Floor Statements

Mr. President, last summer, I came to the Senate floor to say a few words about the untimely death of a great wilderness advocate and friend named Sally Kabisch. I spoke then of how one person can and does make a difference.

It is with a heavy heart that I return today to honor another great Nevadan who died too young and in tragic fashion.

Pam White hailed from Wyoming, she spent time in California, but settled in Ely--in eastern Nevada--and became a great Nevadan. Just last Thursday, Pam joined me and Senator Ensign for breakfast here in the Capitol. She had traveled to advocate for wilderness in White Pine County, the place she called home.

Pam's enthusiasm and conviction were infectious. She worked doggedly to build support for wilderness in rural Nevada. She served on local committees and advisory groups because she cared about the management and protection of our public lands. She deserves credit for depoliticizing the wilderness debate in eastern Nevada. She also deserves credit for supporting economic development in her adopted home town of Ely.

What I also appreciated about Pam was that she knew the importance of adoption. She adopted Nevada as her State, Ely as her home, and a young boy named Connor as her son.

Connor White has been dealt some tough cards in his life. His birth parents had serious drug problems and he ended up in foster care. Pam White became his advocate, his protector, and his mother. It takes a special person to care for a special needs child. Pam was a special person who cared. It takes an angel to adopt a special needs child.

The day after I saw Pam last week, she died in a single car crash between Ely and Elko. Pam was and is an angel. As Pam's parents, friends, family, and community rally to remember her life, Connor's future will be their focus. Pam would have wanted it to be so because she knew that affecting the lives of children is the best difference we can make.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, VAWA. This act is the backbone of our country's fight against domestic violence and sexual assault, and its passage could not be more timely, as October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Sadly, domestic violence remains one the most common violent crimes in the United States. In fact, the American Psychological Association estimates that one in three women will experience a physical assault by an intimate partner during adulthood. While Congress has taken steps to curb domestic violence, significant progress must still be made to ensure that women and children are safe in their homes.

I am from one of the fastest growing States in the Nation, and Nevada's rapid growth poses a unique set of challenges in dealing with the increasing levels of domestic and family violence; however, progress is being made. According to the Violence Policy Center, Nevada ranks second in the Nation for the number of murders of women by men. Almost all of these women knew the perpetrator, and in most cases, it was a husband or boyfriend. In 2004, domestic service providers in Nevada aided more than 25,000 primary victims of domestic violence. These services were made possible because of legislation such as VAWA.

Originally enacted in 1994, VAWA was the beginning of a national commitment to the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. We continued the commitment in 2000 with the first reauthorization of VAWA which added much needed provisions for victims of rape, violence on college campuses, elder abuse, stalking, legal assistance in civil cases, and transitional housing for victims. I am pleased that the 2005 reauthorization of VAWA will address the needs of immigrants, Native Americans, children, and youth. Since the act's original passage, our commitment has yielded extraordinary progress nationwide. Domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent. Incidents of rape are down by 60 percent. The number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent, and more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. Additionally, over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protective orders.

I must, however, make clear my dismay at the last-minute inclusion of a controversial and ill-advised amendment to this legislation allowing for the collection of DNA evidence from

people who are arrested or detained. I believe authorizing the collection of DNA evidence without probable cause is an invitation to racial profiling, infringes on privacy rights, and may well be unconstitutional. This provision has no place in this important legislation, and I would urge in the strongest terms that it be removed in conference.

Despite the incredible strides made to end domestic violence, there is still much work to be done. We cannot lose sight of the horror which so many victims experience every day, but which rarely appears on network news. Domestic Violence Awareness Month is an opportunity to raise that awareness. It is especially important to recognize the tragedy that is domestic violence in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers in the gulf coast region were destroyed by these storms. For this reason, I worked to obtain an additional $9 million in the Senate's Justice Department appropriations bill. It is my hope that these funds will be included in conference and will not only rebuild the damaged facilities but will aid the coalitions that work every day to end domestic and sexual violence and will prove our commitment to their cause.

This legislation addresses the housing crisis that currently exists for victims fleeing their homes, provides more economic stability for victims by taking measures to improve their employment, and creates initiatives to educate and prevent domestic violence from occurring in the first place. The Senate's unanimous passage today of VAWA 2005 demonstrates the Senate's commitment to this important quest.

Mr. President, words to express my consternation are difficult to come by right now.

First, to express my appreciation to Senator Baucus for his tireless efforts. Montana is a State without a lot of people. It is a State that grows hardy stock. I have been there. Every time I have been there, it has been with Senator Baucus. It is a beautiful State--big sky country. Senator Baucus does not have many people in his State that this legislation he is attempting to put forward would help. He is doing it for the precious people in the world, not just the one he talked about with the name Precious, but precious people who have no place else to go than to someone like Senator Baucus, who is a leader from the State of Montana, who finds himself in a situation of responsibility in which he must reach out.

He first is a Senator from the State of Montana. But most important, his title is a U.S. Senator. He is concerned about the people of Louisiana, about the people who may not be named Precious, but they are precious. People in the State of Arkansas, because of close proximity to the areas where the hurricane struck, took in as many as 65,000 people. They are not all there now--most of them are there--but wherever they have gone, they have left in the State of Arkansas a lot of unpaid bills. That is not because they are trying to get away from responsibilities they have. It is because this Government has programs that are supposed to protect people such as Precious. The State of Arkansas deserves more from us than they have gotten.

This legislation Senator Baucus is propounding has the support of the vast majority of the Senate--I hope on a bipartisan basis.

While I am talking about bipartisanship, I have also to throw a bouquet to the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley. He has taken a lot of grief for working with Senator Baucus to come up with this legislation. Why did Chuck Grassley do that? Because he is a United States Senator and has responsibilities outside the State of Iowa. This legislation is a model for bipartisan compromise.

Senator Lincoln was misled, I say with all due respect to some of my colleagues, because she filed a similar amendment to the Commerce, Justice appropriations bill. Why did she withdraw this? She withdrew the amendment in exchange for the promise that the Finance Committee would reach a bipartisan agreement, which they did, and it would be brought to the floor and we would vote on it. We have had no vote on it. Senators Baucus and Grassley fulfilled their promise. Her legislation wasn't exactly like this, but it was so close it is not worth discussing the difference at this time. A handful of Senators have blocked consideration of this bill on the floor, twice already that I know of, and I think maybe three times.

The administration has the audacity to argue that this is not necessary. They want to do it with a bunch of waivers. Anyone who understands Government knows that is absolutely ridiculous. Their approach creates more bureaucracy while failing to provide funding guarantees for the States that badly need this. More important, their approach not only leaves but has left tens of thousands of Katrina's victims without care. We need to provide swift access to health care for Katrina's victims with guarantees of full Federal funding for the States who are generous and step forward at a time of need.

This is the time to allow us to pass this legislation. We are here now on a Defense appropriations bill. That is what we are going to be doing now. Couldn't we set aside 20 minutes, 10 minutes of debate on each side, and vote on this? We have a handful, maybe a half dozen Senators, holding up this legislation. Couldn't we spare the American people 20 minutes of debate time on the Senate floor to deal with people who are in dire need of help? As Senator Baucus explained, these are people who cannot even speak. We want to help them.

Continued failure to do so ignores the support of the bipartisan majority of the Senate. It also ignores the wishes of this country's bipartisan Governors. The Governor from the State of Arkansas is a Republican. The Governor from the State of Louisiana is a Democrat. They want help. Mayors, county commissioners, patients, hospitals, nurses, doctors--my good friend, the majority leader of the Senate, is a physician, a prominent, eminent transplant surgeon. I know how he cares about people who are sick. But we need the majority leader to push aside the loud voices of this very small minority over here and stop this. He needs to stop this and let us move forward with this legislation.

He has decided not to run for reelection. He is going to be here a year plus a few months. Is this a legacy that he wants to leave? Katrina? People, after 5 weeks, with no health care? Is it going to be 7 weeks? 5 months? Maybe ignore them, maybe that is what they want, ignore them.

These few Senators are standing complaining about maybe it costs too much. Maybe the first place the majority leader should look, with his friends who are holding this up--let's look at the budget that is out here, of which Protestant leaders of this country, on the night it was passed, said it would be an immoral document.

I am very grateful to the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and my friend of many years, Senator Baucus, for doing what they are doing, and the advocacy of Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. I so appreciate their not letting this issue die in the eyes of the American people. We must continue doing this. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, as I announced on this floor last week, I intend to vote against the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. In my meetings with John Roberts, I found him to be a very nice person. I like him. I respect his legal skills. I respect much of the work he has done in his career. For example, his advocacy on the environmental side of the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago was remarkably good. He decided the law did not look too good to him, so he figured the way to win the case was to argue to the Court the facts, and he did that and he won the case. So I admire his legal skills, as I think everyone in this body does. But at the end of the day, I have had many unanswered questions about the nominee, and because of that, I cannot justify a vote confirming him to this lifetime position.

Each one of the 100 Senators applies his or her own standard in carrying out the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. That is a constitutional role that we have. I know that elections have consequences, and I agree that Presidents are entitled to a measure of deference in appointing judicial nominees. After all, the Senate has confirmed well over 200 of President Bush's nominees, some of whom possess a judicial philosophy with which I disagree. But deference to the President can only go so far. Our Founding Fathers gave the Senate the central role in the nominations process, and that role is especially important in placing someone on the Supreme Court.

If confirmed by the Senate, John Roberts will serve as Chief Justice of the United States and leader of the third branch of the Federal Government for decades to come. He will possess enormous legal authority. In my view, we should only vote to confirm this nominee if he has persuaded us he will protect the freedoms that all Americans hold dear. This is a close question for me, but I will resolve my doubts in favor of the American people, whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turns out to be the wrong person for the job.

As I have indicated, I was impressed with Judge Roberts the first time I met him. This was a day or two after he was nominated. I knew that he had been a thoughtful member of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for the last 2 years. But several factors caused me to reassess my initial view. Most notably, I was disturbed by memos that surfaced from John Roberts' years of service in the Reagan administration. These documents raised serious questions about the nominee's approach to the rights of women and civil rights.

In the statement that I gave last week, I gave some specific examples of the memos that concerned me. I also explained that I was prepared to look past these memos if the nominee distanced himself from these views at his Judiciary Committee hearings. He did not. I was so disappointed when he took the disingenuous stance that the views expressed in these memos were merely the views of his client, the Reagan administration. Anyone who has read the memos can see that their author was expressing his own personal views.

When I saw Senator Schumer throw him the proverbial softball in these hearings, I waited with anticipation for the answer that I knew would come. This brilliant man, John Roberts, certainly could see what Senator Schumer was attempting to do. He was attempting to have John Roberts say: Well, I was younger then. It was a poor choice of words. If I offended anyone, I am sorry. I know it was insensitive. I could have made the same point in a different manner.

But he didn't say that. For example, the softball that was thrown to him by Senator Schumer was words to the effect: In a memo you wrote that President Reagan was going to have a meeting in just a short period of time with some illegal amigos, Hispanics--that was insensitive. It was unwise. And it was wrong. And he should have acknowledged that and he did not.

That affected me. It gave me an insight into who John Roberts is.

My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened when the White House rejected a reasonable request by the committee Democrats for documents written by the nominee when he served as Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. The claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents was unpersuasive. This was stonewalling, plain and simple.

In the absence of these documents, it was equally important for the nominee to answer fully questions from the committee members at his hearing. He didn't do that. Of course a judicial nominee should decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the Court to which the witness has been nominated. We all know that. But Judge Roberts refused to answer many questions certainly more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.

Finally, I was swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women's rights leaders against this confirmation. As we proceed through our public life, we have an opportunity to meet lots of people. That is one of the pluses of this wonderful job, the great honor that the people of the State of Nevada have bestowed upon me. During my public service, I have had the opportunity to serve in Congress with some people whom I consider heroes. One of those is a man by the name of John Lewis. John Lewis was part of the civil rights movement, and he has scars to show his involvement in the civil rights movement. Any time they show films of the beatings that took place in the Southern part of the United States of people trying to change America, John Lewis is one of those people you will see on the ground being kicked and stomped on while punches are thrown. He still has those scars.

But those scars are on the outside, not the inside. This man is one of the most kind, gentle people I have ever met, someone who is very sensitive to the civil rights we all enjoy. Congressman John Lewis is an icon and, as I have said, a personal hero of mine. When John Lewis says that John Roberts was on the wrong side of history and should not be confirmed, his view carries great weight with me.

So I weigh John Roberts' fine resume and his 2 years of mainstream judicial service against the Reagan-era memos, the nominee's unsatisfactory testimony, and the administrations's failure to produce relevant documents. I have to reluctantly conclude the scales tipped against confirmation.

Some have accused Democrats of treating this nominee unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are volumes written about the uncivil atmosphere in Washington, about how things could be better in the Senate. All those people who write that, let them take a look at how this proceeding transpired in the Senate and I hope on the face of America. It was not easy to get to this point. In 20 minutes, we will have a vote on the Chief Justice of the United States. But people should understand that the Judiciary Committee conducted itself in an exemplary fashion, led by Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy. No better example in Government could be shown than to look at how they conducted the hearings and the full breadth of everything that took place with this confirmation process. It is exemplary.

People have strong feelings, not only in that committee but in the Senate, and there were many opportunities for mischief. But because of the strong leadership of two distinguished Senators--one from the tiny State of

Vermont and one from the very heavily populated State of Pennsylvania-- it all worked out. They trusted each other and the members of the Judiciary Committee trusted them, and after a few weeks of this process, which went on for months, by the way, every Member of the Senate saw that this was going to be a civil proceeding, and it was. It has been. I commend and applaud the dignity of these hearings.

Each Democrat considered the nomination on the merits and approached the vote as a matter of conscience. Democrats were not told how to vote, not by me, not by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not by the senior Member of the Senate, Senator Byrd. They will vote their conscience.

Democrats have not employed any procedural tactics that we might have otherwise considered. As Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have said to the President himself--I have been there when they said it--we want the next nominee not to be extreme.

The fact that some Democrats will vote no on this nomination is hardly unfair. We are simply doing our duty under the Constitution that we hold so dearly. The Constitution--that is what this is all about, this little document. We have a role, a constitutional role, of giving advice and consent to the President. The consent will come in a few minutes. The advice has been long in coming.

In the fullness of time, John Roberts may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. I hope that he is. If so, I will happily admit that I was wrong in voting against his confirmation. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

The time is yours.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, would the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate allow us to be in a period of morning business during that period of time? There are some people who want to come and talk.

The Senator doesn't need to recognize me. The Chair needs to recognize me. Is he finished?

I don't know. Are we under controlled time?

I would like to be recognized.

Mr. President, I thank you very much. I apologize to the Senator from North Carolina for interrupting. I did not mean to do that.

Mr. President, I approach this a little differently. There is always tomorrow. But on this issue, there is no tomorrow; there is only today. I have been worried about this issue for some time. Yesterday, my concern became paramount. The people of the State of Nevada and this country deserve our attention today, not tomorrow.

Dr. Julie Gerberding said:

. . . many influenza experts, including those at CDC,

consider the threat of a serious influenza pandemic to the

United States to be high. Although the timing and impact of

an influenza pandemic is unpredictable, the occurrence is

inevitable and potentially devastating.

I am concerned about smallpox. I am concerned about anthrax. I am concerned about chemical terrorism, biological terrorism. But this pandemic is coming. We have been told this time and time again. I think it is incumbent upon this body to pass our amendment that is now before the Senate. Republicans and Democrats need to pass this amendment because the American people deserve it.

Four years after 9/11, the Government was supposed to be better prepared for the next national disaster. Yet as we witnessed all too clearly and painfully with Hurricane Katrina, our Government was not. We owe it to the American people to do better in the future. Today, we have that opportunity.

The human and economic toll of Hurricane Katrina has been dramatic, but the devastation caused by Katrina would pale in comparison with a potential global avian flu pandemic, which, the head of the Centers for Disease Control says is inevitable.

One health expert has concluded that nearly 2 million Americans would die in the first year alone from this. Now, a flu pandemic in the United States would cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars due to death, lost productivity, and disruptions to commerce and society.

Perhaps the only thing more troubling than contemplating the possible consequences of avian flu is recognizing that neither this Nation nor the world is prepared to deal with it. We have no plan. Today we have no plan.

We know that one of our best opportunities to limit the scope and consequences of any outbreak is to rapidly detect the emergence of a new strain that is capable of sustained human-to-human transmission. Yet we are not devoting enough resources to effective surveillance abroad.

We all know that State and local health departments will be on the front lines of a pandemic and health care providers must develop surge capacity plans so they can respond to a pandemic.

This Congress is poised to approve a $130 million cut for State and local preparedness funding for the Centers for Disease Control. That is in the President's budget--a $130 million cut.

We also know once a flu strain has been identified, we need to develop a vaccine. That takes time, some say as long as 8 months. Our existing stock of vaccines, assuming they are effective against a future, as yet unidentified, strain may protect less than 1 percent of all Americans. And we have only one domestic flu vaccine manufacturer located in the United States.

It is estimated that if our capacity to produce a vaccine is not improved, it could take 15 months to vaccinate the first responders, medical personnel and other high risk groups.

We know it will take months to develop, produce, and distribute a vaccine once we have had it perfected. But we must rely on antiviral medicines as a stopgap against this pandemic. Other nations that certainly do not have the resources we have, including Great Britain, France, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have ordered enough of this Tamiflu, an antiviral pill, to cover up to 40 percent of their population. We have virtually nothing.

The consequences of a pandemic could be far reaching, impacting virtually every sector of our society and our economy. Yet we have not taken appropriate action to prepare the medical community, business community, or the American public so they can take necessary steps to prepare for and respond to an avian flu outbreak.

This great country of ours can do better. We have to. We cannot afford to wait to do better. That is why I am so happy to join my friends in sponsoring this amendment.

To put this amendment in perspective, this amendment calls for $3.9 billion in emergency funds for pandemic flu preparedness at the CDC. To put this amount in perspective, the cost of our amendment is less than what we spend in 1 month on the war in Iraq--far less than we spend in 1 month there. We are facing the real prospect of another war here at home called the flu. This amendment would go a long way toward committing the resources necessary to fighting and winning the war.

People say, well, where are we going to get the money? We have no choice. The American people deserve it. We can't stay back saying we will do it tomorrow. We need to do it today and I want everyone within the sound of my voice to know this is not a partisan issue. We need Republicans and Democrats to support this effort because this flu is going to strike us all.

This is not meant to be alarmist. It is meant to let everyone know the time is here to do something about this.

Mr. President, I want the Record to be spread with my appreciation for the statements made today by Senator Baucus, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Durbin regarding this most important issue. We saw with Katrina that we have in America a safety net that has some holes in it. We saw in graphic description some of the people fell through that safety net.

That is what this is all about--helping medically. The poorest of the poor in our country are helped by Medicaid. That is what this is all about.

For those people who are watching this, who are listening, this is an instance where there is a bipartisan measure that is now before the Senate that should pass. The Finance Committee, under the direction of Senators Grassley and Baucus--Republican and Democrat--came up with this most important piece of legislation. They did it. They worked it out. No one can challenge the conservative credentials of either of these Senators. They are both fiscally sound. They do good work for their Finance Committee.

There are a few people on the Republican side of the aisle who are holding this up. It is not right. No one wants to waste money for Katrina. No one wants to waste money with the billions of dollars that will be spent with Katrina.

I would be happy if Congress selected someone to be a czar to make sure the money was spent properly.

But here we have people who are waiting. This is going for 5 months. They will be waiting for the most simple medical measures that would help them--and help the States that are taking care of them.

The State of Arkansas alone has 60,000 evacuees, most of whom, in some way or another, their family member, would qualify for some part of this.

It is the right thing to do to help States such as Arkansas.

Mr. President, in 1918, the Spanish flu pandemic swept the world for a number of reasons--not the least of which we had soldiers coming from all over the world going places and coming home. As a result, this pandemic that swept our world claimed the lives of about 50 million people, and 500,000 people in the United States alone before it completed its deadly run.

Today, many public health experts are warning us that another flu pandemic is not a matter of if, but when. They tell us that this next pandemic has the potential to be every bit as devastating as what the world witnessed nearly 100 years ago.

A flu pandemic occurs when a new strain of flu emerges in the human population and causes serious illness and death and can easily spread between humans.

The avian flu, referred to as H5-N1 flu strain by scientists, already meets the first step: Roughly half of the 115 people who have been diagnosed with this virus to date have died. At present, all that stands between avian flu and pandemic status is the fact that scientists do not believe the avian flu can easily be transmitted between humans.

Scientists fear it is only a matter of time before the avian flu virus mutates into a form that can spread easily from human to human.

According to the Centers for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding:

. . . many influenza experts, including those at CDC,

consider the threat of a serious influenza epidemic to the

United States to be high. Although the timing and impact of

an influenza pandemic is unpredictable, the occurrence is

inevitable and potentially devastating.

That was her word, ``inevitable.''

You do not have to be an expert to understand the dramatic toll a flu pandemic could have on our Nation and on

the world. Given our capacity for rapid travel around the globe compared to 1918 and the interdependence of our economic markets compared to 1918, both of which have increased dramatically since the last flu pandemic, the potential human and economic costs of the next pandemic are unimaginable.

A respected U.S. health expert has concluded that almost 2 million Americans would die in the first year alone of an outbreak. Pandemic flu outbreak in the United States could cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars due to death, lost productivity and disruption in commerce, and to our society generally.

Maybe the only thing more troubling than contemplating the possible consequences of the avian flu pandemic is recognizing that neither this Nation nor the world are prepared to deal with it. Administration documents say it will take months to develop an effective vaccine against the avian flu--some say as much as 9 months--once we have been able to identify the particular flu strain in circulation. Administration officials say one of the best opportunities to limit the scope and consequence of any outbreak is to rapidly detect the emergence of a new strain that is capable of sustained human-to-human contact. Yet we are not devoting enough resources to effective surveillance abroad.

The administration has acknowledged we need a detailed pandemic plan outlining our national strategy to address this pandemic. Among other matters, such a plan needs to address those who will spearhead our response to pandemic.

How will our response be coordinated across all levels of Government? And how will we rapidly distribute limited medical resources? Yet our national preparedness plan is still in draft form.

We all know State and local health departments will be on the front lines of a pandemic. They will need to conduct surveillance, coordinate local responses, and help distribute the vaccines and antivirals. Yet we are posed to approve a $130 million cut for State and local preparedness funding at the Centers for Disease Control. At this time, that is unconscionable.

We also know that once a flu strain has been identified, we will need to develop an effective vaccine, as I have talked about, and produce enough to eventually inoculate the entire 300 million people in America. Yet our existing stockpile of vaccines, assuming they are effective against the yet unidentified strain, may protect less than 1 percent of all Americans, and we have only one domestic flu vaccine manufacturer located in the United States. It is estimated if our capacity to produce vaccines is not improved, it could take 15 months to vaccinate first responders, medical personnel, and other high-risk groups.

Given it will take months to develop, produce, and distribute a vaccine once we have one that is effective, we know that antiviral medication will be a crucial stopgap defense against a pandemic. The World Health Organization recommended that countries stockpile enough antiviral medication to cover 25 percent of their populations. Other nations, including Great Britain, France, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand, have ordered enough Tamiflu, an antiviral pill to cover between 20 and 40 percent of their populations.

We should have learned. It was only last year that we did not have enough vaccine to take care of the people in America. We did not have enough vaccine to take care of the flu strain last time, and everyone knew what that was.

As important as this Tamiflu is, we now have only 2.3 million courses of this pill. Given country, national, and international production capacity, even if we were to increase our order of Tamiflu today, we have been told the United States would have to wait until the end of 2007 before we could secure enough Tamiflu to cover 25 percent of our population. The consequences of pandemic could be far reaching, impacting virtually every sector of our society and our economy.

We also know our medical community needs to be trained to distinguish between the annual flu and avian flu so that an outbreak could be recorded immediately. Doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers must develop surge capacity plans so they can respond to a pandemic. Businesses, also, need to be prepared. They should be encouraged to develop their own plans, establish or expand telecommunicating and network access plans, update medical needs policies, and provide suggestions on how to promote employee health to lessen the likelihood of exposure. The American public also needs to be educated about the importance of annual flu vaccines and steps they can take to prepare for and respond to an avian flu outbreak.

Yet this administration has failed to take appropriate action to prepare the medical community, business community, and the American public. We can do better. We need to do better. Most importantly, we cannot afford to wait to do better. America can do better.

The Federal Government's poor response to Katrina has only served to exacerbate concerns about the toll such an outbreak would have on our Nation and the world. Given the very real possibility of an outbreak, its potentially severe consequences, and our relative lack of preparedness, we need to take action on several fronts to prepare our Nation and the American people for a potential outbreak and reduce its impact, should it occur.

What are some of the steps necessary? We need to improve surveillance and international partnerships so we may detect new flu strains and do it early. We need to prepare for a pandemic by finalizing, implementing, and funding pandemic preparedness response plans. Remember, the director of the Centers for Disease Control has told us this is going to happen. It is inevitable. We need to protect Americans with the development, production, and distribution of an effective vaccine. We need to plan ahead for pandemic by stockpiling antiviral medications, medical, and other supplies. We need to strengthen our public health infrastructure. We need to educate Americans by increasing awareness of and education about this flu. Finally, we need to commit to protecting Americans by devoting adequate resources to pandemic preparedness.

Experts have warned that an avian flu pandemic is inevitable. But the devastating consequences that can ensue from an outbreak are not-- provided this Nation and the world heed the science community warnings and take action immediately.

I propose to start by committing the resources necessary to protect Americans. We need to start today. We know today that funding certain programs can make dramatic reductions for the consequences of a future avian flu outbreak. We also know many of these programs are either unfunded or massively underfunded.

Tomorrow, when we take up the Defense appropriations bill after we finish the Roberts vote, Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Obama, and many others, including myself and Senator Durbin, the two Democrat leaders here who have been elected by our colleagues, will join in this.

This is important. We are going to offer an amendment that will ensure that we begin making the investments necessary to make sure this Nation and the world do everything possible to ensure that history does not repeat itself and we do not have to relive the terror of 1918.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois have an opportunity to speak. I am happy to relieve the Chair if that is necessary. We have two Senators on the floor to finish their statements. I ask consent that the two Senators from Illinois be recognized to speak.

How long does the senior Senator from Illinois wish to speak?

The junior Senator from Illinois?

The Senator should know I did use your name.

You have the only comprehensive bill filed regarding the avian flu and I commend you in that regard.

I appreciate that. I know I have presided over a few of the late nights.

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about two heroes from Nevada who were killed in Afghanistan this weekend. Their names were John Flynn and Patrick Stewart, and my heart goes out to their families today.

John and Patrick were courageous soldiers--true American heroes. John was from Sparks. He had two young children. Patrick was from Reno. He also had two children. Both of them were distinguished soldiers who did their part to make the world a better, safer place.

On behalf of all Nevadans--and indeed all Americans--I offer my deepest condolences to the Flynn and Stewart families. They have paid the ultimate price for their country, and we are forever indebted to them. It was John and Patrick's mission to keep us safe, and they performed this mission with honor.

It's never easy when one of our soldiers dies, but we can seek small comfort in the fact that their sacrifice will never be forgotten. It's because of the bravery of these individuals and others like them that we are free today.

This morning, I'd like to also remember the hundreds and hundreds of brave men and women from Nevada who are serving this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in devastated regions of our own country. My thoughts are with these soldiers, and I continue to pray for their safety.

Mr. President, Members can come and talk about anything they want tomorrow. We will be in a period of morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Patricia Lynch and to recognize the contributions of Ms. Lynch to the State of Nevada. Patricia Lynch was first elected Reno City Attorney in 1987 and is currently serving her fifth term. She is a tremendous asset to our community and Nation.

For the past 20 years Ms. Lynch has demonstrated a commitment to public service. She has performed countless hours of service to communities in northern Nevada and helped to coordinate and direct the efforts of local charitable organizations.

Patricia began her career in public service as a legislative assistant to Representative John E. Moss from 1975 to 1977 in the United States House of Representatives; she is a current member of the board of directors of the John E. Moss Foundation.

Patricia has also demonstrated unwavering commitment to protecting the rights of women. She is a founding member and 1993 president of Northern Nevada Women Lawyers Association. Her membership on Nevada statewide boards includes the Nevada Prosecution Advisory Council, Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council, and the Nevada Commission on Domestic Violence.

In addition to her local and civic contributions, Patricia has served as an ambassador for the United States within the international legal community. She is a member of the World Jurist Association, WJA, and has presented papers at WJA conferences in Kiev, Ukraine in 1998 and Budapest, Hungary in 1999. She has also served as the moderator for local government law panels at WJA conferences in Budapest, Hungary in 1999, Dublin, Ireland in 2001, and Adelaide, Australia in 2003. In January 2003, Patricia participated in hosting the City Planner from Kabul, Afghanistan in a tour of wastewater and drinking water facilities in Reno, NV.

I hope you will join with me in honoring the outstanding achievements of Patricia Lynch and the selfless life she chose.

Mr. President, Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``The only title in our democracy superior to that of President is the title of citizen.'' This statement illustrates the paramount importance that the citizen plays within these United States. And, as such, we must continue to learn and teach what it means to be a good citizen.

``Civic education'' is the term used to describe the transmitting of knowledge

and skills necessary for people to become responsible citizens. And our democracy is sustained and strengthened when our citizens have these skills and tools. In fact, there is no more important or urgent task than preparing this and future generations of Americans to maintain our democracy.

To advance the continuing importance of civic education, I am pleased to announce that the Joint Leadership of the Congress of the United States will host the Third Annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education on September 24-26 here in Washington, DC.

The Congressional Conference on Civic Education will bring together educators and experts from all across the country who work to promote civic education and civic engagement at the state and local levels. I am pleased to serve as honorary host for the conference, along with Majority Leader Frist, Speaker Hastert, and Leader Pelosi.

The 2005 Congressional Conference on Civic Education will emphasize the state of civic education in America. In an effort to restore the civic mission of schools, each State is working on creating a plan to promote civic education and engagement. Conferees will work to build upon these foundations built by participants and State delegations from the past two conferences.

The Congressional Conference on Civic Education is the third of five annual conferences planned to focus public attention on the state of civic education in America's public schools. This conference is sponsored by the nonpartisan Alliance for Representative Democracy, and consists of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center on Congress at Indiana University and the Center for Civic Education. Through an act of Congress, the Alliance is funded by the Department of Education.

I am honored to recognize the work of the Nevada delegation. The Nevada Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools is building on the previous success of the Nevada Commission on Participatory Democracy. The Nevada Campaign has completed a benchmark survey regarding the state of civic education in the State and is planning the First Nevada Civic Education Summit for this December. Thanks to the efforts of congressional conference delegate, Senator Valerie Wiener, a resolution was passed by the Nevada Legislature this year supporting efforts of the Nevada Department of Education in increasing the role of civics in the Nevada schools curriculum.

I find it particularly appropriate that the Congressional Conference on Civic Education convenes this week. Just last week, on September 17, we observed Constitution Day, celebrating the brilliance of our founding document and the essential role citizens play in our democracy.

I am sure that the congressional leadership joins me in expressing gratitude to the many educators and State delegations that make this conference possible. We thank them for their time and commitment to this important endeavor. We look forward to learning about their ideas and hearing of the progress made at next year's conference.

Among those delegates who are in Washington, DC, are the following, whose names I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one of the Senate's most important constitutional responsibilities is to provide advice and consent with respect to a President's nominations. The task is especially important when the nomination is an individual to be Chief Justice of the United States. No one doubts John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and a very affable person. But at the end of this process, frankly, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position.

The stakes for the American people could not be higher. The retirement of Justice O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist have left the Supreme Court in a period of transition. On key issues affecting the rights and freedoms of Americans, the Court is closely divided. If confirmed, Judge Roberts, who is only 50 years old, will likely serve as Chief Justice and leader of the third branch of the Federal Government for many decades.

The legal authority we will hand to Judge Roberts by this confirmation vote is awesome. We should only vote to confirm this nominee if we are absolutely positive that he is the right person to hold that authority. For me, this is a very close question, but I must resolve my doubts in favor of the American people whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turns out to be the wrong person for this job.

Some say the President is entitled to deference from the Senate in nominating individuals to high office. I agree that deference is appropriate in the case of executive branch nominees such as Cabinet officers. With some important exceptions, the President may generally choose his own advisers. In contrast, the President is not entitled to much deference in staffing the third branch of Government, the judiciary. The Constitution envisions that the President and the Senate will work together to appoint and confirm Federal judges. This is a shared constitutional duty. The Senate's role in screening judicial candidates is especially important in the case of Supreme Court nominees because the Supreme Court has assumed such a large role in resolving fundamental disputes in our civic life. Any nominee for the Supreme Court bears the burden of persuading the Senate and the American people that he or she deserves a confirmation to a lifetime seat on that Court.

First, I start by observing that John Roberts has been a thoughtful, mainstream judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but he has only been a member of that court for 2 years and has not confronted many cutting-edge constitutional issues, if any. As a result, we cannot rely on his current judicial service to determine what kind of a Supreme Court Justice he would be.

I was very impressed with Judge Roberts when I first met him in my office soon after he was nominated, but several factors caused me to reassess my initial view. Most notably, I was disturbed by the memos that surfaced

from Judge Roberts' years of service in the Reagan administration. These memos raise serious questions about the nominee's approach to civil rights. It is now clear that as a young lawyer, John Roberts played a significant role in shaping and advancing the Republican agenda to roll back civil rights protections. He wrote memos opposing legislative and judicial efforts to remedy race and gender discrimination. He urged his superiors to oppose Senator Kennedy's 1982 bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act and worked against affirmative action programs. He derided the concept of comparable worth and questioned whether women actually suffered discrimination in the workplace.

No one is suggesting John Roberts was motivated by bigotry or animosity toward minorities or women, but these memos lead one to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil rights struggle. He wrote about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as a flesh-and-blood reality for countless of his fellow citizens. The memos raised a real question for me whether their author would breathe life into the equal protection clause and the landmark civil rights statutes that come before the Supreme Court repeatedly. Nonetheless, I was prepared to look past these memos and chalk them up to the folly of youth. I looked forward to the confirmation hearings in the expectation that Judge Roberts would repudiate those views in some fashion. However, the nominee adopted what I considered a disingenuous strategy of suggesting that the views expressed in those memos were not his, even at the time the memos were written. That is what he said. He claimed he was merely a staff lawyer reflecting the positions of his client, the Reagan administration.

Anyone who has read the memos can see that Roberts was expressing his own personal views on these important policy matters. In memo after memo, the text is very clear. It is simply not plausible for the nominee to claim he did not share the views he personally expressed. For example, there is a memo in which he refers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as ``un-American.'' If Judge Roberts had testified that this was a 20-year-old bad joke, I would have given the memo no weight. Instead, he provided a tortured reading of the memo that simply doesn't stand up under any scrutiny.

In another memo, Judge Roberts spoke about a Hispanic group President Reagan would soon address and he suggested that the audience would be pleased to know the administration favored legal status for the ``illegal amigos'' in the audience--illegal amigos. After 23 years, couldn't he acknowledge that was insensitive, that it was wrong? The use of the Spanish word ``amigos'' in this memo is patronizing and offensive to a contemporary reader. I don't condemn Judge Roberts for using the word ``amigos'' 20 years ago in a nonpublic memo, but I was stunned when at his confirmation hearing he could not bring himself to express regret for using that term or recognize that it might cause offense.

My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened by the fact that the White House rejected a reasonable request by committee Democrats for documents written by Judge Roberts when he served in the first Bush administration. After all, if memos written 23 years ago are to be dismissed as not reflecting the nominee's mature thinking, it would be highly relevant to see memos he had written as an older man in an even more important policymaking job. The White House claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents is utterly unpersuasive. Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, asked Attorney General Gonzales for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the matter and was turned down. This was simply a matter of stonewalling.

The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any Senator to oppose this nomination. The administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequence. In the absence of these documents, it was especially important for the nominee to fully and forthrightly answer questions from committee members at his hearing. He failed to do so adequately. I acknowledge the right--indeed, the duty--of a judicial nominee to decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the Court to which the witness had been nominated. But Judge Roberts declined to answer many questions more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled legal precedent.

Finally, I was very swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women's rights leaders against the confirmation. When a civil rights icon such as John Lewis, one of my American heroes, appears before the committee and says John Roberts was on the wrong side of history, I take note. Senators should take notice.

I personally like Judge Roberts. I respect much of the work he has done in his career. For example, his advocacy for environmentalists in a Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago was good work. In the fullness of time, he may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden of justifying my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

Based on all these factors, the balance shifts against Judge Roberts. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block his nomination. Nevertheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nomination when the Senate debates the matter next week.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lori Carpenter and Clay Cooper of Reno, NV, who were recently honored as Angels in Adoption by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption.

Lori and her husband, Clay Cooper, have adopted three daughters and one son from foreign countries. All four children have come from countries with high levels of poverty and a great deal of political turmoil.

Lori and Clay have made it a priority to keep the children's heritage and culture an integral part of their lives. They share stories and nursery rhymes from the children's countries of origin, cook native foods, and put the children in touch with people from their country in an effort to keep their native languages alive. And all four children are thriving both academically and socially.

The Angels in Adoption program provides an opportunity for all Members of Congress to honor the good work of their constituents who have enriched the lives of foster children and orphans. And I am pleased to highlight

the extraordinary work of Lori Carpenter and Clay Cooper.

I salute the Carpenter-Cooper family and their richly deserved recognition as Angels in Adoption.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 12th annual National Public Lands Day that is set to take place on Saturday, September 24, 2005. Across the Nation, nearly 100,000 people will come together on this day to get their hands dirty while protecting and improving our Nation's public lands. And today I would like to offer my heartfelt appreciation to every man, woman, and child that contributes to this vital campaign.

In Nevada, where nearly 87 percent of our lands are managed by Federal agencies, the relationship between the people and our public lands is tangible and real. For ranchers, hunters, farmers, hikers, miners, and every Nevadan that has driven a lonely dirt road in search of solitude, our public lands represent an irreplaceable resource. That is why programs like National Public Lands Day--that remind us that we all reap the rewards of good stewardship, and that we suffer together when our lands are mismanaged or abused--are so important.

Those individuals that will rise early in the morning on the 24th of this month to help with one of the more than 650 National Public Lands Day projects will be giving a gift of service to the local landscapes, to the local communities, and to people of the United States at large. I thank these volunteers, and the staff of the land management agencies who are tasked with the responsibility of protecting, managing, and maintaining these lands each and every day. Our public lands are one of the most important national legacies that we leave behind for future generations. Working together--at places like Lake Mead, Mount Charleston, Red Rock Canyon, Lake Tahoe, the Ruby Mountains, and the Black Rock Desert--we can make sure that this legacy is a strong one.

Mr. President, I ask morning business be closed.