Floor Statements

Mr. President, a point of order.

I want to ask a question so I can establish the floor order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes to complete my statement.

It is only an additional 3 or 4 minutes. We have 8\1/2\ left, so it would be an additional 5.

Mr. President, 1 month ago, I expected to be on the Senate floor sometime about now engaged in a debate over the pros and cons of President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court. Of course, I thought it would be Harriet Miers we would be debating. But that never occurred. As the Senate takes up the nomination of Harriet Miers' replacement, Judge Samuel Alito, we should all continually bear in mind how we got to this point because recent history goes a long way in explaining why the American people want us to examine every portion of Judge Alito's record with great care.

Harriet Miers' nomination was blocked by a cadre of conservative critics who lambasted her at every turn. Why? Because they were not satisfied that her judicial ideology matched their conservative extremism. They were not certain that her legal philosophy squared with their political agenda. In the end, Harriet Miers' nomination was blocked before she could explain her judicial philosophy, before she could have a full and fair hearing to answer the doubters, before she could have an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. She was blocked by conservatives and Republicans, not Democrats. She was not given an up- or-down vote by many of the same people who are clamoring for an up-or- down vote on Samuel Alito.

The standards seem to change with the nominee. Many of the very people who denied Harriet Miers an up-or-down vote are now saying that there is an imperative to give Samuel Alito one. So before we even begin examining Judge Alito's record, a natural cause for concern is that he was picked to placate a group of vocal and hard-right activists who have been lobbying for him for many years. Many of those who now call for an up-or-down vote are the same ones who denied that vote to Harriet Miers.

Anyone who thinks that this nomination is a foregone conclusion is sadly mistaken. There are too many questions still to be answered, too many doubts still to be alleviated to say this nomination is a slam dunk. The most important thing we must look at is Judge Alito's judicial record. And at least on first perusal, there are reasons to be troubled. In case after case after case, Judge Alito gives the impression of applying meticulous legal reasoning, but each time he happens to reach the most conservative result. That is why he apparently dissented more than most judges in his circuit.

I met with Judge Alito. I found him to be bright and capable and down to earth. He has an impressive life story and history of accomplishment. And his family story is not unlike mine and that of millions of Americans whose families came to these shores in the last two generations and, due to this great system of ours, climbed the ladder of success. But this is about more than legal achievement. In case after case, Judge Alito seems to find a way to rule on the side of business over the consumer, on the side of employer over employee, and often against civil rights, against workers' rights, against women's rights.

Though any analysis is still preliminary--and, of course, we must all wait for the hearings because those will be the most important thing--a quick review of some cases reveals a troubling pattern and warrants tough questioning at Judge Alito's hearing.

Often he stands alone in his decisions, reaching conclusions that almost no other judge has reached or would reach. The machine gun case, Rybar, is very troubling. Judge Alito alone found that Congress could not regulate machine guns, even though the majority ruled that Congress could, even though every other circuit to consider the issue ruled the other way, and even though courts have held for the last 60 years that Congress has such power. Judge Alito was in that case and on that issue an outlier.

This is an issue about which there was and is broad consensus. He went out of his way to find a means to reject that law. When I met with Judge Alito, he cited three bases for his dissent. He said the most important was the lack of specific congressional findings that regulation of machine guns affects interstate commerce. I found this explanation, in all honesty, unpersuasive, to say the least. The effect on commerce is obvious. Congress has passed laws relating to machine guns since the 1930s. There has never been any doubt that their possession and sale affect commerce. Ninety percent of the crime guns in New York come from out of State. So of course it affects interstate commerce.

It seems as if, in certain cases, Judge Alito would want Congress to make a finding that the sky is blue before he will give Congress the ability to make laws. So this case raises questions. Will Judge Alito be unduly cramped in his reading of the Constitution? Will he engage in judicial activism to find ways to strike down laws that the American people want their elected representatives to pass and that the Constitution authorizes? It is too early to tell. But this merits serious and tough questioning at the hearing.

There are other cases similarly disturbing. On sex discrimination, Judge Alito was again alone in ruling against the plaintiff in a sex- discrimination suit. Not only was he alone on the original three-judge panel, he was alone when the case was reheard by the entire Third Circuit. He was alone against 11 of his fellow judges who criticized him for raising the bar much too high for a victim of discrimination. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so there are more questions. Will Judge Alito be too quick to dismiss victims of discrimination and not give them their day in court?

On title VII, Judge Alito again was alone on a panel in ruling that a civil rights plaintiff had to meet a higher burden to get a trial than the law already provided.

Here is what the majority found extremely troubling. They wrote that ``title VII would be eviscerated'' if they were to follow Judge Alito's analysis--eviscerated, which means victims of discrimination would have no recourse.

In other cases we find the same thing. In Chittester, about the Family and Medical Leave Act; in Doe v. Groody, about strip searches, he was on the other side of the conservative Michael Chertoff. In Riley v. Taylor, he was again alone and the majority criticized him for analysis that served to ``minimize the history of discrimination against black jurors and defendants.'' And, of course, Judge Alito was alone again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

These are just a few of Judge Alito's decisions that raise serious concerns and cry out for tough questioning.

While there is much more reading and reviewing to be done, it is not too early to wonder whether there is a troubling pattern in his record. Is there an overall consistency in his approach to law or just in the result? Does he practice judicial restraint always or only when it allows the right outcome? Does he use the guise of legal reasoning to turn the clock back, as he appeared to do in the machine gun case? How do we resolve some apparent contradictions?

For instance, sometimes Judge Alito goes out of his way to defer to the legislature, as when he wanted to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification law. But at other times he goes out of his way to strike down an act of the legislature, as when he wrote Congress could not ban machine guns.

Sometimes he reads the text narrowly, as when he struck down a school's anti-harrassment policy, but at other times he reads the text broadly, as when he condoned the strip search of a woman and her 10- year-old daughter, though there was no such language in the warrant.

The disclosures this week of his 1985 Justice Department job application only raise further concern and increase his burden to answer questions fully and forthrightly in the hearing.

In that application he wrote, among other things, that he was ``particularly proud'' of his work to advance the position that ``the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.''

That statement cannot be dismissed as a ``personal view'' that will not affect how Judge Alito will approach the legal issue. It is a flat statement of what Judge Alito, at least at one time, believed the Constitution, not his personal belief, said. That is not a personal view such as stating you are pro-choice or pro-life. It is decidedly a legal view which involved judicial philosophy and judicial reasoning. If confirmed, his belief about what the Constitution does and does not protect will have the power through his decisions to become the law of the land.

Because Judge Alito so firmly and specifically stated his personal and legal opinion about this controversial issue while in pursuit of a lesser position, he has an obligation to answer questions at his confirmation hearing for the highest judicial job in the land. He cannot, as previous nominees have done, say, I refuse to answer. Have his views changed? Is his mind made up? Was he exaggerating for a potential employer? And if he was, how should we view what he says to us in the committee as he seeks an even higher position? Is he bent on advancing a particular ideological position?

Past nominees have said they could not discuss these issues for fear of creating a perception of bias. Here, unfortunately, the application itself creates the perception of bias and it will be essential for Judge Alito to address the issue head-on.

In conclusion, every Supreme Court nominee has a high burden. For Judge Alito that burden is triply high: first, because he seems to have been picked to placate the extreme rightwing; second, because of his past statements suggesting a closed mind on certain controversial issues; and, finally, because he is replacing Justice O'Connor, for 25 years the pivotal swing seat on a divided Supreme Court.

I hope Judge Alito will be able to meet that burden.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague Senator Graham, who has been a pleasure to work with on this issue, for his help and support.

This extends the privilege we have been granted by the majority leader and minority leader to bring our bill, our proposal, on Chinese currency up at a later date. After our bill on April 6 got 67 votes on a procedural motion, Senator Graham and I agreed to an up-or-down vote on our bill, S. 295, before the August recess.

In July, at the behest of Treasury Secretary Snow and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, we agreed to delay our vote on our bill until the end of the first session of the 109th. Well, that may well be this week. We are finishing up business while the President is, in fact, going to be in China. Senator Graham and I do not think it would be appropriate to vote on this bill while the President is there so we have agreed to delay.

Senators may recall that back on July 21, China promised to let market forces work and they revaluated their currency by a small but significant 2.1 percent. But they said the market should allow the currency to rise or fall about .3 percent a day. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Since the original 2.1 percent revaluation of the yuan, the currency has moved as much in nearly 4 months as China said it would allow it to move in a single day. So in the whole 4 months, it has not even moved a day's worth. Senator Graham and I, frankly, are disappointed in the progress so far. We said at the time it was a good first baby step, but we need additional steps. Thus far, none have been taken.

We are hopeful the President's trip to China will produce positive results. We are willing to forestall our amendment to see what happens on the President's trip.

Under the new agreement, Senator Graham and I can call up the bill in early December, when Congress returns for votes, or early in the second session, with a promise that the bill will be considered no later than March 31, 2006.

We hope and pray China will move. We do not want to dictate anything to the Chinese. We do not want to tell them how quickly they should move or to what degree, but we do need to see some more movement on something that just about everyone agrees ought to happen. The delay of this resolution will be salutary, we believe, to bringing some results.

I yield back my time to my colleague Senator Graham for some concluding remarks. I would also yield the 5 minutes I have been ceded to Senator Graham so he may finish.

My understanding is that the conference amount for nuclear physics may not provide sufficient funds for the RHIC facility. Because of the increased power costs and other factors, I am advised that without an increase in funding it is possible that there will not be any experimental operations in this fiscal year. I think we can all agree that is a bad and unintended outcome.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2441

Mr. President, I offer amendment 2348.

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

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. In a sincere effort to cut costs, what has happened in this bill is, in effect, we have eliminated the ability of generic drugs to be sold using Medicaid. That will raise costs dramatically.

Over half the prescription drugs used in Medicaid are generic. They are only 16 percent of the cost, but because we have raised the fees so dramatically on what a generic drug company must pay a pharmacy to handle the drug, it is now going to be the same as a prescription drug. Even though the prescription drug costs a whole lot more and, therefore, it is a much lower base, pharmacies are not going to use the generic. In the long run, that will cost the Medicaid Program billions of dollars.

This is a huge mistake. It was not done by design. They raised all the fees and figured that will bring this amount of money in the next year.

Can anyone imagine we are saying, in Medicaid, where we need to save money, we are not going to use generic drugs? My amendment corrects that situation and is within the fiscal confines of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 minutes. It can be deducted from the Republican time.

I thank the Chair. I want to add my voice in support of this amendment on behalf of Senator Clinton and myself.

We all know the help this country has generously offered those who put their lives on the line--some survived, some did not--after 9/11. Many emerged wounded. I want to add one other element here. When we negotiated with the President for the $20 billion, there was a great moment of unity. When this Congress stood up, it was a great moment of unity. I have to say the President has never wavered in his commitment of the $20 billion. In fact, the White House has been generous in granting us flexibility--seeking to take $2 billion of the tax dollars and move them to transportation.

This one rescission is the only mark where there has been a wavering in the commitment made to New York in those bleak weeks right after 9/ 11. We don't know how it came about. I doubt it came from the President--maybe somebody in OMB. But removing this rescission rights that wrong and keeps the ledger unblemished about this Nation's commitment to $20 billion to New York.

I thank Senator Specter and Senator Cochran for understanding that need, and Senator Clinton and I look forward to the fact that this amendment, which will now be in the Senate bill, will prevail in the House and that the White House will help us make that happen.

Mr. President, 20 years ago this month the world changed forever for the family of Leon Klinghoffer. Mr. Klinghoffer was a 69-year-old American Jewish retired appliance manufacturer from my State of New York. In October 1985, he and his wife Marilyn were celebrating their 36th wedding anniversary by taking a vacation aboard the Achille Lauro.

On October 7, 1985, four members of the Palestine Liberation Front took control of the Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt. While these hijackers held the passengers and crew hostage, they directed the vessel to sail to Tartus, Syria, and demanded the release of 50 Palestinians then held in Israeli prisons. After being refused permission to dock at Tartus, the hijackers killed the wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer and threw his body overboard into the sea.

Nothing can ever repair the mindless horror that act of terror visited upon the innocent. Nothing can replace the love of a husband and father. Yet we can learn from this cowardly act of terror and others like it. Indeed we must learn from it if we are to survive as a free nation in a world stalked by the terrorist gun and bomb. We must understand that terrorism has gotten more dangerous to the United States since Leon Klinghoffer's senseless murder. The Achille Lauro hijacking signaled the beginning of a new era and shattered illusions that Americans were not vulnerable to international terrorism.

Mr. Klinghoffer's widow, Marilyn and his two daughters courageously sought to turn their grief into meaningful action by speaking out against the scourge of terrorism and establishing the Leon Klinghoffer Memorial Foundation of the Anti-Defamation League. Since Marilyn's passing in 1986, the foundation that now bears both their names continues to raise awareness about the growing reach, sophistication, and lethality of terrorism, to identify gaps in America's counterterrorism law, and to advocate for their closure.

Having seen firsthand the destruction and pain caused by the murder of even one victim, the Klinghoffer family has reached out to other victims of terror to share their support, strength and experience. The Klinghoffer Foundation has developed educational, political, and legal strategies to enhance the fight against terror worldwide.

The Senate salutes Leon and Marilyn's two daughters, Lisa and Ilsa, whose longtime education efforts helped put a human face on the threat of terrorism long before fighting terror became a necessary way of life for

Americans, and whose advocacy has helped secure vital improvements in American counterterrorism policy. And we join them in remembering Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer.

Mr. President, I am in support of this resolution to recognize and honor the life and achievements of Constance Baker Motley, a judge for the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Sadly, Judge Motley passed away last week, on September 28, 2005, at the age of 84, after having lived an extraordinary and exemplary life.

Constance Baker Motley was the first African American woman, and only the fifth woman, to serve on the federal judiciary. Before becoming a judge, she was a renowned civil rights lawyer, public servant, and trailblazer. Her remarkable career reads like a civil rights history book.

After earning her Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from New York University and her law degree from Columbia University, Constance Baker Motley joined Thurgood Marshall at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. For 2 decades, Constance Baker Motley worked closely with Marshall and other leading civil rights lawyers to dismantle desegregation throughout the country.

She was the only woman on the legal team that won the landmark desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education. She went on to argue 10 major civil rights cases before the Supreme Court, winning all but one of them, including James Meredith's fight to gain admission to the University of Mississippi.

In 1964, Judge Motley became the first African-American woman elected to the New York State Senate, and in 1965, she became the first African-American woman, and woman, to serve as a city borough president, the great borough of Manhattan. During this time, Judge Motley worked tirelessly to revitalize the inner city and improve urban housing and public schools.

In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Constance Baker Motley to the Southern District of New York. She was confirmed 9 months later, over the strong opposition of Southern Senators. She rose to the position of Chief Judge in 1982, and assumed senior status 4 years later. She served with distinction for nearly 4 decades, until last week. Her passing is a great loss to New York, as well as the country, and for this reason her life must be remembered and celebrated.

This resolution extends the Senate's heartfelt sympathy to Judge Motley's friends and family and commends her for her 39-year tenure on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and her lifelong commitment to the advancement of civil rights and social justice.

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

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

Mr. President, first, I would like to request unanimous consent to grant floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress for Tovah Calderon, a detailee from the Department of Justice, who is currently serving on my Judiciary Committee staff.

I believe she is going to be here for the next year and a half. I could ask for the next year.

Let me amend my request, with the permission of my friend from Alaska, to grant floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress for Tovah Calderon, a detailee from the Department of Justice.

Yes. She is a detailee from the Department of Justice. We have detailees on the Judiciary Committee.

Yes. She would have to go through the normal process.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on these issues through the decades.

Mr. President, today John Roberts will be confirmed as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States, so it is a historic day. Not everyone in this Senate will vote for him, and our opinions differ on many things: How much we were consulted, how many documents we received, how fair John Roberts will be, how ideological he will be.

In the end, I decided that while there was a very good chance that Judge Roberts would be a very conservative but mainstream Justice without an ideological agenda, he was not convincing enough. And the down side, even a minority downside that he would be a Justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, was too great to risk, so I will vote no.

But no matter how we vote, today we all share a fervent hope that Justice Roberts becomes a great jurist and serves our Nation well. In the end, I cannot vote for Judge Roberts, but I hope he proves me wrong in my vote and that he takes the goodwill of this body and the American people with him onto the bench; that he rules fairly; that he looks out for the little guy if the law is on the little guy's side; that he will be the lawyer's lawyer, without an ideological agenda; that he sees justice done in the many areas of the law that he will profoundly affect over the next several decades.

However, as the curtain falls on this vote, the curtain is about to rise on the nomination of a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. If ever there was a time that cried out for consensus, the time is now. If the President nominates a consensus nominee, he will be embraced, the President will be embraced, and the nominee will be embraced with open arms by people on this side of the aisle. Not only we on this side of the aisle, but the American people hope and pray in these difficult times for a consensus nominee. The ball is in your court, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.

I thank my colleague from Iowa for his heartfelt and outstanding words.

Votes like this come about so rarely that many Senators have spent their entire careers in this body without ever having had the opportunity to vote on a Chief Justice.

And most of us in the Senate today will likely never again vote on a nominee to that incalculably important position.

That is why I have been troubled about how some have characterized the votes of conscientious Senators in this case--Senators from my party who have struggled with, and deliberated over, Judge Roberts's record in arriving at their decisions.

As will be borne out tomorrow, Democratic Senators have given this vote the profound and serious consideration that it deserves.

We are not voting monolothically, but rather each according to his or her own conscience.

And that is what this vote is.

It is a question of principle--not of politics, partisanship, or positioning, as some have cynically suggested.

Democrats have truly struggled with this vote. I know I have. Like some others, I did not make up my mind until late on the night before the committee vote.

We are not marching in lockstep, with nary a dissent like my colleagues across the aisle.

But while this vote was a close call for many, (Like myself) the next one may not be.

While this nomination did not warrant an attempt to block the nominee on the floor of the Senate, the next one might.

If the President sends us a nominee who, like Janice Rogers Brown, believes that the New Deal was the triumph of a ``socialist revolution,'' there will be a fight.

If the President sends us a nominee who, like Priscilla Owen, was criticized by her conservative colleague--Alberto Gonzalez--for an ``unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' there will be a fight.

If the President sends us a nominee who, like Miguel Estrada, refuses to answer any real questions and whose record is not made fully available, there will be a fight.

If the President sends us a nominee who is committed to an agenda of turning the clock back on civil rights, workers' rights, individual autonomy, or other vital Constitutional protections, there will likely be a fight.

And it will be a fight without any winners.

So, Mr. President, on the eve not only of the confirmation vote on John Roberts, but also the President's nomination of a replacement for the seat of Justice O'Connor--for more than two decades a pivotal swing vote on the High Court--I hope and pray that the President chooses to unite rather than divide; that he chooses consensus over confrontation.

Now let me return to the vote at hand.

This vote should be viewed against a unique--and troubling-- historical backdrop.

Many are saying the Senate should not bring ``politics'' into this. Their

quarrel should be with the President of the United States if they feel that ``politics'' means figuring out a judge's ideological, judicial philosophy. Politics, if you define it as that, was introduced by a President who vowed that, if given the opportunity, he would name to the Supreme Court Justices in the ``mold'' of Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia.

Given the President's campaign promise and repeated declarations, there is a presumption that any nominee the President sends to the Senate is in that ``mold.''

The presumption is especially strong--and is particularly hard to overcome--with a nominee who was carefully vetted, researched, and interviewed at sufficient length by a President who professed a desire to nominate people in the mold of Thomas and Scalia; and, with a nominee who is eagerly embraced by those groups who support the views of Thomas and Scalia and who want to change America through the Courts;

The presumption can be rebutted, of course. And the way it can be rebutted is through the answering of questions and through the production of relevant documents. And here, regrettably, there was much lacking.

To be fair, Judge Roberts did partially rebut the presumption. He made some inroads.

Judge Roberts has a keen and impressive intellect. We all know that. His encyclopedic knowledge of the law and eloquent presentation certainly confirmed what his colleagues have said about him--that he is one of the best advocates, if not the best advocate in the Nation.

But being brilliant and accomplished is not the number one criterion for elevation to the Supreme Court--there are many who would use their considerable talents and legal acumen to set America back. So, while legal brilliance is to be considered, it is never dispositive.

In addition, very good lawyers know how to avoid tough questions. People have said that one of the reasons the nominee was so effective arguing in the Supreme Court is that he mastered the trick of making the point he wanted to make, rather than answer the question asked.

When I reviewed the transcript in the week after the hearings concluded but before we were called on to vote, there was often less than met the ear.

There is an obligation of nominees to answer questions fully and forthrightly, because they are essential to figuring out a nominee's judicial philosophy and ideology--to me, the most important criteria in choosing a Justice.

Many of us were disappointed in his failure to answer so many questions and is one of the contributing factors to the no votes that will be cast against Judge Roberts.

Add to that the refusal of the administration to allow the Senate to examine important and relevant documents, and we are voting on a hunch. Senators voting on the position of Chief Justice should not be relegated to voting on a ``hunch.''

We should not be left to guesswork, impressions, and hunches.

There was a bit of a game of hide and seek going on--as much as Senators tried to seek out his views, many remained hidden away.

That is why that I so badly hope that the next nominee will be more forthcoming and will answer more questions about his or her legal views, and that all relevant documents will be provided.

But, the answering of questions is only a means to an end--it is a means of finding out what kind of judge, or Justice, a nominee will make.

In this case, because there were not enough questions answered or documents provided, we are still unsure of the answer to the central question: Who is Judge Roberts?

Particularly troubling to me are the eerie parallels between Judge Roberts's testimony and then-Judge Thomas's, especially given President Bush's declaration that he would nominate Justices in the mold of Justice Thomas.

The echoes of then-Judge Thomas's empty reassurances that he was a mainstream jurist are ringing in the ears of every Senator who listened to many nearly identical statements from Judge Roberts last week.

I was particularly troubled by his answers in two areas--the constitutional right to privacy and the Congress Commerce Clause power to protect the rights and improve the lives of the American people.

At his hearing, for example, Judge Roberts said that he believes ``there is a right to privacy protected as part of the liberty guarantee in the due process clause.'' At his hearing, then-Judge Thomas made almost the identical statement. As a Supreme Court Justice, however, Justice Thomas has repeatedly urged the most narrow interpretation of a privacy interest possible, in Casey, in Lawrence, and at every other opportunity.

At his hearing, Judge Roberts repeatedly assured the Committee that he had ``no quarrel'' with various Supreme Court decisions on issues of privacy, women's rights, civil rights, education, and other important issues. The same assurance in nearly identical words were made by Justice Thomas at his hearings, but when given the opportunity to consider those cases with which he had ``no quarrel'' from the bench, Justice Thomas voted to overrule.

At his hearing, Judge Roberts repeatedly assured the Committee that he had ``no agenda.'' The same assurance was made by Justices Thomas and Scalia at their hearings.

Besides these concerns about Judge Roberts's views on the right to privacy and on the Establishment Clause, I also was troubled by his answers on the Commerce Clause. I asked him if he would disagree with Justice Thomas's extremely narrow, 19th-century, and widely-discredited view that Congress may not regulate activities occurring within a State even if they have substantial effects on interstate commerce. He refused.

There is therefore too serious a chance that Judge Roberts believes that Congress is without power to protect workers' rights, women's rights, and the environment on this widely-accepted constitutional basis.

We simply did not get definitive answers to these questions at the hearings.

At the hearings, I gave Judge Roberts every opportunity to distance himself from Justice Thomas's most extreme views. He refused.

Now, Senator Cornyn, my good friend from Texas, and others from across the aisle have said that if we can't vote for this nominee who could we vote for? Here is your answer: someone who answers questions fully and who makes his or her record fully available; someone who gives us a significant level of assurance with some answers and a record that he or she is not an ideologue;

Judge Roberts is clearly brilliant and his demeanor suggests he well might not be an ideologue.

But he simply did not make the case strongly enough to bet the farm.

There is a good chance--perhaps even a majority chance--that Judge Roberts will be like Justice Rehnquist on the bench. We know he will be brilliant, and he could well be--while very conservative--not an ideologue. That is why I struggled with this decision so long and so hard.

If he is a Rehnquist, that would not be cause for exultation; nor would it be cause for alarm. The Court's balance will not be altered.

But there is a reasonable danger that he will be like Justice Thomas, the most radical Justice on the Supreme Court.

It is not that I am certain that he will be a Thomas. It's not even that the chance that he will a Thomas is greater than fifty percent. But the risk that he might be a Thomas and the lack of reassurance that he won't--particuarly in light of this President's professed desire to nominate people in that mold--is just not good enough.

Because if he is a Justice Thomas, he could turn back the clock decades for all Americans. The Court's balance may be tipped radically in one direction and stay that way for too long.

I hope he is not a Thomas. But the risk is too great to bear, and it exceeds the upside benefit.

Because of that risk and its enormous consequences for generations of Americans, I cannot vote yes. I must reluctantly cast my vote against confirmation.

Mr. President, I rise today to engage my friend, the Senator from Maryland who serves as the ranking member of the newly formed appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, in a colloquy regarding a program of national importance, and its inclusion in the fiscal year 2006 CJS appropriations bill. I thank my friend for her service in this body and for her tireless and passionate work on this bill. I particularly want to thank her for showing support for several projects of significant importance to New York State. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has left much of the gulf region under toxic floodwaters. I would like to secure funding for a National Waterborne Disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness Program based at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, NY. This waterborne disease recognition program has been funded by the EPA for the past 3 years but was not included in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget. Funding for this important program through NOAA will be essential for ongoing disaster relief efforts in the gulf region, as well as preparedness efforts for future natural disasters or water terrorism events.

It is obvious that there will be long-term medical and public health challenges ahead for the gulf region resulting from the massive water contamination event associated with Katrina. The medical risks for the gulf residents and first responders will include gastrointestinal syndromes resulting from waterborne exposure to biological agents such as Hepatitis A, E. coli from fecal contamination, and waterborne parasites. Exposure to a diverse array of toxic chemical contaminants from industrial sites, oil and gas installations, and household chemicals may lead to long-term health effects yet to be determined. This National Waterborne Disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness Program is a one-of-a-kind program that has a proven track record of delivering high-quality, cost-effective educational interventions to communities throughout the United States, addressing waterborne disease recognition, natural disaster preparedness, and water terrorism readiness.

The National Waterborne Disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness Program based at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center is uniquely situated to address these challenges. This program will assist Federal disaster response efforts by providing technical assistance to the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, CDC, and Department of Defense regarding water quality management, waterborne diseases, and the health effects of water contamination. It also provides educational training and support for local and regional healthcare providers to enhance accurate diagnosis and management of people with exposure to waterborne agents. I am hopeful that as the CJS appropriations bill moves forward that we may work together to see if this important issue can be addressed in conference.