Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize George Dement, mayor of Bossier City, LA. Mayor Dement will retire from office on June 30, 2005, after 16 years of service to northwest Louisiana. Mayor Dement is retiring from public service on the same date he was inaugurated 16 years earlier. Today, I take a moment to offer warm thanks for his years of service to Bossier City and best wishes for his coming commendation ceremonies.

A native of Princeton, LA, Mayor Dement served in the U.S. Submarine Service in both the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters during WorId War II and was present when the Japanese surrendered at Tokyo Bay. After 5 years of military service, he attended Centenary College and Louisiana State University Shreveport. Upon completing his studies, Mayor Dement began a 22-year tenure with Holiday Inn and was named Innkeeper of the Year in 1976. In 1989, he was elected mayor of Bossier City where he has been reelected three times--all with large margins of victory.

As mayor, Mr. Dement will be remembered for his leadership and accessibility. During his tenure, Mayor Dement led the way on four different phases of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway and also poured large amounts of energy into revitalizing key areas of Bossier City.

Fondly referred to as ``the people's mayor,'' Mr. Dement is known for his honesty and commonsense approach to governing. I come to the Senate floor today to join the residents of Bossier City in personally commending, honoring, and thanking him for his 16 years of service to northwest Louisiana.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, in recent weeks, the American people, including the citizens of Louisiana, have heard a lot about Senate rules, about historical precedent, about something very confusing called the filibuster, about the Senate's constitutional duty, and advice and consent. I think for the average American, for the average Louisianan, this seems pretty esoteric. This seems pretty out of touch with their everyday lives, this issue of how the Senate governs itself.

But there are issues at the heart of this which are important to those citizens, including my constituents in Louisiana. And those issues are: Is the Senate going to do its job? Are we as Senators going to do our job and do the people's business, address important issues of the day to build up our country and make it better?

Also, there is the fundamental issue of fairness. Are we going to be fair in this process to all concerned?

Those are themes, those are issues to which Americans all across the country, certainly my citizens in Louisiana relate and care about. Are we going to do the people's business? Are we going to act in a way that is fair to all? Those are issues directly at the heart of this debate-- doing the people's business.

Last year, I ran for the Senate for the first time. In doing so, of course, I traveled all around Louisiana and talked to citizens of all walks of life in every corner of the State. One theme I heard over and over from all sorts of folks of both parties was: Please go up there and do what is right and do the people's business. Get beyond all of this bitter partisanship, this obstructionism, the filibuster. Do the people's business in terms of important issues of the day. That is what folks in Louisiana told me over and over again.

They care about putting good people on the bench and having our courts run properly and filling these vacancies. They also care about other important business--passing a highway bill, building infrastructure so we can create good jobs in this country and Louisiana, passing a national energy policy to get us on track in terms of energy independence. That is important for our national security, and that is important for our economic security.

Again, wherever I went, with whomever I talked--Black, White, Democrat, Republican, and everyone in between--folks said over and over: Look, we are sending you there to do our business, to face issues, to vote, to move forward as a country, not to obstruct, not to play political games, not to get mired in bitter partisanship, but to take care of us and to address our concerns. And that is important.

The other issue that is at the heart of this debate that ordinary citizens around the country and Louisiana care about is fairness. Are you going to act in a way that is fundamentally fair to everybody concerned? And, of course, that is at issue here as well.

We have judicial nominees who have been nominated not weeks ago or months ago but, in many cases, years ago; in some cases, over 4 years ago. Their lives have been disrupted. They have been attacked by interest groups around the country, as well as Members of Congress. Many charges have been leveled against them that are patently untrue and patently unfair. And after all of that turmoil, after all of those trials and tribulations, they do not even get an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. There is no resolution to the trial, the jury never comes back. We do not get to vote and say this person should be on the court or this person should not be on the court. That is not fair. That is not fair in the minds of any ordinary American. It is not fair in the minds of the citizens of Louisiana.

We need to bring some fundamental fairness to this process. Sure, we need to have an important debate. Sure, we need to vet all the information. We can have differences of opinion. But then at the end of the day, we need to have resolution, we need to have an up-or-down vote. It is time to do that with all of these judicial nominees.

We have a historic opportunity in the Senate right now to address both of those concerns: to do the people's business, to do our job, to vote, and to move on to other key issues, such as the highway bill, building jobs, building energy independence--and we have the opportunity to act honorably and with fundamental fairness by treating all concerned in a fundamentally fair way in giving these nominees an up-or-down vote.

I stand on the Senate floor today to ask that we all come together to do that because that is the right thing to do, not for party leaders, not for the President, or for interest groups on the left or the right. It is the right thing to do for the American people. It is the right thing to do for the citizens of each of our respective States.

I make a plea in particular to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, to do that. She is in a unique position to reach out and achieve fundamental fairness and do the people's business in a constructive way.

Many folks, including me, quite frankly, were disappointed that a few years ago Senator Landrieu filibustered and supported that filibuster of Miguel Estrada, another highly qualified judicial nominee, after she had expressed strong support of that very nomination in her reelection campaign.

This is an opportunity to set that record aside and do the right thing and give all of these judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. That is what the folks of Louisiana want: to do the people's business, to do our job, to vote and to address other important issues and to act honorably and bring fundamental fairness, proper American values, Louisiana values to this process.

We are beginning with a very important nomination to the people of Louisiana, Priscilla Owen of Texas. It is particularly important to my citizens of Louisiana because the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which Judge Owen is nominated, serves Louisiana, covers all of Louisiana. There has been a vacancy in that position for years and years.

Judge Owen has been nominated for over 4 years. Her nomination has been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly debated and, yet we have never had that closure. We have never had that fair up-or-down vote. In fact, the vacancy which she would fill has been declared a judicial emergency in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, impacting directly Louisiana because it has been open for so long.

So this is the perfect place to start for me, for Senator Landrieu, for those who are concerned about justice in the Fifth Circuit, taking care of that judicial emergency, and then we should move on and give all of these nominees a fair up-or-down vote.

Justice Owen has been maligned unfairly. All sorts of charges have been leveled against her, and I want to address some of those directly. She has been called fringe and out of the mainstream, way out of the mainstream of American opinion and everyday life. Yet if you take any serious look at the facts, that charge simply does not hold up.

Justice Owen has been on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994, but more significantly, when she was reelected to that position, she was reelected with 84 percent of the vote in Texas, with the endorsement of every major newspaper of the State and with bipartisan support.

Now, is every newspaper in the State fringe, out of the mainstream? Are 84 percent of Texas voters fringe and out of the mainstream? Obviously not.

In addition, in her nomination to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Owen gained the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association.

She was nominated on May 9, 2001, nearly 4 years ago, and renominated January 7, 2003, and February 14, 2005. Her qualifications have been vetted and debated exhaustively.

Owen has significant bipartisan support, including three former Democrat judges on the Texas Supreme Court and a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State Bar of Texas.

Owen has been a justice on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994 and was endorsed for reelection by every major Texas newspaper.

Owen previously practiced commercial litigation for 17 years. She also has a substantial record of pro bono and community activity.

Owen received her undergraduate degree from Baylor University and graduated third in her class from Baylor Law School in 1977. She was a member of the law review and has been honored as Baylor Young Lawyer of the Year and as a Baylor University Outstanding Young Alumna.

After graduating from law school, Justice Owen received the highest score in the State on the Texas bar exam in December 1977.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Justice Owen ``well qualified,'' its highest possible rating.

Some weeks ago, I also spoke on this floor in support of Justice Brown, whose nomination recently cleared the Judiciary Committee for the second time. The President nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court nearly 2 years ago. One-fourth of the DC Circuit is currently vacant; and Justice Brown's nomination has strong support.

As I noted before, during Justice Brown's 9-year-tenure on the California Supreme Court, she has acquired a reputation as a fair and intelligent justice

who is committed to the rule of law. Justice Brown has served on the California Supreme Court since May 1996. Her appointment to that court was historic: Justice Brown is the first African-American woman ever to have served as an associate justice on the California Supreme Court.

Even more impressive, Justice Brown was recently returned to that court with the approval of 76 percent of California voters. In her retention election, Justice Brown had the highest vote percentage of all justices on the ballot.

Another sign of Brown's credibility is that, in 2002, she wrote more majority opinions than any of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court. As stated by a bipartisan group of Justice Brown's former judicial colleagues: ``she has quickly become one of the most prolific authors of majority opinions on the California Supreme Court.'' At least 12 judges have signed letters in support of her confirmation. Such numbers are indicators of the high esteem in which she is held by both the voting public in California and by her judicial colleagues.

I have heard arguments from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that Justice Brown should not be confirmed by this Chamber. One argument is that she supposedly abhors Government. Another argument is that she is supposedly hostile to civil rights. Such arguments are entirely without merit, and I would like to respond to this attack on Justice Brown.

While her critics charge that Justice Brown abhors Government, this nominee is hardly an extremist when it comes to Government. Indeed, as a longtime public servant, Justice Brown has been part of our Government for 25 years. She thinks there are many things Government does well, many things only Government can do; and she has criticized the unintended consequences of some of the things that Government does. In her judicial decisions, Justice Brown strives to apply the law as it exists and she defers to the legislature's judgment on how to solve many social or economic issues.

This nominee's judicial opinions suggest that she fully appreciates the importance of having Government play an active role in certain areas, including efforts to protect the public's health and safety. That is why she voted to uphold State health standards for labeling milk products. That is why she agreed that faucets, which might contain lead, should be considered a source of drinking water, under the Government's Safe Drinking Water Program. And that is why she agreed that her State's regulations regarding overtime pay should be liberally interpreted to provide California workers with more protection than they would have had under Federal law.

Her opponents also have insinuated that Justice Brown is hostile to civil rights. But Justice Brown has stated in her judicial opinions that ``discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society.''

In writing for a unanimous court, Justice Brown struck down a certain minority aid program because it violated Proposition 209, a provision of the California constitution that bars discrimination against, or preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Every judge in California who reviewed this program found it unconstitutional.

I find the argument that she is hostile to civil rights to be simply incredible, when you consider Justice Brown's personal history as an African-American who came of age in the South in the midst of Jim Crow laws. As someone who attended segregated schools, Justice Brown, better than anyone, can appreciate the importance of fighting discrimination. She grew up in Alabama, the daughter of sharecroppers, listening to her grandmother's stories about NAACP lawyer Fred Gray, who defended Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Her rise to the California Supreme Court from humble beginnings in the segregated South is absolutely inspiring. That may be why she has been sensitive to claims of racial profiling in cases where the facts strongly supported such an inference.

We all know that Justice Brown has risen to a prominent position on the California Supreme Court. But not everyone is aware of Justice Brown's record of activities on behalf of minorities, children, and the underprivileged. Let me take this opportunity to highlight a few such activities:

Justice Brown served as a member of the California Commission on the Status of African-American Males. The Commission made recommendations on how to address inequities in the treatment of African-American males in employment, business development, and the criminal justice and health care systems.

She served on the Governor's Child Support Task Force, which reviewed and made recommendations on how to improve California's child enforcement system.

While serving as a member of the Community Learning Advisory Board of the Rio Americano High School, Justice Brown developed a program to provide Government service internships to high school students in Sacramento, CA.

I close by citing a statement in support of Justice Brown by an executive director of Minorities in Law Enforcement: ``We recommend the confirmation of Justice Brown based on her broad range of experience, personal integrity, good standing in the community and dedication to public service. . . Justice Brown is a fair and just person with impeccable honesty, which is the standard by which justice is carried out.''

In closing, I urge my colleagues to allow both Justice Brown and Justice Owen to have a vote on the Senate floor. Let Justice Brown's judicial qualifications, rather than her political philosophy, be our focus in her confirmation process.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the opening of the Northshore Harbor Center in Slidell, LA on May 20, 2005. This new convention center will greatly benefit St. Tammany Parish. I join the East St. Tammany Events Center Commission and all the people of St. Tammany Parish in voicing my excitement about the opening of the center and its potential for economic development.

The Northshore Harbor Center is the product of many years of hard work and intense planning. Though numerous individuals were involved in the project, I would like to take this moment to personally recognize those responsible for its completion. First, I would like to commend the dedicated citizens of the East St. Tammany Events Center Commission. Also, I

would like to recognize the parish officials who appointed and oversaw the Commission. Finally, I would like to thank the citizens of Wards 8 and 9 who contributed hard earned tax dollars to fund the construction of this state-of-the-art complex.

I look forward to the wide array of events and conventions that will begin pouring into the Northshore Harbor Center. And I look forward to the many new visitors it will attract to another wonderful parish in Louisiana.

Will the Senator yield?

OK, but I say to the Senator, I understood you had been given the floor until someone came to the floor to speak on the highway bill. About how much longer?

OK, that will be fine.

Mr. President, now that time has run out, I am excited to be here to talk about the highway bill, important work of the American people that we must get done this week. I am here to stand in strong support of H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005.

Last year, I traveled Louisiana extensively, campaigning all around the State. I heard concerns expressed in every part of the State about the importance of making sure that we in Louisiana get our fair share of Federal highway funding. In the past, Louisiana was a donor State, which means our State's taxpayers contributed more in gas tax revenue than they got back from the Treasury in highway moneys. As one of the newest members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I worked hard this year to ensure that we try to change this unfair state of affairs. So Louisiana's rate of return will substantially increase under the bill before us from about 90.5 cents for every dollar that we send in Louisiana taxpayer money to the Federal Government to 95 cents on the dollar. That is a huge jump. It is still not a dollar--we need to go further--but it is a dramatic improvement.

This increase will provide my State with $2.9 billion over the next 5 years, funding that is critical to ensure that work continues on one of my State's major corridors, I-49, as well as many other Louisiana highway projects.

Providing additional funding for I-49 has been a goal of mine since my days in the House of Representatives. Upon assuming my seat in the Senate this January, I have continued to fight for those additional I- 49 dollars. That is why I initiated a letter in February to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords calling for them to support a significant level of funding for the corridor improvement program in the highway reauthorization bill. That letter was cosigned by five colleagues.

As a member of the committee that produced that bill, I am also pleased that we were able to agree on language that would redress a serious transportation and safety issue for my State. You see, Louisiana is the 22nd most populous State, yet it ranks third in the Nation in the number of collisions at highway-railroad crossings and fifth in the Nation in the number of railroad fatalities.

Along the 3,000 miles of tracks in Louisiana are over 6,000 rail crossings, more than any other State except Illinois. So the bill we crafted would provide $178 million for the elimination of hazards and the installation of protective devices at railroad highway crossings.

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, in particular those on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for agreeing to the inclusion in the highway bill of three significant amendments that I offered. I thank Chairman Inhofe for his work on behalf of these amendments.

One of the amendments would ensure that emergency evacuation routes are

emphasized as a program priority under the Multistate Corridor Program. The second amendment I authored would channel additional dollars to hurricane evacuation routes under the Federal Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program. And the third will help local officials complete much faster, and at much lower cost locally, a highway project connecting the parishes of Houma and Thibodaux, LA. The inclusion of these amendments in the managers' amendment will greatly benefit Louisiana and other coastal States across the country that experience frequent hurricanes.

As noted in the Times Picayune and other Louisiana newspapers, the 2004 evacuation of Louisiana due to Hurricane Ivan was disturbingly slow and marked by traffic gridlock. Traffic was backed up for 26 hours in Baton Rouge and 14 hours in New Orleans, while nearly 4,500 cars per hour were crossing the Mississippi River on I-10 at the peak of evacuation. Two of my amendments will provide additional funding for evacuation routes such as I-49, La. 1, and La. 3127 during hurricanes or other emergencies. Providing Federal resources to upgrade and maintain evacuation routes throughout the State will certainly help avoid the astounding gridlock and danger that occurred during the evacuation of Hurricane Ivan.

The third amendment I offered will expand the scope of an existing Federal highway project without increasing the cost-share burden on the local community and State. Without my amendment, the areas of Houma and Thibodaux, LA, would have had to come up with as much as $5 million more money. This transportation project will establish a new north- south evacuation route that is vitally important to residents of Houma and Thibodaux and all of those areas in southeast Louisiana.

I thank, again, the full EPW Committee, the chairman, Mr. Inhofe, the ranking member, Mr. Jeffords, the subcommittee chairman and the subcommittee ranking member and all of the staff who have assisted on this bill, particularly Andrew Wheeler and Ruth Van Mark. I call on my colleagues to support the chairman and ranking member in their efforts to shepherd this bill through the Senate and through important conference committee negotiations.

Congress has been extending funding for Federal aid to highway programs six times. The current extension is set to expire on May 31 this year, a little over 2 weeks away. We need to pass this bill. Then we need to quickly go to conference with the House and resolve our differences with the other Chamber before that important May 31 deadline.

That is when the current extension expires and funding for Federal aid to highway programs will run out. I know that is a tall order, but all of our States' transportation needs, our Nation's transportation needs cannot wait any longer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Thursday was designated as a National Day of Prayer. I began the day at a prayer breakfast with the people of Tangipahoa, LA, whose school board was recently the subject of a Federal court ruling against prayer at board meetings.

This February 24 ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge Ginger Berrigan of New Orleans, was filed by an unnamed individual with the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union. The purpose of the lawsuit was to stop prayers at Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings.

In her ruling against the school board, Judge Berrigan said:

[i]n officially promoting a religious practice at its

governmental meetings, the board is doing what its schools

and teachers cannot do, favor religion over non-religion and

endorse particular religious faiths.

If this ruling stands, school boards in other parts of Louisiana as well as school boards across the country could be subjected to similar lawsuits.

Many have joined me in criticizing this February 24 ruling, including the Democratic Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, who called for the school board to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As stated by Governor Blanco:

I believe that such prayers are entirely appropriate,

constitutional, and in keeping with a practice in our nation

that dates back to the Continental Congress.

I could not agree more with that statement, and I am delighted that the school board on May 1, 2005 voted unanimously to appeal the district court's ruling.

To me, this February 24 ruling seems like another attempt by Federal courts to legislate from the bench--especially when you consider that other lawmaking bodies are allowed to hold prayer. Here in the Senate, we routinely open with a prayer, as does the U.S. House of Representatives and as do State legislatures across the Nation.

In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in the case of Marsh v. Chambers, that

the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, but rather is simply an acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the American people, said the Court.

Voluntary prayer in elected bodies should not be limited to prayer in State legislatures and Congress. School boards are deliberative bodies of adults. They are similar to a legislature in that they are elected by the people, act in the public interest, and are open to the public for voluntary attendance.

And let's not forget that this Nation was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion but freedom of religion. The Framers intended that the U.S. Constitution would bar the Government from enacting any law that favors one religious denomination over another, not prevent any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue. The Framers recognized that freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is a fundamental and alienable right belonging to all Americans.

The ACLU, which backed this lawsuit against the school board, has criticized those of us who have called for the school board to appeal the district court ruling. I do not share the ACLU's opinion, and more importantly, the people of Louisiana do not share the ACLU's opinion.

It is a fact that Americans often turn to their elected officials for relief, especially after being rebuffed by courts. As stated by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service:

With regard to religious liberty, the origin and growth of

an individual's right to believe or not believe, and the

safeguarding of that right, have occurred almost entirely

outside the courtroom. The regular political process has

protected the religious freedom of minorities as well as and

often better than the courts.

In short, it is not unusual for Congress to advance religious liberty beyond what is available from the judiciary.

On April 29 I introduced a resolution, S. Res. 132, expressing the United States Senate's support for the practice of prayer at the beginning of school board meetings. U.S. Congressman Bobby Jindal has introduced a similar measure in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Coburn, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. DeMint for their cosponsorship of S. Res. 132. I urge my other colleagues to support this resolution, which recognizes that prayer before school board meetings is a protected act in accordance with fundamental principles upon which this Nation was founded.

Madam President, I, too, rise this morning to speak about an issue of great importance to me as a freshman of this body; more important, to the Senate as an institution; and most important, to America as a Nation: that is, what is clearly our horribly broken and partisan judicial confirmation process.

Two years ago, the Members of the Senate freshman class of the 108th Congress called on all of their Senate colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to take a careful look at the Senate's process of confirming judicial nominees. They were fresh from the campaign trail in their respective States, fresh from talking to citizens every day in their campaigns. They heard over and over how dissatisfied people were with the partisanship, the bitter partisanship and obstructionism that they found in Washington, particularly in the Senate. They heard over and over that the clearest example of that was the horribly broken, bitterly partisan judicial confirmation process.

Unfortunately, their valiant efforts did not succeed in fundamentally changing and improving the process. Because of that, as I was on the campaign trail to run for the Senate last year, I heard those same themes, those same concerns from voters all across Louisiana. I know my other freshman colleagues heard the same things from voters in their States. They heard over and over how tired and upset people were at the bitter partisanship in Washington, particularly in the Senate; the endless obstructionism, the endless filibusters. Again, the clearest example of that in citizens' minds was the horribly broken, bitterly partisan judicial confirmation process.

I heard over and over in every part of the State, folks from all walks of life, folks from both parties: Do the people's business. Get beyond all of that game playing. Get beyond that bitter partisanship. The obstructionism, the filibusters, that is not doing the people's business.

Yesterday, I joined with many other Members of my freshman class, the current Senate freshman class, in again calling for the Senate leadership to work together to address the judicial crisis--I use that word for good reason--the judicial crisis we are facing.

As we stated in our freshman letter to our colleagues from Tennessee and Nevada, progress often requires us to make difficult but fairminded decisions. The time has come to prepare our damaged, broken judicial confirmation process. We need a genuine commitment to upholding the equitable principles of our judicial system, a sense of respect for our deeply rooted traditions, and the willingness to compromise.

Several judicial vacancies have been lingering not for months but for years, as my colleague from South Dakota has said, causing more than one jurisdiction to formally declare a ``judicial emergency.'' Because of long-term vacancies, it is imperative we, as Senators, respond promptly to these emergencies. It is unacceptable we should have judicial vacancies in our courts for up to 6 or more years in some cases. It is time to put aside the grievances, the obstructionism, the partisanship that has been built up.

A recent case in point is the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Judge Brown, whose nomination has been pending since July 2003, as my colleague from South Dakota noted, is a highly qualified judicial candidate, as evidenced by her background and her training. Justice Brown has 8 years of experience on the California appellate bench, and she has dedicated all but 2 years of her 26-year legal career to public service. Right now, she serves as associate judge of the California Supreme Court, a position she has held since May 1997.

Justice Brown is the first African-American to serve on that State's highest court and was retained with 76 percent of the vote in her last election. California is not exactly a rightwing State. In 2002, Justice Brown's colleagues relied on her to write the majority opinion for the California Supreme Court more times than any other justice.

The daughter of sharecroppers, Justice Brown was born in Greenville, AL, in 1949. She came of age in the South, tragically in the midst of Jim Crow policies, having attended segregated schools in her youth. She grew up listening to her grandmother's stories about the NAACP lawyer who defended Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks. Her experiences as a child and

those stories from her grandmother moved her to become a lawyer. In her teens, she moved to California with her family. She earned a B.A. in economics from California State in 1974. She earned her law degree from UCLA Law School in 1977.

In 2003, a bipartisan group of 12 of Justice Brown's current and former judicial colleagues wrote then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch in support of her nomination--again, a fully bipartisan group. Another fully bipartisan group of 15 California law professors did the same, as did a dean of the appellate bar in California, and the California director of Minorities in Law Enforcement. What those who know her best say is Justice Brown is a superb judge, conscientious, hardworking, intelligent, sensible, openminded.

Yet Justice Brown, like multiple other judicial nominees, has been waiting and waiting and waiting for an up-or-down vote in the Senate. It is unfair to her. More importantly, it is unfair to the citizens of this country.

Some, like the distinguished minority leader, argue that this is some longstanding venerable practice. That is simply not true. A few minutes ago, the minority leader said in the early days of the Republic, filibusters were common. I hope, in the midst of this very important debate, he will read the history carefully because in the early days of the Republic, the Senate rules had no such thing as a filibuster. The Senate rules were pure majority rule because there was a motion that no longer exists to call the question, to end debate by a majority vote. So in the early days of the Republic--and this is crystal clear in history--there was no opportunity for filibuster because the Senate, just like the House, then and now, operated by pure majority vote.

Certainly it is clear this practice of judicial filibusters for appellate court nominees is brand new. It has never, ever happened for a nominee with majority support before the last Congress. They are very clear, very well-known examples that prove the point. What about Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas--very controversial nominations opposed by many on the Democratic side but neither was filibustered. Both got up- or-down votes in the relatively recent past. One was confirmed. One was not. That is how the process is supposed to work. That is how it did work until the last Congress.

Others say, yes, these floor filibusters are new but nominees have been held up in the committee before. That has been the functional equivalent of these filibusters we now see when the majority party in the past held up certain nominees in committee.

My response is very simple and very direct. We should change the committee rules as part of this process to ensure every appellate court nominee, every Supreme Court nominee gets to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote within a certain amount of time. That will fully respond to any legitimate concerns in that regard. That will fully respond to any of those grievances from the past. They can come to the Senate, within a certain amount of time, under a mandate which we can put in the committee or the full Senate rules, and the committee can send them to the Senate with a recommendation we confirm that judge, or that confirmation can come to the Senate with a negative report by a majority of the committee.

We face an impasse. We must do whatever is necessary to end it. Inaction is no longer accessible. Now is the time to resolve it.

Like the complicated policy issues we tackle every day, we cannot avoid the judicial crisis and its surrounding confirmation issues without expecting our inaction to have a major impact on our country. The integrity of our entire judicial system is at stake. Indeed, the integrity of the Federal Government and Congress is at stake as citizens again and again say: Put the people's business first. Take up the people's business. Get beyond this horrible partisanship, obstructionism, and these filibusters.

In closing, I encourage all of my colleagues to take a careful look at the Senate confirmation process. I ask we work together to refine our judicial confirmation process and to break down those partisan walls that have stood in the way of advancing judicial nominations.

There is one compelling reason we need to do this. That is doing the people's business. That is serving the people--not partisan political interests--and the people, across the Nation, all of our citizens, are demanding it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize Reverend T. F. Tenney, United Pentecostal Church District Superintendent for the State of Louisiana. Reverend Tenney retired on March 31, 2005, after 26 years of service in central Louisiana and throughout the State. More than 4,000 people attended a celebration of his service to offer heartfelt appreciation and best wishes at his retirement ceremony, and I join in their sentiments today.

Through his role as district superintendent he was responsible for overseeing all of Louisiana's United Pentecostal Churches. Reverend Tenney created a level of stability in the church and brought the United Pentecostal Church to a new level during his 26 years of service. His professionalism and guidance in handling Louisiana's churches and their congregations will be missed, as will his great wisdom and leadership.

I personally commend, honor and thank Reverend Tenney on the occasion of his retirement from service to the people of Louisiana after 26 years as United Pentecostal Church District Superintendent for the State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, I thank the Reverend T.F. Tenney for more than 25 years of guidance, service and leadership throughout the great state of Louisiana.

I recognize Reverend T.F. Tenney, United Pentecostal Church District Superintendent for the State of Louisiana. Reverend Tenney retired on March 31, 2005, after 26 years of service in central Louisiana and throughout the state. More than 4,000 people came to offer heartfelt appreciation and best wishes at his retirement ceremony.

Through his role as district superintendent, he was responsible for overseeing all of Louisiana's United Pentecostal Churches. During his 26 years of service, he created a level of stability in the church and brought the United

Pentecostal Church to a new level. His professionalism and guidance in handling Louisiana's churches and their congregations will be missed, as well as his great wisdom and leadership.

I personally commend, honor and thank Reverend Tenney on the occasion of his retirement from service to the people of Louisiana after 26 years as United Pentecostal Church District Superintendent for the State of Louisiana.

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

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

I call up amendment No. 223 which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment addresses the very important issue of port security which was spoken about a few minutes ago by another Senator. I am very concerned that the President's budget submission does not fully advance port security because it would merge the present support security grant program with other homeland security infrastructure programs. This amendment would address this issue.

Ports are vital to our Nation and our economy. There are 361 public ports in the U.S. handling over 95 percent of our overseas trade. That accounts for 2 billion tons, $800 billion of domestic and international freight annually. Ports and their maritime industry partners currently make up 27 percent of the GDP, and within the next 15 years many predict the amount of cargo that U.S. ports will handle will double. At that rate, our port facilities would account for as much as one-third of our GDP.

Of course, ports do not only handle imports and exports but also 7 million cruise ship passengers and 113 million passengers on ferries every year. Ports play a vitally important role in the war on terror. Many of our ports are vital to the deployment of our troops, and all of our ports are needed for sustainment cargo. The ports themselves supply 4 million jobs.

In my home State of Louisiana they are particularly important. They are a vital part of our way of life and our economy. We have 5 of the 15 busiest single ports in the Nation. As a Nation, 50 percent of our agricultural products go through our ports.

For all of these reasons, ports are an enormous target for the bad guys, for the terrorists. Therefore, we have been focusing, with good reason, on port security.

The problem is, the President's current budget submission would merge a current and very important port security grant program into other infrastructure programs. I think that would lose tremendous focus in the effort to beef up our port security and get the job done at our Nation's ports. My amendment would address that by doing several things.

First and most importantly, it would state the sense of the Senate that port security grants should not be combined with those other infrastructure programs. Again, we would lose focus by merging port security with all of those other programs.

Secondly, my amendment would say that Congress should determine a

method to enable the Department of Homeland Security to more efficiently and more quickly deliver port security grants to our Nation's ports.

Third, the amendment states that Congress should state funding levels that would strive to get the full job done as estimated by the experts, the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard says that at least $7 billion is needed to make enhancements to our ports, although some experts say that might be as high as $16 billion.

So I encourage all Senators to support this amendment and help ensure that this important port security grant program is not merged and subsumed into a more general program.

I reserve any remaining time which I have, which I would like to use to talk about another amendment in a minute.

At this point I call up amendment No. 224, at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this separate amendment numbered 224 is another vitally important part of the budget, which is the budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This amendment would increase funding of the Corps of Engineers to nearly last year's levels. Unfortunately, the President has proposed a significant, $130 billion cut from last year's levels. This would simply stay steady from last year's levels, using full offsets so that it would not change the overall top-line number of the budget.

The Corps of Engineers' mission is vitally important to the country in two areas in particular--first, for a lot of environmental purposes. This certainly affects Louisiana. In Louisiana, this Corps funding is critically important as we literally fight for our life in the fight against coastal erosion.

As noted by the President himself, over the past 75 years more than 1 million acres of Louisiana coastal plain have been lost into the Gulf of Mexico. Another third of a million could be lost by 2050.

This is such a crisis that we lose a football field of land, which is a fair amount of land, every 38 minutes. That clock does not stop. It is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

This, of course, is just related to Louisiana. There are other vitally important environmental projects that the Corps is focused on outside of Louisiana, such as the Florida Everglades, upper Mississippi, and many other important projects.

The second area for which the Corps is vitally important is water projects that build and maintain waterways around the country. That goes directly to the maritime sector of our economy and our national economy and economic growth. The Corps builds and maintains and operates 8,000 water projects across the country. Every year it dredges 900 harbors, operates 275 locks and dams, 75 hydropower facilities, and it manages 4,300 recreation areas. All of this is very important to our country, our way of life and our economy. An enormous part of the economy is maintained by that important work of the Corps.

That is why I believe cutting the Corps' budget in real dollar amounts, by $130 million, is not the way to go. It would hurt our economy. It would hurt economic growth. So my amendment would simply propose to restore the Corps of Engineers' funding to last year's level--no more, what was actually appropriated last year.

It is important to note that my amendment contains a full offset and that would be a decrease in funding from the General Government account. This would be a 0.7 percent reduction in that account, an account which has been increased 8 percent, double the rate of inflation from last year.

I think this is the right thing to do. I urge all my fellow Senators to support this amendment.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. In doing so, I wish to recognize and thank them for their leadership, so many Senators who have moved the bill thus far, certainly including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who just spoke, also the Senator from Iowa, the chief sponsor of the bill, and also the Senator from Utah, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I am also an original cosponsor of this bill, because it would protect consumers from some of the most egregious abuses in our judicial system.

Let me begin by saying that class actions are an important part of our justice system. They serve an important purpose when properly defined. No one would dispute they are a valuable feature of the legal system. This bill doesn't do away with them.

As stated so eloquently by the bill's chief sponsor, my colleague from Iowa, S. 5 is really court reform more than tort reform. What does it reform? What is the problem?

The reason we need to pass this bill is that there are loopholes in the class action system, and it allows bad actors to game the system. As a result, in recent years class actions have been subject to abuses that actually work to the detriment of individual consumers, plaintiffs in such cases. That is exactly who the law is supposed to help.

Additionally, this gaming of the system clearly works to the detriment of business and our economy, and the need for job creation in forging a strong economy.

Such abuses happen mainly in State and local courts in cases that really ought to be heard in Federal court.

We currently have a system, therefore, which some trial lawyers seeking to game the system in an effort to maximize their fees seek out some small jurisdiction to pursue nationwide cookie-cutter cases, and they act against major players in a targeted industry. Often, these suits have very little, if anything, to do with the place in which they are brought. Rather, lawyers select the venues for strategic reasons, or for political reasons, a practice known as forum shopping.

These trial lawyers seek out jurisdictions in which the judge will not hesitate to approve settlements in which the lawyers walk away with huge fees and the plaintiff class members often get next to nothing. The judges in these jurisdictions will decide the claims of other State citizens under their unique State law. They will use litigation models that deny due process rights to consumers and defendants.

Often the decisions coming out of these hand-picked and carefully selected venues are huge windfalls for trial lawyers and big law firms and a punch line for consumers and the people the lawyers claim to represent. There is now in our country a full blown effort aimed at mining for jackpots in sympathetic courts known as ``magnet courts'' for the favorable way they treat these cases.

Let us look at a few examples of exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps the best example nationwide, in terms of preferred venues for trial lawyers, is Madison County, IL, where class action filings between 1998 and 2000 increased nearly 2,000 percent. There is actually an example of a South Carolina law firm filing a purported class action on behalf of three named plaintiffs. None of them lived in Madison County, IL, but the lawsuit was filed in that jurisdiction against 31 defendants throughout the United States. None of those defendants were located in Madison County. These lawyers based the alleged jurisdiction on the mere allegation that some as yet unknown class

member might happen to live in Madison County.

I have a law degree. That is stunning to me. You can imagine how astounding and silly and ridiculous that seems to the American people, small business owners, and consumers around the country. So Madison County is a great example of one of these magnet jurisdictions. Once their reputation as a magnet jurisdiction is established, they attract major nationwide lawsuits that deal with interstate commerce--exactly the types of lawsuits that should be decided in the Federal court.

As noted in one study:

Virtually every sector of the United States economy is on

trial in Madison County, Palm Beach County, FL, and Jefferson

County, TX--long distance carriers, gasoline purchasers,

insurance companies, computer manufacturers and

pharmaceutical developers.

Let us review some of the outrageous decisions that this gaming of a broken system produces.

The Bank of Boston case, where class action members actually lost money when their accounts were debited to pay their lawyers $8.5 million; the Blockbuster settlement, where the class action members received coupons off their next rentals while their lawyers were paid $9.25 million; and, the Cheerios case where the plaintiffs got coupons for cereal, while the lawyers reaped $1.75 million--coupons that, quite frankly, they could have gotten in the Sunday local newspaper.

Sad to say, this is hitting home in my home State of Louisiana as well, because one of the jurisdictions that is appearing more and more on the list of these magnet jurisdictions is in Louisiana, Orleans Parish, the city of New Orleans.

I have mentioned how this gaming of the system is a huge disservice so many times to the consumers that were allegedly harmed. They get coupons or next to nothing. In one case, they had to pay even after the award. It is also a huge cost to business and a huge drain on the American economy.

Small businesses are already spending, on average, $150,000 annually on legal fees. The tort system costs U.S. small business $88 billion per year. This is all money that could be used to hire new employees or to improve benefits. I have long been concerned that Louisiana is increasingly becoming a part of this trend.

I mentioned a minute ago Orleans Parish, which is clearly showing up more and more on the list of these magnet jurisdictions. This is bad for our Louisiana efforts at job creation. It is a serious negative for companies looking to locate in our State.

I will quote from an amicus brief filed at the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of Sutton Steel and Supply, Inc., Kate Davis, and Mestayer and Mestayer, APLC v. Bellsouth Mobility, Inc. In that brief, they said:

In a recent poll of more than 1,400 in-house general

counsel and other senior litigators at public corporations .

. . Louisiana was ranked 46th for its treatment of class

actions, out of the 48 States that permit class action suits

in their courts.

The study they cited is the Chamber of Commerce study done in March 2004, and the amicus brief continues:

Importantly, 80 percent of the respondents--these are

businesses now, job creators--indicated that they perceive

fairness of the litigation environment in a State ``could

affect important business decisions at their company, such as

where to locate or do business'' and with good reason.

Of course, many small businesses are dragged down by what are known as Yellow Page lawsuits. In these cases, hundreds of defendants are named in a lawsuit, and it is their responsibility to prove they are not culpable. In many cases, plaintiffs named defendants using vendor lists, or even lists literally from the Yellow Pages of certain types of businesses, be they auto supply stores, drugstores, what have you, in a particular jurisdiction.

Imagine what this means to your State's job creation efforts when national attention is brought to your local jurisdiction because it is a new magnet jurisdiction--a new Madison County, IL. The only jobs that you will be creating are legal positions for the flyby lawsuit filed by out-of-Staters hoping for a payoff from your local industries and companies.

I have identified the problem, gaming a broken system. We have identified the real and negative results of that problem, hurting the actual consumers who are supposed to be helped, and costing business and job creation in your State, including my home State of Louisiana, enormous amounts, including in terms of jobs not created or lost jobs.

Why is S. 5 the solution?

I believe S. 5 is a careful, reasonable, and moderate response to the problem with our class action system. We have a bipartisan compromise that has been in the making for 6 years: 6 years of negotiation, careful study, and careful compromise. It deserves our support.

The House of Representatives has already passed similar class action reform legislation more than once. I have personally supported and worked for that, and voted for that when I served in the House.

S. 5 provides for Federal district court jurisdiction for interstate class action, specifically those in which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and any member of a plaintiff class is a citizen of a different State from any defendant. Under the bill, certain class actions with more than 100 plaintiffs also would be treated as class actions and subject to Federal jurisdiction.

The bill provides exceptions for cases in which Federal jurisdiction is not warranted. Under the so-called home State exception and the local controversy exception, class action cases will remain in State courts if there is significant connection to a local issue or event or a significant number of plaintiffs are from a single State.

The bill includes consumer protections so the real little guy, the plaintiff, the consumer who is wronged, is truly made whole. The bill's consumer bill of rights would require, among other things, that judges review all coupon settlements and limit attorney's fees paid in such settlements to the value actually received by class members. It would also require judges to carefully scrutinize net law settlements in which the class action members end up losing money in a class action settlement, and would prohibit settlements in which parochial judges allow some class action members to have a larger recovery because they simply live closer to the courthouse.

I am pleased there is bipartisan, bicameral support for a carefully crafted, well-thought-out measure. S. 5 is long overdue.

It is also important to say what we are not doing. This bill is not an attempt to eliminate class action lawsuits. Time and again, it has been said by parties on all sides that class actions have a proper place in the legal system. This bill is a modest effort to swing the pendulum back toward common sense, making the system work as it was intended.

This bill will not move all class actions to Federal court, only the ones most appropriately settled there. This bill will not overload Federal courts with class actions. They are prepared to deal with these cases far better than State courts, many of whom are overburdened now. We are also not delaying justice for plaintiffs. Federal courts have as good or better records of dealing with class actions in a timely manner.

In closing, our class action system is rife with abuses. It is gamed. It is broken. We need to fix it. First, we need to fix it for the consumers who are hurt by alleged abuses which are the subject of this class action litigation. Plaintiffs leave feeling cheated because they receive a token settlement in many cases for their efforts while lawyers reap all of the financial benefits.

Second, the system is broken and we need to fix it so we do not hurt legitimate business, legitimate job-creation efforts in Louisiana and elsewhere. Right now, businesses, fearing the mere threat of legal action, settle cases--a form of judicial blackmail. The whole economy is dragged down and fewer jobs are created as a result.

Third, our system of federalism is undermined today because one State's legal system, rather than the legal system of the Federal branch of the courts, is making decisions that affect many or even all other States. So the system is not working for anyone but the lawyers and law firms gaming that system.

A lot of good, hard work has been put into S. 5. I compliment again the prime sponsor, Senator Grassley, as well as the Judiciary Committee, led by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I compliment all of their leadership and

their respective staff members for their efforts. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 5. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for the Class Action Fairness Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what a difference a day makes. At this time yesterday I was riding in a Mardi Gras parade with my wife Wendy and four young children throwing beads and toys to throngs of young revelers. Today I stand on the floor of the Senate to participate in one of its many great traditions by delivering my maiden speech--a contrast to be sure but perhaps a fitting segue since both exercises are about a wonderfully unique place called Louisiana and particularly the great faces and high hopes of its children.

As I begin, I wish to express to my new Senate colleagues what an enormous privilege and honor it is to serve with them. From our most senior Member, the senior Senator from West Virginia, to our youngest, the junior Senator from New Hampshire--I missed that mark by 3 years, by the way--this body is filled with bright, talented, and passionate men and women who care deeply about our country. And, of course, this includes the senior Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, who honors me with her presence in the Chamber today. I look forward to working with each and every one of you, always putting country above party, people above politics. That doesn't mean we will always agree, of course. In fact, it may mean my words and actions will be particularly spirited and passionate, but that is only because of the sincerity and urgency I bring to an important job in important times.

There is also one even greater honor than serving with you which I want to acknowledge, and that is being chosen to serve by the wonderful people of Louisiana.

The media and pundits put great emphasis on my being the first Republican Senator from Louisiana since Reconstruction--or in 121 years. Put another way, I am the first Louisiana Republican popularly elected to the Senate in history. I think the people of Louisiana were very focused on making history in my election but in a very different way that had nothing to do with narrow partisan politics. They responded to my call to make history by lowering prescription drug prices dramatically; by expanding choice and access to affordable health care through empowering patients and their doctors, not Government or insurance company bureaucrats; by doing the difficult but necessary work to create great jobs in Louisiana, such as fighting corruption and cronyism and demanding standards and accountability in education; by forging a Federal commitment to save a unique national treasure, the quickly disappearing Louisiana coast; by truly honoring our seniors with true Social Security that the politicians can't touch.

This is the history Louisiana citizens voted to make, and this is the history I am committed to help forge. This is why my first legislative action as a Senator was to introduce the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005, to put affordable prescription drugs within reach of all Americans.

Now, I have to say this was not an easy first action. Clearly, this bill is opposed by some very powerful interests in Washington such as the big drug companies. It is opposed by the administration and was not particularly welcomed by any leadership in Congress, Senate or House, Republican or Democrat. But I could not ignore the wishes of a vast majority of Louisiana citizens.

As I travelled throughout Louisiana over the past year, I heard countless seniors in particular tell similar stories about the outrageous costs of their prescription drugs and how it burdens their lives. The United States is the world's largest market for pharmaceuticals. Yet we pay the world's highest prices. American seniors alone will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next decade. Meanwhile, citizens of virtually every other industrialized country pay significantly lower prices, lower by 30 percent or more. And this includes many countries which are not dominated by old-fashioned statist price control regimes.

My bill would make prescription drugs more affordable by expanding free trade and world commerce, by legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from 25 industrialized countries with pharmaceutical structures equivalent or superior to our own. For the first time, individual consumers would be allowed to legally import prescription drugs for their personal use.

Critics of drug importation cite safety as their primary concern. I share a belief that the safety of prescription drugs is paramount. My bill takes steps to address real safety concerns and strengthen existing laws by adding new requirements to promote the safety of prescription drugs here at home and those brought in from abroad. It includes new requirements that imported prescription drugs be packaged and shipped using state-of-the-art counterfeit-resistant technologies or be carefully tested for authenticity before entering commerce in our country.

Drug importation is not a conservative or liberal issue. It is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is a universal issue and challenge to provide our Nation's consumers access to safe and affordable drugs. That is why I worked to assemble a coalition of Senators and Representatives from across the political spectrum in support of this legislation. This coalition makes the bill unique as the first bipartisan and bicameral drug importation proposal. It is the companion bill to that offered by Representative Gutknecht in the House. An earlier version of the Gutknecht bill, of course, passed the House last Congress with my strong support and vote and stands as the only bill ever to pass either body on this subject. I look forward to working with all of my new Senate colleagues to advance this crucial fight. And, of course, my door is always open to those who want to join our effort or who have other ideas on how to bring the high cost of prescription drugs down to an affordable level. This issue is too important for us not to act.

In addition to lowering the price of prescription drugs, I look forward to

working with my Senate colleagues to take on other crucial challenges. I will be an active participant in the Social Security debate because we have a duty to the American people to ensure that their Social Security money is protected, not just for the current generation of retirees but for future generations as well. That is why I introduced my version of the Social Security lockbox last week and why I support the innovative idea of secure personal retirement accounts.

This week I will participate in the debate on class action reform in support of the Senator from Iowa, and I am hopeful we will not stop here. In the near future the Senate needs to address the problem of frivolous lawsuits that are driving more and more doctors out of business and robbing so many rural communities of access to the most basic health care.

I will also keep up the fight against Louisiana corruption and cronyism that still costs us jobs back home. As the folks back home know, I have gotten a few scars from this battle in the past but that is OK; I am ready to continue this fight in the Senate because it is a fight about doing right by Louisiana.

I look forward to working with Senator Landrieu on key Louisiana projects that will protect and strengthen our Louisiana economy. By working together we will be able to secure the funding needed to preserve our coast, finish the construction of I-49, and protect our State's vital military installations.

Every morning that I wake up at home in Louisiana, I help my wife Wendy get our four children up and ready for school and for life. Then I view what flows naturally from that. I look for new ideas and innovative avenues to improve the lives of every child in Louisiana. And now in doing so I look for new ways to work with every Member of this great body to build that brighter future.

Mr. President, I thank you and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 4470. In 2000, Congress passed the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act by an overwhelming margin. The purpose of the legislation was to give Lake Pontchartrain the same status as the Great Lakes and the Florida Everglades in their restoration efforts.

In addition, this legislation also created a real and innovative partnership between the Federal Government and local Louisiana stakeholders to further efforts to clean up the lake. This was the first step in achieving the ultimate goal of fully restoring the lake.

The basin is a 5,000 square mile watershed encompassing 16 parishes in the State of Louisiana as well as four counties in the State of Mississippi. It is the second largest lake in the United States after the Great Lakes, and its 1.5 million residents in the whole basin make it the most populated part of Louisiana.

Since we first passed this legislation in 2000, a great deal has been done. There has been real and clearly monitored improvement in water clarity in Lake Pontchartrain. ``No swimming'' signs are coming down as water quality improves and beaches are reopened. But more work remains to be done.

We have come so far. Various water quality studies have been conducted. These studies provide keys to solutions, pointing us in the right direction in the future. But now we must continue that work and also move on to the next stage of that vital work, which includes actual construction of key projects.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would move on to that next phase with the reauthorization of the program for fiscal years 2005 to 2010. It was reported unanimously from both the subcommittee and the committee with bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Members of the committee, particularly the chairman, the ranking member, and also the chair and ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, for all of their work in passing this bill.