Floor Statements

Mr. President, I intend to support cloture on S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and will vote for final passage. I am voting for cloture and for final passage because I believe we need to move forward to open up more areas for natural gas exploration to address the increasingly tight natural gas supply in the U.S. and its resulting high prices, but to do so in a way that protects our environment.

Over the past 6 years, the tight natural gas supply and increasing costs of natural gas has had a significant impact on consumers and particularly on the U.S. manufacturing sector, which depends on natural gas as both a fuel source and a feedstock and raw material. With U.S. natural gas prices the highest in the industrialized world, many companies have made decisions to move their manufacturing operations offshore. More than 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to overseas operations in the last 5 years, and I believe we need to take reasonable efforts to bring down the cost of natural gas in the U.S.

I agree with many of my colleagues that this compromise on offshore oil and gas exploration represents what is achievable in the Senate, and I urge the leadership on both sides to resist strongly any efforts by the House to broaden the scope of this legislation. If the bill comes back from conference with the House of Representatives without the Senate limits and environmental protections, I will not support the final product worked out by the conferees. Senator Reid's letter to Senator Nelson is very reassuring in that regard.

Mr. President, over the last 10 years, there have been more than 3.7 million crimes committed with firearms in this country. That is an average of 100 violent gun crimes every day, with almost 60 percent of these violent gun crimes occurring in our Nation's major cities.

America's major cities have been flooded with illegal guns. The underground market for guns is largely a product of the diversion of massive numbers of guns from licensed gun shops into the hands of criminals. A variety of sources supply the illegal market, including theft, unlicensed sellers who buy guns for the purpose of reselling them, corrupt Federal firearms licensees, and straw purchasers who buy guns for other unlicensed sellers, criminal users, and juveniles. Based on its own gun trafficking investigations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, has concluded that corrupt gun dealers are the source of the largest number of firearms diverted to the illegal market. In 1998, the ATF found that 56 percent of dealers and 30 percent of pawnbrokers who sold 50 or more guns, had Federal firearms violations. In addition, 18 percent of the dealers and 45 percent of the pawnbrokers had guns missing from their inventory.

Despite the fact that the ATF inspections often reveal multiple illegal acts by gun dealers, the revocation of a dealer's license is a rare and difficult event. In 2003, the ATF conducted 1,812 inspections that uncovered regulatory violations with an average of over 80 violations per dealer. Despite this large number of dealers with multiple violations, the ATF issued only 54 notices of license revocation that year.

I have consistently supported commonsense legislation to help stop the flow of guns to the black market. Unfortunately, the failure of Congress to act on several commonsense bills has allowed criminals and terrorists continued easy access to guns. In addition to endangering our families and communities here in the United States, congressional inaction may also be helping to fuel international trafficking of powerful firearms.

If we make it harder for criminals to get guns, there will be fewer gun violence victims. By helping to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we can save lives.

Mr. President, I will oppose the nomination of Jerome Holmes to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although I do not question the integrity or qualifications of Mr. Holmes to be a Federal circuit court judge, I do have serious questions about his ability to be an impartial jurist.

While all judges have and are entitled to their personal views and philosophies, a judge's decisions should not be controlled by an inflexible ideology. When a nominee's personal views will determine or dominate their judgements, such a nominee should not be put in a lifetime position on the Federal bench.

I am concerned by statements that he has made indicating insufficient sensitivity about the irreversible errors in the implementation of the death penalty. For example, in a presentation given by Mr. Holmes, he said that:

Like any human endeavor, there is a possibility of error .

. . But the statement society is sending--that certain

conduct and the perpetrators of it deserve to die--is not

materially diminished by the fact that in the implementation

of the death penalty mistakes are made.

Mr. Holmes' statement demonstrates a lack of understanding and concern about the death penalty and the way that erroneous convictions undermine a legal system.

Mr. Holmes has also sharply criticized affirmative action programs both before and after the Supreme Court rulings and those hardline views exhibited a lack of adequate respect for Supreme Court precedent. Although he told members of the Judiciary Committee that he would follow precedent,

he was vocal in his opposition to the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, criticizing the Court for missing an ``important opportunity to drive the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action''.

Because Mr. Holmes' statements do not reflect the objectivity necessary to serve in a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench, I cannot vote to confirm his nomination.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the Tuscola, Michigan County Fair as it celebrates its 125th anniversary. The Tuscola County Fair, in existence since 1881, showcases the local agricultural community in addition to other attractions, is an important contributor to the local economy, and entertains thousands of fairgoers of all ages each year.

The fair, which first took place the year President Garfield was assassinated, generates more than $2 million of activity in the county. The impetus to locate a fair in Caro, MI, was the desire of agricultural groups in the area to display their harvest, livestock, home canning and baked goods, flowers and needlework, and of local merchants and other industries to demonstrate new products and machinery for the farm and home.

Over the years, the Tuscola County Fair has experienced several milestones. The fair first showed a profit in 1891, and in 1892, a half-mile clay track was constructed. Interestingly, while the track was intended for sulky races, in 1924, female jockeys raced Kentucky thoroughbreds every day of the fair. In 1896, a new Agricultural Hall was constructed to showcase the agricultural industry. In addition, the Fair Office, the oldest building still standing, was constructed in 1917, and in 1920, the present ``Heritage Hall'' was constructed. During World War II, the fairgrounds were used to house German prisoners, who worked to help the local sugar industry that was so vital to our war effort. More recently, in 1981, the Historical Society of Michigan designated the fairgrounds a historical site.

Many people have contributed to the success of the Tuscola County Fair, including Emery J. Vandemark, the longest serving board member, the treasurer for 28 years, and the current 13-year President; the late Jay Kitchen, past president; Walter Jackson, president of the fair board and active 4-H member; James Fitzgerald, past president; Jerry Vandemark, longtime fundraiser; and longtime members Waldo Garner, Robert Nowland, Walter Putnam, and Frank Altizer, among many others.

The fair organizers and the many dedicated volunteers over the years have played an integral role in ensuring the success of the fair, and I know my colleagues join me in recognizing and congratulating all those who have contributed to the fair for their efforts.

Mr. President, I strongly and enthusiastically support the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006, S. 2703. The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and the Voting Rights Act provides the legal basis to protect this right. Ensuring that all citizens can vote and that every vote counts is surely one of our highest national priorities, and the passage of time has not diminished the need for such protections. Hearings held in the Senate and in the House in 2005 and 2006 revealed a new generation of tactics, including at-large elections, annexations, last-minute poll place changes, and redistricting, which have had a discriminatory impact on voters, especially racial and ethnic minority American voters.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to insure that no Federal, State, or local government may in any way impede people from registering to vote or voting because of their race or ethnicity. Most provisions in the Voting Rights Act, and specifically the portions that guarantee that no one may be denied the right to vote because of his or her race or color, are permanent. There are, however, three enforcement-related provisions of the act that will expire in August 2007. The first is section 5, which requires certain jurisdictions to obtain approval or ``preclearance'' from the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, before they can make any changes to voting practices or procedures. The second provision that will expire is section 203, which requires certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual language assistance to voters in communities where there is a concentration of citizens who are limited to English proficient. The third are those provisions in sections 6 to 9 which authorize the Federal Government to send Federal election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by section 5 where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls. The legislation before the Senate today reauthorizes the portions of the Voting Rights Act that will expire next year and will allow the Federal Government to address new challenges.

Today we are mindful of the fact that nearly 41 years ago, thousands of individuals risked their lives and some died in the challenge of systems that prevented millions of Americans from exercising their right to vote. For a hundred years after the Civil War, millions of African Americans were denied this fundamental right, despite the 15th amendment to the Constitution that prohibited the denial of the right to vote on the basis of race. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather c1auses--as well as violence--were used to deny African- American citizens the right to vote in many Southern States. During the 1960s, to secure this most basic right, the cost was high: church burnings, bombings, shootings, and beatings. It required the ultimate sacrifice of ordinary Americans: James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, who simply sought to register voters in Mississippi; Jimmie Lee Jackson, whose death precipitated the famous march from Selma to Montgomery; Viola Liuzzo, a White Detroit

homemaker and mother of five who was killed by a Ku Klux Klansmen's bullet after she participated in the Selma to Montgomery march; and the four little Black girls killed in the Birmingham church bombing--Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins, and Cynthia Wesley; Medgar Evers, who had organized voter registration in Mississippi for the NAACP and was gunned down in his driveway; the horrible beatings of John Lewis and of Fannie Lou Hamer and Aaron Henry of Mississippi. Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks, their names are forever etched in this Nation's history.

The impact of these tragic revelations and the subsequent enactment of the Voting Rights Act is stark. In Alabama, Black voter registration increased from 0.4 percent in 1940 to 23 percent in 1964 and more than doubled from 1954 to 1968, to 56.7 percent. Mississippi's Black voter registration went from 6.7 percent in 1964 to 54.4 percent in 1968. And the increase was reflected in many other cities and States nationwide.

Let us do what we must do. Our democracy depends on protecting the right of every American citizen to vote in every election. Let us resoundingly reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. President, as the leaders of this bill know, aquatic nuisance species cause unwanted and potentially harmful environmental changes in the Nation's waters. Aquatic nuisance species are introduced through various pathways, with ballast water on ships being the most predominant. Having a strong program to address the challenges presented by new introductions, allow rapid response actions, screen imports of aquatic organisms, and conduct research in all of these areas is extremely important and something this Congress needs to address.

In an attempt to develop a system to confront the challenges presented by these species, Senator Collins and I have sponsored comprehensive legislation to address this issue. While the Water Resources Development Act addresses protecting our Nation's waters, my colleague from Maine and I have decided not to address the need for comprehensive aquatic nuisance species legislation in this bill because the Environment and Public Works Committee leadership has committed to try to move a comprehensive bill forward this year.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for their commitment to continue the process and look forward to working with you and continuing the discussion on this issue.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Mr. President, I don't know if there is a fixed order for the minority. If not, I will yield myself 15 minutes.

We stand at the threshold of a new era of medical discovery. We can already glimpse the dramatic lifegiving advances in regenerative medicine that lie ahead, but we remain mired down at this point with breakthroughs on the horizon but not within reach unless we change the President's policy on stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research could hold the key to curing diseases that no other research can cure. As best we know now, an embryonic stem cell is unique in nature. It and it alone can develop into any other type of cell in the body. An embryonic stem cell and an embryonic stem cell alone can become a nerve cell, a muscle cell, or any of the more than 200 types of cells in the body. The research into directing the creation and use of these cells may be extraordinarily difficult, but it is easy to understand how creating healthy cells could replace diseased cells and could save an untold number of lives.

One example of the possibilities of stem cell research is the hope that it offers for those suffering from Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a motor system disorder that results from a loss of brain cells that produce dopamine. Individuals with Parkinson's disease often experience a trembling in the hands or arms or face and impaired balance and coordination. As the disease develops, it can become difficult to walk, talk, and complete other basic tasks. With research, scientists may be able to coax embryonic stem cells into becoming healthy neurons that produce the desperately needed dopamine. And if those neurons can be successfully transplanted into a patient with Parkinson's disease, that person could be cured.

The list of other diseases ripe for stem cell research is long. Lou Gehrig's diseased is a progressive neuromuscular disease characterized by a degeneration of the nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord. Juvenile diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the pancreas, destroying insulin-producing cells.

Alzheimer's disease is a form of dementia that afflicts the part of the brain that controls memory, language, and thought. Spinal cord injuries interrupt the sensory pathway between the brain and the rest of the body.

Now, imagine if embryonic stem cell research could produce replacements for the nerve cells ravaged by Lou Gehrig's disease, for the insulin-producing cells destroyed by diabetes, for the brain cells washed away by Alzheimer's, for the neural pathways severed by spinal cord injuries. Stem cell research could offer the millions of Americans suffering from these and other diseases not just hopes but cures. It could give them and their families--who are often physically, financially, and emotionally exhausted--their lives back.

Many technical hurdles stand in the way of that day. These discoveries will not be easy. But it is wrong to throw additional and unnecessary obstacles

in front of our doctors, researchers, and scientists. That is precisely, however, what the President's policy has done.

On August 21, 2001, President Bush issued an Executive order that the Federal Government would only fund embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines created before that date. ``Stem cell line'' is the name given to constantly dividing cells that continue to be derived from a single embryo. Most independent experts estimated at the time of the President's Executive order that only 80 stem cell lines, a totally inadequate amount, would be available for Federal research. Even worse, most of those 80 lines were determined to be polluted and unusable, leaving only about 20 stem cell lines actually available to scientists. That number is far too small to tap the vast potential of this research.

The President did not question the legitimacy of the science being used in stem cell research but the ethics of using embryos, scientifically known as blastocysts, until implanted through in vitro fertilization. A blastocyst consists of around 150 cells, which is smaller than the point of a pin. While the blastocyst is destroyed during the process of extracting embryonic stem cells, the key fact is that any that are used for stem cell research would have been discarded and destroyed anyway. That is a fact that opponents refuse to deal with.

These blastocysts are created by in vitro fertilization clinics and, for a variety of reasons, will not be used for implantation and will, therefore, eventually be discarded.

Last month, the Detroit News editorialized against a Michigan law restricting embryonic stem cell research and used words that equally apply to the President's policy. The News wrote:

The justification for this law is to protect human embryos,

but the fact that fertility clinics can simply discard them

means that the research ban is pointless.

The logic of some embryonic stem cell research opponents is totally befuddling. They are apparently willing to ignore the discarding of the embryos by fertility clinics, but they label as morally objectionable the lifegiving use of embryos which would otherwise be discarded. I believe that embryonic stem cell research is truly a lifegiving, not a life-destroying, process because of the extraordinary potential for healing living, breathing human beings who have names and faces and loved ones.

While the President is fighting against research in America, other countries are pressing ahead. America has always been at the forefront of scientific innovation, and we could do this research faster, more efficiently, and more ethically than most other countries. We also have an obligation to speed its potential benefits to the American people and to people around the world.

The President's policy, however, has stifled private-public partnerships and has hindered our potential impact in this area. Today, other countries are poised to reap the lifegiving rewards of stem cell research while we fall further behind.

Over a year ago, the House took a significant step toward overcoming Presidential opposition by passing the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, which would remove the President's arbitrary prohibition against using stem cells created after August 21, 2001. That is another fact that opponents refuse to deal with. The President's date of August 21, 2001, is breathtakingly illogical. How can the President argue that it is OK to use embryos created before that date for research, even though in his view it was the taking of a life but that after that date it is unethical to do so?

H.R. 810 would pave the way for hundreds or thousands of additional stem lines to be made available. It is bipartisan legislation, and it passed overwhelmingly in the House.

Shortly after the House made its strong statement in favor of exploring the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research, the Senate majority leader committed to bringing that bill up for floor consideration. Senator Frist understands how great the life-enhancing possibilities are, and he has chosen to side with his fellow physicians and with the future in supporting this research.

This bill has the strong support of the American Medical Association, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Association of American Universities, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Parkinson's Action Network, and more than 200 additional organizations. More important, it has the overwhelming support of the American people. If the President vetoes this bill, I hope we will resoundingly override his veto.

As part of the unanimous consent agreement to consider this legislation, we are considering two additional bills as well. The bill put forward by Senators Santorum and Specter would emphasize the use of adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells may have some potential, but they do not have the critically essential ability of the embryonic stem cell to become any other type of cell.

Dr. Sean Morrison, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, and one of the top stem cell researchers in the country, wrote recently in the Detroit Free Press about another alternative to embryonic stem cells being touted, adult stem cells from umbilical cords. Dr. Morrison wrote:

Umbilical cord cells are used clinically only to replace

blood-forming cells. There is no compelling evidence that

these cells could ever be used to replace cells in other

tissues. These cells are not an alternative to embryonic stem

cells, which can replace any cell type in the body. . . .That

is why there is near universal agreement among respected

scientists and patient advocacy groups that current

restrictions [against embryonic stem cell research] should be

relaxed.

We may be on the cusp of one of the greatest miracles in the history of medicine. The door of possibility is ajar, inviting us to enter. But we cannot make these great strides if our researchers continue to be hampered by President Bush's overly restrictive policy. We owe it to everybody suffering from--or who may in the future be afflicted by-- these dread diseases to move boldly toward a brighter future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, safe storage and child access prevention laws are crucial steps in the effort to reduce the occurrence of accidental shootings and suicides involving guns. Such tragedies have claimed the lives of thousands of young people and destroyed thousands of families, even though many of these occurrences could have been prevented by commonsense legislation.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the application of responsible gun storage measures can significantly reduce the risk of unintentional shooting or suicide by minors using a gun. According to the study, when ammunition in the home is locked up, the risk of such injuries is reduced by 61 percent. Simply storing ammunition separately from the gun reduces such occurrences by more than 50 percent.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which nearly 800 people die each year. Reducing the number of accidental shootings involving children and teenagers requires that commonsense gun storage measures be adopted.

In 2005, Congress passed a law, which the President signed, requiring that all handguns sold by a dealer come with a child-safety lock. It was a clear bipartisan effort to protect the youth of this country from gun violence. Unfortunately, last month the House of Representatives adopted legislation to repeal effective enforcement of this requirement as part of its Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Senate has not yet considered its version of the appropriations bill.

Sarah Brady, wife of Jim Brady, who was shot in the attempted assassination of President Reagan, responded to last month's vote by saying:

In a nation where gun violence takes such an enormous toll,

this vote is disturbingly backwards. Every year more than

30,000 Americans are killed by guns, including more than

2,800 young people. Every day, we lose a classroom of

children to gun violence. So many health advocates, law

enforcement officials, and others have urged Americans to

more safely secure and store guns. But in the millions of

American homes where children and firearms are present, 40

percent had at least one unlocked firearm.

While the problems of youth suicide and accidental shooting clearly cannot be completely legislated away, trigger locks and other sensible gun safety measures can help limit access to firearms by children, and there can be no doubt that reducing access by our kids to firearms can save many lives.

Mr. President, I will support final passage of the Homeland Security Appropriations bill today because its funding is vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us. Further, it includes important provisions that I worked to have included.

I am very pleased that the Senate passed both my amendment and Senator Stabenow's amendment on Canadian trash imports. My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to deny entry to the United States of any commercial trash truck until the Secretary certifies that the methodologies and technologies used to screen the trash for the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological and radiological weapons are as effective as those used to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering the U.S. The Department would first be given 90 days to assess the situation, and then another 180 days to implement changes to address the security concerns. If however, such changes are not identified, which I expect will be the case, municipal solid waste will not be allowed to come into the State of Michigan or elsewhere in our country.

With thousands of trash trucks coming into Michigan from Canada each week, this provision is critical for addressing the risks this garbage poses to our country's security, public health, and the environment. Senator Stabenow's trash amendment also addresses the security risks from trash by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to levy a fee on the trash shipments, in an amount that would cover the cost of such insepctions. It would therefore make it more expensive for Ontario to send their trash to Michigan, protecting U.S. landfills from being filled with Canadian trash.

With the help of my friends from West Virginia and New Hampshire, Senators Byrd and Gregg, the Senate accepted my amendment related to the establishment of the fifth and final Northern Border Air Wing in Detroit, MI. The Northern Border Air Wing, NBAW, initiative was launched by the Department of Homeland Security in 2004 to provide air and marine interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the Northern Border. Original plans called for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, Washington, North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan.

The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been operational since 2004. Unfortunately, not all of the sites have yet been established, leaving large portions of our northern border unpatrolled from the air and, in the case of my home State, the water. In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS Appropriations bill, the conferees noted that these remaining gaps in our air patrol coverage of the northern border should be closed as quickly as possible.

Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, and others who seek to enter our country illegally has not diminished, I believe approximately $12 million of the funds included in Senator Byrd's amendment for Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement which was adopted should be used by Customs and border protection to complete the remaining activities necessary to prepare, equip, and establish the Michigan NBAW site as Secretary Chertoff previously indicated he intends to do during fiscal year 2007.

In an April 11, 2006 letter to me, Secretary Chertoff indicated that it was his department's plan to open the Michigan site during the 2007 fiscal year and the Byrd amendment will enable the department to stick to its schedule. Mr. President Secretary Chertoff's letter and enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy are printed in the Record at page S7405.

Senator Baucus was also successful in his mission to press forward efforts to ensure that the northern Border is provided with proportionate resources as the southern border. His unmanned aerial vehicle pilot project will enabled the Customs and Border Patrol to perform a pilot project on the northern border between Canada and the United States. As the Senate knows, the northern border is nearly four times the length of the Southern border and it deserves an appropriate attention from the Department of Homeland Security.

I am also pleased that this bill includes a provision offered by Senator Byrd that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to issue interim regulations for chemical facilities that pose the greatest security risk. There are over 15,000 chemical facilities in this country, and there still are no Federal laws that explicitly address the threat of terrorism activities at chemical plants. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism bill, S. 2145, which I cosponsored, and which was reported by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June 2006, takes a much more comprehensive approach to this issue. However, because the Senate's Republican leadership is not allowing S. 2145 to come to the floor, I am pleased that Senator Byrd offered his amendment, which I supported, to address the very real risks posed by chemical facilities.

While I am pleased that funding was increased for port security and border protection, I am disappointed that the Senate rejected amendments to provide additional funding for first responders. We cannot expect our first responders to be well-trained, properly equipped and fully staffed to protect us, if we cut their funding sources. I am hopeful that funding levels will be restored in conference.

I am also disappointed that the Senate failed to move away from the current small State funding formula that is used to allocate funding for our first responder grant programs. I supported an amendment that would have allocated funding for the largest first responder funding programs based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability and consequences, and no State would have received less than .25 percent. This approach would have reduced the amount of funds allocated to States regardless of need and increased the funds available to be directed to states facing the greatest terrorist threats and greatest need. All Americans suffer when a major city is hurt by a terrorist attack; it is critical that Congress direct more funds to areas facing the most significant threats. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make the allocation of these scarce resources more equitable.

Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my

friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, regarding funds that have been included in Senator Byrd's amendment for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement.

The northern border air wing, NBAW, initiative was launched by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, 2004 to provide air and marine interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the northern border. Original plans called for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, Washington, North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan.

The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been operational since 2004. Unfortunately, not all of the sites have yet been established, leaving large portions of our northern border unpatrolled from the air and, in the case of my home State, the water. In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS appropriations bill, the conferees noted that these remaining gaps in our air patrol coverage of the northern border should be closed as quickly as possible.

Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, and others who seek to enter our country illegally has not diminished, I believe approximately $12 million of the funds included in Senator Byrd's amendment for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement should be used by Customs and Border Protection to complete the remaining activities necessary to prepare, equip, and establish the Michigan NBAW site as Secretary Chertoff has indicated he would like to be able to do.

In an April 11, 2006, letter to me, Secretary Chertoff indicated that it was his Department's plan to open the Michigan site during the 2007 fiscal year, and the Byrd amendment will enable the Department to stick to its schedule. Mr. President, I will ask that Secretary Chertoff's letter and enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy from earlier this year be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the cities of Saginaw, MI, and Tokushima, Japan, on the 45th anniversary of their sister city partnership. This is a significant milestone, and I am delighted to recognize these two cities for their many years of dialog and exchange.

In 1961, Saginaw and Tokushima established a relationship that sought to promote cultural awareness between the cities. Since that time, there has been significant interaction between the two cities, including student groups and other delegations traveling between the cities for cultural, educational and other purposes, as well as the exchange of gifts.

In 1971, the Tokushima-Saginaw Friendship Garden was built in Saginaw, and the land adjacent to the garden was subsequently deeded to the city of Tokushima. In 1985, a tea house was also built in Saginaw. Contractors and laborers from both cities were instrumental in its construction of the tea house and the labor costs were equally borne by both Saginaw and Tokushima. Upon its completion, the tea house became one of only 11 in the United States, and the only authentic tea house in the Midwest.

Promoting dialog and interaction between cities in the United States and other countries is a great way for communities to learn, understand and relate to other cultures. Through their Sister City Partnership, residents and officials of the cities of Saginaw and Tokushima now have a deeper and more personal appreciation for the traditions of both the United States and Japan. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Saginaw and Tokushima on the 45 years of cultural exchange, and I wish them the best as this relationship continues to develop further.

Mr. President, we have a failed trade policy and the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, OFTA, implementation legislation the Senate is being asked to consider today is a continuation of that failed trade policy. This failure is reflected in a trade deficit that reached a record $717 billion last year and in the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs over the past 5 years.

The OFTA implementing legislation fails to insist on basic internationally recognized labor standards, yet this agreement is being rushed through the Senate under fast-track procedures that only allow Members of Congress an up-or-down vote and no chance to amend or improve it one day after it was voted out of the Finance Committee and with no report. Although I support free and fair trade, as well as increasing our economic ties with Oman, I believe any trade agreement entered into by the United States should include commitments to international labor standards.

Writing labor and environmental standards into trade agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. But unlike the 2001 Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the OFTA fails to include internationally recognized, core labor standards supported by most countries in the world. Those standards include the right to organize/ associate; the right to bargain collectively; a prohibition on child labor; a prohibition on discrimination in employment; and a prohibition on forced labor.

In the case of Oman, its laws do not meet core International Labor Organization, ILO, standards, and therefore the agreement's requirement that Oman simply ``enforce its own laws'' is inadequate.

Rejecting the OFTA implementing legislation as currently drafted would be a sound rejection of the failed and flawed trade policies of the past and a signal of support for a better approach to trade that is a two-way street and trade that supports the rights of workers.

I am disappointed that the administration ignored the Senate Finance Committee amendment forbidding any goods produced with slave labor or benefiting from human trafficking from benefiting from the agreement. This amendment passed the committee unanimously, yet the administration did not include it in the legislation it sent to Congress. This is especially unfortunate in light of recent revelations that such labor abuses are occurring in Jordan despite a United States-Jordan FTA that included labor and environmental protections unlike the agreement under consideration today. It also shows a blatant disregard on the part of the administration of the advice and input of Congress in developing trade agreements.

I do not support the agreement before us as crafted, and without the chance to improve it, I must oppose it. Trade should not be a race to the bottom in which U.S. workers must compete with countries that do not recognize core international labor standards and basic worker rights.

Mr. President, today the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress did not intend to strip Federal courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas corpus cases when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The Court got it right.

The original amendment offered by Senator Graham on the Senate floor, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 49 to 42, contained language that would have stripped the Federal courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction in both pending and future cases brought by detainees at Guantanamo. The amendment specifically stated that the jurisdiction- stripping provision ``shall apply to any application or other action that is pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.''

However, this language was removed from the provision by the subsequently adopted Graham-Levin amendment. The Graham-Levin amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 84 to 14, and replaced the earlier Graham amendment in the bill. The legislative history makes clear that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions did not apply to pending habeas corpus cases.

The day before the Senate adopted the Graham-Levin modification, I said on the Senate floor: ``The amendment will not strip the courts of jurisdiction over [pending] cases. For instance, the Supreme Court jurisdiction in Hamdan is not affected.'' Despite efforts by the House of Representatives during our conference with the House to reinsert language stripping the courts of jurisdiction over pending habeas corpus cases, the final text of the Detainee Treatment Act retained the language of the Graham-Levin amendment.

In today's decision, the Supreme Court, applying ``ordinary principles of statutory construction,'' determined that Congress did not intend to strip the courts of jurisdiction in pending habeas cases. The Court held that ``Congress' rejection of the very language that would have achieved the result the Government urges here weighs heavily against the Government's'' argument that the jurisdiction-stripping language should be interpreted to be retroactive. That was, indeed, the only conclusion that is supported by the language and legislative history of the Detainee Treatment Act.

The substance of the ruling in Hamdan establishes that the President, acting alone, lacks the power to unilaterally determine the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Only Congress and the President, acting together, have the power to make such a determination, the Court ruled. Today's decision demonstrates once again the vital constitutional role of the Supreme Court as a check on the actions of the executive and legislative branches of Government.

I believe that Congress should give this issue careful deliberation, including full committee hearings, before we act. I look forward to thorough hearings in the Armed Services Committee this summer in anticipation of consideration of possible legislation in the fall.

Mr. President, over the past decade, through the gathering and dissemination of crime gun trace data, the need has been highlighted for stronger measures to stem the flow of guns into the illegal market and too often, into the hands of criminals.

One of the responsibilities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, is to trace firearms recovered by local law enforcement at crime scenes. The gun is traced from its manufacturer to the first purchase using records maintained by firearms manufactures and sellers. The process begins when law enforcement recovers a gun in the course of a criminal investigation and contacts the ATF with information on the crime being investigated, the name of the gun's manufacturer, the caliber and serial number. The ATF first checks its records of out-of-business dealers and its multiple sales records. If the traced gun is not located in these records, the ATF will then contact the manufacturer for the name of the dealer or distributor to whom the manufacturer first sold the gun. The dealer is then contacted for information on who originally purchased the gun.

This information provides an invaluable investigative tool for law enforcement. Analysis of crime gun traces allows the ATF, as well as State and local law enforcement, to not only investigate specific gun crimes but also to work to identify the sources of guns used in crimes. Crime gun traces can link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation, identify gun traffickers whether they are licensed or unlicensed sellers, and detect both instate and interstate patterns in the sources and types of crime guns.

It was not until the most recent decade that law enforcement agencies have routinely traced guns recovered in crimes. Initially, crime gun traces amounted to about 100,000 a year. Today, gun tracing has resulted in a database of over 2 million crime guns. The database has become a rich source of information for guiding public policy and the work of law enforcement officers.

The rapid expansion of crime gun tracing and the resulting trace database has produced a great deal of valuable information on how the illegal gun market is supplied. It is this information that helps point the way to policies to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in introducing the Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and Management Act to learn more about a potential problem regarding double-crested cormorants.

Cormorants are dark-feathered water birds with voracious appetites for alewives, perch and other fish in the Great Lakes. The double- crested cormorants reside throughout North America, but according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the largest concentration of double- crested cormorants is in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes cormorant population migrates south, along the Atlantic coast and Mississippi River drainage to the southeastern States and Gulf of Mexico.

The Great Lakes population of cormorants was once in great jeopardy. By the early 1970s, the population had been severely harmed by chemical exposure and human contact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that around that time the Great Lakes population fell sharply, with few birds remaining or breeding successfully. Since then, however, there has been a huge turnaround due to conservation and pollution reduction efforts. And today the Great Lakes population of double-crested cormorants is at an historically high level.

Double-crested cormorants are very skilled at diving for fish. The increased population have led many people to believe that cormorants are at least partly responsible for declining fish populations near several northern Michigan communities.

To help provide better information on the impact of cormorants on the fish populations in the Great Lakes, we are introducing this legislation, which authorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to develop a coordinated double-crested cormorant research program. As part of that research program, the Commission will recommend measures that will provide maximum sustained productivity of fishery stocks.

Under this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would establish a committee that represents the multiple jurisdictions engaged in cormorants management to identify all of the existing control tactics and strategies in the Great Lakes region, determine the effectiveness of those tactics and strategies, and compare the tactics and strategies to the known life history of cormorant populations in the Great Lakes. In determining the effectiveness of existing control practices, the Commission will examine the impact that cormorants have on the Great Lakes fisheries.

Congress has authorized tens of millions of dollars for programs designed to restore and protect fish in the Great Lakes. Those efforts are in jeopardy because of our ignorance about the impact of double- crested cormorants on the Great Lakes fisheries. Having the best possible information about this unique problem is critical for ensuring a healthy balance between the cormorant and the fish populations.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2006 with Senators Dole, Reed, Jeffords, Voinovich, and Martinez. This bill would allow the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist communities in transforming idle brownfield sites into productive uses. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our Nation and limit the economic growth of communities. Brownfields redevelopment can provide new opportunities for businesses, housing, and recreational spaces such as urban parks.

Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean up the environment and maximize use of existing infrastructure. My home State of Michigan has benefited from hundreds of brownfields redevelopment projects, and this bill would help to ensure that federal tools are in place to continue with these successes in Michigan and throughout the Nation.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act would provide the Department of Housing and Urban Development with new tools to spur brownfields redevelopment. This bill would provide local governments with increased accessibility to HUD's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants by allowing HUD to make brownfields grants without requiring that communities pledge their future community development block grant funds as collateral. Removing this restriction from the HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative program would allow many more communities, especially smaller communities, to participate in the program. The bill also adopts the definition of brownfields used by the EPA, which would bring greater consistency and clarity to the federal government's brownfields programs.

The bill authorizes $50 million annually for this important Federal program, which provides funding for a wide variety of brownfield redevelopment activities--from site remediation to construction. Supporters of this bill include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Development Organizations, the Northeast- Midwest Institute, the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, and the Environmental Bankers Association.

I want to thank my Senate colleagues for working with me on this bill, and I want to especially thank Jack Reed who played a key role in the early drafting of the bill.

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