he will apply the law in a fairminded way and that he will afford longstanding precedent adequate deference.

Second, when asked about whether the Constitution contains a right to privacy, which provides the legal basis for a woman's right to choose and the use of birth control, Judge Roberts made clear that he believed that it did. He stated clearly that the right to privacy was protected by the ``liberty'' due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. More importantly, Judge Roberts asserted that the right to privacy conferred under the Constitution was a substantive and not merely a procedural right. This view is in stark contrast to that of Justice Scalia, who has argued for a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and believes the right to privacy is an artificial construct that lacks any foundation in the Constitution.

Third, Judge Roberts also distinguished his views from those who see Constitution as a static document and only recognize recourse to the ``original'' intent when interpreting it. I believe strongly that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, and that we must have a constitution that is able to address the challenges and adversities that we face as a modern society. When our country was founded we were living in very different times, and it is important that our Constitution reflect the new world we are living in. In his testimony, Roberts noted that although it was impermissible to contradict the plain text of the Constitution, where the Constitution uses general terms, such as ``liberty'' or ``equal protection,'' it is acceptable to interpret the text in light of today's notions of liberty and equal justice, not just those concepts as they were contemplated in 1787.

Fourth, with regard to recent Supreme Court decisions that have restricted the ability of Congress to enact certain laws pursuant to the commerce clause, Roberts' answers indicated a willingness to interpret these cases in the context of the overwhelming jurisprudence supporting Congressional authority in this area. Further restrictions on the power of Congress to legislate under the commerce clause could have profound implications concerning the ability of Congress to pass laws with respect to the environment, civil rights, and many of the basic advancements we made during the Warren court.

In addition, Judge Roberts also specifically rejected the tenets of the Supreme Courts' 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which drastically curtailed the ability of Congress to pass critical workers' rights legislation, such as wage and child labor laws. Of course this decision has since been overruled, but some jurists nominated by President Bush, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, have advocated that the decision was correctly decided.

There is one other issue that I would like to discuss. Some of the most challenging issues that the Supreme Court will likely face over the next decade will involve how we balance civil liberties with the need to confront terrorism. The President has asserted tremendous authority in this area, including the right to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen that he unilaterally deems an ``enemy combatant.'' The Court will have to decide issues involving the detention of suspected terrorists, due process rights, constraints regarding the use of torture, and many other questions that will define our commitment to longstanding principles of civil rights and civil liberties. During the hearings, Judge Roberts rejected the Supreme Courts' decision in Korematsu, which upheld the mass detainment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Although this decision is a sad part of our history, in a technical sense it is still legally binding. Judge Roberts' complete rejection of this approach gives me hope that he understands that governmental powers are not without limit in times of war.

When asked whether he considers himself in the mold of Justices Scalia or Thomas, Judge Roberts stated clearly that he would be his own man. As I have stated, I expect that Judge Roberts will afford adequate deference to Congress, will follow longstanding precedent, and will apply the law in a fair and straightforward way. It is my hope that Judge Roberts will uphold these expectations.

Team Nutrition

Mr. President, I now speak on a different issue. This is in relation to an amendment I have filed on the current pending legislation, the Agriculture appropriations bill. I will not offer that amendment at this point because we are still in discussions with the bill's manager and the ranking Democrat and their staffs to see if we can find an appropriate offset for this amendment. It is one I offer with Senator Lugar as my cosponsor. I believe it is a very important amendment. It is an amendment to provide $10 million in additional funding to expand and develop new team nutrition programs across the country.

Senator Lugar and I offer this amendment in light of the growing and profound evidence that our Nation must confront what both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services refer to as our ``growing epidemic of childhood obesity.''

As Eric Bost, the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, testified before Congress in April of this year:

Nearly 365,000 deaths a year are related to poor diet and

physical inactivity; poor diet and inactivity are the second

leading cause of preventable death after smoking.

He added:

In the past 20 years the percentage of children who are

overweight has doubled and the percentage of adolescents who

are overweight has more than tripled. If we do not stem this

tide, this may be the first generation of children who will

not have a longer life expectancy than their parents.

According to a 2005 Institute of Medicine report, there are approximately 9 million children nationwide over the age of 6 who are considered obese, resulting in increases in children being diagnosed with type II diabetes and hypertension. In addition to the negative effects on the health and well-being of these children, the rise in childhood obesity has a profound economic cost for our country.

Between 1979 and 1999, obesity-associated hospital costs for children between the ages of 6 and 17 more than tripled, according to a study published in Children Pediatrics. To combat this, the administration has launched an initiative it refers to as part of its larger healthier U.S. initiative. It is called the Healthier U.S. School Challenge, which is focused on helping children live longer, better, and healthier lives.

Secretary Ann Veneman and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in July of this year:

The school challenge builds upon the Team Nutrition Program

and recognizes schools that achieve nutrition and physical

activity standards.

The School Challenge and Team Nutrition requires schools to do essentially five things: One, to serve national school lunch meals that are verified to meet nutrition standards; second, to offer nutrition education, which is the purpose of the amendment Senator Lugar and I are offering; third, to maintain national school lunch participation above certain levels; fourth, to offer physical activity for students in those schools; and fifth, to ensure that all foods offered through the school meet healthy standards as reflected in the dietary guidelines for Americans.

Although there are 28,000 schools nationwide that are participating as of October of last year as Team Nutrition schools, that is far from adequate. There are way too many schools that are not participating that should be participating. In fact, these programs are chronically underfunded. Team nutrition has once again been proposed by the administration, and in the current spending bill before the Senate the proposed funding is $10 million. This is equivalent to 21 cents per year for every child in public school in this country. There is nobody who could credibly argue that 21 cents per child per year is an adequate funding level for nutrition education. Unfortunately, the $10 million that has been proposed this year for funding in this program is what was proposed last year. It is what was proposed the year before. Essentially, we are on auto pilot in the Department of Agriculture with regard to this program. There is no effort to

move ahead and deal with the very real, new challenges we have in trying to teach nutrition to the young people of this country.

Furthermore, there is not a single set of funding in over half of the States in the country as Team Nutrition dollars are only going to 21 States. Unfortunately, New Mexico is one of those States and is not able to participate in Team Nutrition at any level because the funding is so inadequate.

Today, one in seven young people is obese in this country; one in three is overweight. Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children to become obese adults. Only 2 percent of children consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations of a healthy diet from the food guide pyramid that is published by the Secretary of Agriculture, and three out of four children in the United States consume more saturated fat than is recommended in the dietary guidelines for Americans published by the Secretary of Agriculture.

We need to support any effort we can to curb this growing obesity problem. We need to support making our children healthier today by teaching them and the adults in their lives about the importance of healthy eating habits and physical activity.

I urge the support of my amendment and Senator Lugar's amendment. As I indicated, we will not call it for consideration or a vote at this time, but hope we are able to find an appropriate offset and get agreement to add this amendment to the legislation.

I would argue, I think without any reservation, that this is a small investment. It is a first step, but it is an important step we should be making as a Nation to confront the profound and growing problem many children in our society face.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we are on the Agriculture bill, but the morning has been taken up with discussion of Judge Roberts. I think that is appropriate given the decision of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to support Judge Roberts and to announce that here this morning. That was perhaps unexpected by some of the commentators and, therefore, deserved a little time.

I will take the opportunity, having listened to the junior Senator from Massachusetts, to respond to some of the things he said, not with the understanding that it is going to change anything anywhere but for the satisfaction of getting a few things off my chest.

The Senator complained bitterly, as he and others have done with respect to other nominees, that the memos given to the Solicitor General are not being made public. He did not tell us that every Solicitor General--regardless of party, regardless of administration-- who is currently living has agreed with Judge Roberts, with Miguel Estrada, with others who worked in the Office of the Solicitor General, that those memos should, in fact, not be made public.

They are, in fact, covered by the attorney-client privilege. Some say, ``Well, the American people are the client, not the Solicitor General.'' The Solicitor General is the attorney for the American people and has a right to attorney-client privilege within his own staff, as any attorney has for material within that attorney's own office, as if they are representing a private client.

This keeps coming up. It keeps being repeated in the hope that it catches on. We need to always remember that every single Solicitor General who is living--regardless of their party--says that is the bad thing to do. That is the wrong interpretation of the law. The Senator from Massachusetts did not point that out. I think it needs to be pointed out.

He made a reference to the bureaucrats who were involved here who, as he said, have not taken an oath to defend the Constitution as we Senators have. I have been a bureaucrat. I have taken an oath as a bureaucrat to defend the Constitution. Those who serve the United States in these positions are sworn in with the same oath Senators take. It should be made clear those people who took that position and were in that position were, in fact, under oath to defend the Constitution. It demeans them to suggest their actions were any less patriotic or anxious to protect the law than actions of Senators.

I will conclude by quoting from an editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is not known as a paper supportive of Republican positions. Indeed, it is often thought of as being a companion publication with the New York Times. But the Los Angeles Times says:

It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in

Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not

vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief

justice of the United States.

As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is

an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the

mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad

bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate

vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing

more than self-defeating obstructionists. . . .

Even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game,

voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee

hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage [on the upcoming

second nomination].

If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably

conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice

palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone

who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be

harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over

Roberts.

I am not sure that will change anything, but it makes me feel a little better having said it, after listening to the presentations we have heard over the last hour. I congratulate my friend, Senator Leahy from Vermont, for his courage in standing up to internal pressures and his announcement that he will, following the advice of the Los Angeles Times and others who have examined this, in fact vote to confirm Judge Roberts. This guarantees that we will have a bipartisan vote out of committee, as we should, and that we will have strong bipartisan support here on the floor, as we should.

Amendment No. 1783

Returning to the Agriculture appropriations bill, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, we need a little background on this amendment. It may be controversial. I understand there are some Senators who have opposed it and will be coming to the floor.

It would allow the producers on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board to vote to fund or not fund the dairy air emission research required under the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality Compliance Agreement. This sounds fairly technical. In fact, the money that is available to the board has always been used for particular purposes, and most dairy producers want to make sure that it stays restricted to those purposes. But something has come up that requires research. It has come not from the Department of Agriculture but from the Environmental Protection Agency in a new agreement that affects dairy farmers. And in order to defend themselves against the position taken by the EPA, they need research. They need it now, and they need it badly.

This amendment would allow a one-time use of dairy promotion and research funds to fund the research. Most

dairy farmers are in favor of it. Dairy is the only program that does not have an option for funding its own research. The research will be conducted by Purdue University, according to protocols approved by the EPA. This is not in opposition to EPA procedures. The actual research will be performed by land grant universities in the States identified by the U.S. Dairy Environmental Task Force.

If we assume approval by the board, which would happen if my amendment were adopted, the funds will flow through an oversight organization, again approved by the EPA. The Agriculture Air Research Council, Inc., AARC, will contract with Purdue which will, in turn, contract with the universities in the States where the sites are selected. Dairy funds only will be used to fund the dairy research. AARC's board will include two members from the dairy industry and will monitor and audit the progress of the research and how the funds are spent.

The ultimate goal of all of this research will be to develop air emissions data that can be used in a process model that will allow any dairy farmer in the United States to input his dairy's operation information and find out what his emissions are. The information generated by this research, therefore, will benefit all dairy producers.

The reason is because the EPA has laid down rules with respect to emissions from dairy farmers. Most farmers have no clue as to how many emissions their farm is producing. The EPA has some fairly draconian restrictions to put on dairy farms, if the emissions go above a certain level. So how is a farmer to know whether he is in compliance, if there is no research on how the emissions can be measured? That is the reason we want the research done, and that is the reason farmers will benefit.

I believe Congress never intended the environmental statutes regarding emissions to apply to agriculture. When we talk about emissions, we are talking about smokestacks and automobiles and things that have been created by human beings. Now the EPA has said, no, we must monitor and, where necessary, control the emissions that come from cows. Cows have been generating emissions for a long time, perhaps even before human beings came along. So let's look at it, but let's not have a rule that arbitrarily disadvantages the dairy farmers without giving them an opportunity to know what is going on. That is what is behind this. In order to deal with the EPA regulations, the farmers need to know what is happening with respect to emissions. My amendment would fund a one-time study to give them the information they need. I believe without statutory changes, the courts will continue to rule that the environmental laws do, in fact, apply to dairy farms, and that is an issue for the authorizing committee. It is not something we should deal with on the Agriculture bill. Barring changes to the laws, I believe the collection of these data and the development of an emissions model will provide more certainty to producers.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Those who are opposed have been notified. I understand there are conflicts on both sides of the aisle at this particular moment. I am not sure how many Senators will be able to come down. We are open for business. We are ready for amendments. We are anxious to proceed. I hope my colleagues will accommodate us.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I listened to my friend from Idaho with great interest and great sympathy, and if, indeed, we could get all the other dairy producers to follow Idaho's example and put an assessment on themselves in order to come up with this money, I would agree with him this amendment is not necessary. Unfortunately, I believe there is an urgency here. The research needs to be done as quickly as possible, and this seems to be the logical place to which we should go.

I will say to the Senator from Idaho and to my other colleagues the fundamental problem here is not the research. The fundamental problem in my view is the absurdity of the EPA position with respect to the underlying question. That, as I said earlier, is not a matter for the appropriations subcommittee to deal with. It is a matter for the authorizing committee. But I will pledge to my friend from Idaho that to the degree we can have some influence on the EPA's position in conference, I will do everything I can to try to get a little common sense into this regulatory pattern.

With that, Madam President, I call for a voice vote on the amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of cleared amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.

These amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask for their approval by voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 1752, the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, there are cleared amendments at the desk, one from Senator Kyl and one from Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, there is an amendment from Senator Feingold at the desk which I would like to call up and have a voice vote on at this time.

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

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

Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk offered by

Senator McConnell which I would like to call up for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to with a voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

Mr. President, I understand that there are three amendments at the desk; one offered by Senator Gordon Smith, one offered by Senator John McCain, and one offered by Max Baucus.

I ask these amendments be called up and considered en bloc. They are amendments No. 1786, for Senator Smith; No. 1785, for Senator McCain; and No. 1800, for Senator Baucus.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be agreed to on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. First of all, I rise to encourage my colleagues to vote for the appropriations bill that is before us. It is the appropriations bill to fund The Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, as well as the ranking member, for the excellent bill that they have put together, and therefore it warrants our support because it does fund the agricultural needs of our communities, and also funds the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. President, Maryland is an agricultural State. It might surprise people because usually we are thought of as the home of high-tech research, Johns Hopkins University, the National Institutes of Health, but we are agricultural in soybeans and poultry. Also, we are the proud home of the Food and Drug Administration. We are so proud of the fact that the FDA is in Maryland and that the agency is charged with the mission of food safety and also with the safety of our drugs and our medical devices.

One might ask why is FDA in Agriculture appropriations. Well, because its original mission was food safety. But now it has expanded to the mission of ensuring the safety of our drugs and also of our medical devices.

It is wonderful to have them in the State, these competent people who work very hard putting America first, putting the safety of our people first, and also ensuring that drugs and medical devices move to areas of clinical practice.

But I am telling you I am really worried about what is going on at FDA currently. FDA has always been the gold standard in maintaining drug safety and drug efficacy. Yet today this agency is being politicized and degraded. The current administration has shown a persistent pattern of bringing incompetent leaders into critical positions. We have seen it at FEMA. We have seen it at other agencies. And now it is true at FDA. I see appointments being made on the basis of ideology instead of competency. I have seen people who have worked and devoted their

lives to FDA resigning because they saw science being politicized. I am worried about this.

Now, I voted against the current FDA Director, not because he is not a pleasant man but because there were so many problems under his watch. And they are not getting better. Let's take the situation that occurred in the consideration of something called plan B. Regardless of how you feel about whether plan B emergency contraception should be available over the counter, I think we would all agree that a decision should be made. I understand it is controversial from a cultural standpoint, but the question is was it controversial from a scientific standpoint? Well, delay, delay, delay, delay. Even the head of the FDA recently promised Senators Clinton and Murray that a decision would be made. Guess what happened? What happened was after the scientists made their decision, the Director delayed it because he said: How can we prevent teenagers from getting it? Well, Madam President, you are a mom. You know if we can keep alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of teenagers, surely the Food and Drug Administration would know how to handle this issue of contraceptives with teenagers. Put it behind the counter. Dr. Susan Wood, the Director of the FDA Office of Women's Health, resigned in protest. Dr. Wood is a distinguished scientist. She is a competent policymaker. She headed up the Office of Women's Health that the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and I worked to establish, to be sure that as drugs and clinical devices went through the evaluation, special needs of women would be taken into consideration and also children--another aspect led by our colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

So this is what Wood's job was. Did she quit because of pay? Did she quit because she got some big job with the pharmaceutical industry? Why did she quit? She quit because, she said, ``after spending the last 15 years to ensure that science forms policy decisions, I can no longer serve when scientific and clinical evidence are being overruled by the leadership.''

Well, she quit. So what happened? Guess who they announced would serve as the acting director of the office last week? They announced a male, a guy, with a background in veterinary medicine. What a dismissive attitude of the Office of Women's Health.

Now, I am not saying a man could not handle that job. He probably would have to work twice as hard to prove himself. But nevertheless, an individual with a background in veterinary medicine in charge of the Office of Women's Health? I admire the veterinarian community. They play a very important role in our community. They are respected. They are admired. They have sophisticated training. But I do not believe, as we are looking at the impact of a drug on pregnancy, or of postmenopausal women that someone with a background in veterinary medicine should be in charge.

Guess what. Advocates and scientists pounded the table, and they put someone else in charge. And the FDA doesn't even have the guts to stand up for the immediate appointment it made. It backed off, saying: Oh, we never announced his appointment. However a lot of people have that e- mail. I do not know the qualifications of the new acting director, but we are not heading in a good direction.

I want FDA to be the gold standard on safety and efficacy. There are many countries around the world that are poor. They rely on what is approved by FDA because they could never afford to have an FDA. Doctors in clinical practice rely on the FDA to tell them what is a good and safe drug, or what is a good and safe medical device, or an effective device. This is phenomenal. I had the benefit of this myself. I wore a heart monitor, invented in the United States of America, that could tell my doctor whether the drugs they were giving me controlled a condition of arrhythmia that I have. It was wonderful to know it had been approved by FDA, that it could tell me if what I was doing was safe, and could give advice to my physician on how best to treat me. This is what we want the FDA to be able to do.

We have a lot of problems. Look what is happening. We know what happened to Vioxx, out there prematurely, or with data withheld. We have all of these questions.

If you want to worry about teenagers, let's worry about antidepressants. I worry they can get antidepressants faster than they can get plan B. That is up to parents and others to control. But these antidepressants have had a very negative and dangerous effect on some teenagers. Where was FDA?

Now we have these implantable defibrillators that can go into your body, wonderful devices that can jump-start a heart. But guess what. They are found to have short circuits. The manufacturer knew about it, FDA knew about it, and they took no action on this. What is happening to our FDA?

I have fought for the right resources, I fought for the right legislative framework for FDA, and I am going to fight for the right leadership.

I wish Dr. Crawford would, No. 1, take charge of his agency. I am not calling for his resignation today, though he has to think about what he is doing over there. He cannot continue to politicize this agency. I am saying to him now that if he continues to politicize it, we will have to look at further action. I believe he is a decent person, but either he is getting direction from somewhere else or he has lost direction. This is meant to be a scientific agency, standing sentry over the safety of our food supply, doing the necessary evaluations as to whether a drug should come into clinical practice, and making decisions about whether a medical device can be safe and reliable and be the tool it was supposed to be, such as the one I had the benefit from.

So I say let's support the appropriations, let's make sure they have the right resources, but I sure in heck want them to have the right leadership so we can come to the right conclusions, and people all over the world--doctors, clinicians, and the American people can rely on FDA. I want to rely on FDA for science and not politics.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, as certainly the Senate knows, we are considering the Senate appropriations bill. There is an amendment that the chairman has brought at the request of the national dairy industry that is of great concern to me. As a result of that, I stand today in opposition to legislation that would seek to divert funds from the National Dairy Promotion Program to be used as a one-time-only source to fund EPA's dairy air quality studies.

While I am wholeheartedly in support of the need for research money to carry out air quality studies, dipping into a program that all producers, large and small, are required to pay into to promote their products does not seem to meet the test of where we want to now reallocate this resource.

The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 was established to strengthen the dairy industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and use for fluid milk and dairy products. The act does provide for research dollars to be spent but only on research projects related to the advertisement and promotion of the sale and the consumption of dairy products. So should this act leave the door open as a slush fund available any time a select group needs quick money for a proposed unrelated intent of the law? I would hope not, I would think not, and I am afraid the amendment takes us in that direction.

On September 9, 2005, I and the entire Idaho congressional delegation sent a letter on this issue to Secretary Johanns. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, Idaho recently became the fourth largest dairy producer in the Nation, and coupled with that new status are our inherent growing pains. Over the past 15 years, Idaho's expansion in the dairy industry has been swift. So has the growth of the State's population. The two have come in conflict with each other over the need for Idaho's dairy industry to be good players in the environmental arena. That is a critical issue, and they have, in most instances, been successful in working out their problems.

Even with the increased pressure of urban encroachment and stringent environmental regulations--and our State has not turned its back on this issue--producers in my State continue to surprise me in their work, in their

innovation, and the progressive thinking as it relates to resolving the environmental problems that I suggested are inherent with large concentrated herd and dairy development that is on going.

Idaho's industry realized a few years ago that it was vital they work collectively to support research to find new technologies and methods to mitigate the impact of the operations on the environment. So in 2004, Idaho dairy producers voted to assess themselves an extra half cent per hundredweight to fund environmental research. In other words, they didn't ask the country to do it, they didn't ask the Nation to do it, they did it themselves. This initiative raised about a half a million dollars per year, enabling the establishment of a broad-based research coordination team that includes Idaho and regional EPA officers.

This effort serves as an example of how the industry ought to be working to solve critical research problems rather than asking us now to dip into a fund that was dedicated to advertisement, promotion, and product development.

I am aware of EPA's work on the livestock ``air consent agreement'' to provide limited immunity from frivolous environmental lawsuits to producers who voluntarily allow EPA to conduct their quality research on their operations. I know that those who support this onetime dollar- dipping have good intentions, and I support all of their intentions fully. I have been working with them for a good number of months on other ways to shape Federal policy on air quality issues. However, asking Congress to allow a onetime-only access to the pool of money never intended for that purpose defies the integrity of the dairy promotion program that has worked so very effectively for now 22 years.

Supporters of this proposal say it would only cost around $5 to $8 million, but if it is that small amount, then if you look at the assessment that Idaho did on themselves, you would suggest that more and more could be raised if other States were to do as Idaho has done. The program assesses all producers to promote the products that these producers all provide to the consumer. The money from the promotion program that some, not all, in the industry now seek would only benefit a specific group of producers--about 1200--for a purpose completely unrelated to the intent of the program. Why should we allow a precedent to be set that robs Peter and the rest of his family to pay Paul? Never mind that this has never been done in the program's history.

Mr. President, again, I would like to express my support for the critical need for Federal investment in air quality and other environmental research programs for the dairy industry, but we should not open the gate to a flood that might never cease from a program that is intended for an entirely different purpose. With that, I will have to oppose the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, prior to the call of the roll, I wish to thank the chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee for his work on this issue and his cooperation. Certainly, this industry, as it is important to my State, is important to his State. We work very cooperatively together. We have a lot of commonness across State lines as it relates to the dairy industry, and we share a great deal of work and research. I appreciate the urgency of the need as he has expressed it, but I felt it was extremely important that Idaho's position be heard and understood by the rest of the States because this could be done by the industry itself from another resource, not unlike how Idaho has approached it. And I hope that other States would recognize the need to resolve this issue, and I certainly agree with Senator Bennett that the authorizing committee has a responsibility here and EPA needs to get their act together on this issue.

I yield the floor, noting the absence of a quorum.