Floor Statements

Mr. President, of all the trade agreements this body has considered since I have been here, I would like to be able to support this one. I think it is remarkable how the CAFTA countries have turned from pasts of violence and instability to hopeful democracies. The initial economic and political reforms made by these countries are an important sign of progress.

Unfortunately, this trade agreement is seriously flawed. And, more importantly, it is symptomatic of the Bush administration's rudderless trade and economic policy.

The CAFTA countries account for less than 1.5 percent of total U.S. trade. The combined economic size of the CAFTA countries is smaller than each of the top 25 metropolitan areas in America. Yet, the Bush administration has made CAFTA its number one trade priority this year. I don't know if the President even has any trade policies other than

Mr. President, if I may comment. The reason I like Senator Burr so much is because he pays attention while he presides. I am impressed with that.

Mr. President, I am wondering, while the manager and everybody else is on the floor--we know we have at least one amendment that will take some debate. I am wondering if everybody wants a vote on final passage.

We can do that. It will take a while to get through all this. There are no surprises. It has been around for a while. I am going to be here, anyway, so it does not matter to me. I am wondering if we need to have a rollcall vote on final passage.

We will certainly keep that in mind, but we also have an opportunity when the conference report comes back to take a look at it again if someone needs a recorded vote. As we always do, we will work with the Senator from Arizona, and if there are questions, of course, we will be ready to have a rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be the order of those in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, before we proceed, I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, this is one of the smallest managers' packages I have ever seen. I think we have eight or nine items in it, and they are ready for review right now.

We do not have a large stack of amendments.

This is one of the smallest managers' packages I have ever dealt with.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act as reported by the Committee on Appropriations on June 14, 2006.

This is a good bill, one that is fair to all of our Members and one that I am pleased to support. There is always more that can be done, but, given fiscal realities, this is a great effort. Chairman Domenici deserves enormous credit for putting together such a comprehensive and far-reaching bill.

My staff tells me that we have added nearly $1.5 billion to this bill. I find that figure to be misleading. The vast majority of the dollars we have added to this bill have been used to undo budget gimmicks that were, as usual, submitted with the administration's request and that Congress has wisely chosen to reject.

More importantly, this bill corrects oversights and large-scale neglect on the part of the administration, particularly in regards to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

When the administration sends up a budget that not only deletes the priorities of Congress, but also deletes their own priorities of just a few months ago, something is wrong.

Fully 65 percent of the funds added to this bill have been spent within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, mostly to try to restore cuts that would halt construction on hundreds of projects nationwide. Many of the construction projects slated for termination are in their final year of construction.

Only OMB could dream up a budget request that would forego tens of millions of dollars in future economic benefits to save a couple of bucks this year.

Chairman Domenici and I have heard our colleagues with unmistakable clarity:

Our Members want flood control projects to protect their citizens.

Our Members want navigation projects to allow goods and services to more easily get into the international marketplace.

Our Members want rural water projects that will allow rural Americans to have access to the same safe drinking water that our citizens in cities and suburbs take for granted.

We have heard our colleagues, and we have acted. My only regret is that we could not do more.

I am also delighted with the emphasis that Chairman Domenici has placed on science in this bill.

The Energy and Water bill contains one of the largest pots of funding for long-term research and development in the physical sciences to be found anywhere in our Federal Government. In fiscal year 2006, we will invest over $3.7 billion in DOE's Office of Science, $240 million more than the request.

The administration's request reduced user time on national science facilities to as few as zero to 5 weeks in many cases.

That is ridiculous. Year after year Congress shells out tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to build world class scientific user facilities, such as the Spallation Neutron Source and others, and then the administration does not even bother to fund their operation. It just strikes me as amazingly short-sighted and disappointing.

However, I am very pleased that we have been able to restore optimum operations at all of these facilities nationwide without harming any of the other base programs.

Our bill also provides impressive funding for research and development in renewable energy, fossil energy, and nuclear energy. All in all, this is a balanced bill that will help us improve our Nation's energy future on many different fronts. As we all know, Chairman Domenici was able to send a comprehensive energy bill into conference earlier this week and that is a huge accomplishment. However, it is in this bill, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, that the actual funding for energy research and development can be found. Authorizations are nice, but appropriated dollars are better.

As always, I would like to take a moment before wrapping up to thank the Energy and Water Subcommittee staff

for their fine work on this bill. First, Chairman Domenici hired a new clerk this year, Scott O'Malia. As always, the transition between clerks has been seamless. Also thanks to Emily Brunini who joined the subcommittee last year from Chairman Cochran's staff.

Roger Cockrell has had the unenviable task of working on water for both the majority and minority this year and has done an outstanding job for all 100 Members. I look forward to him returning to my staff next year.

Finally, thanks to Drew Willison and Nancy Olkewicz of my staff. They both do a great job for me on this bill, and Nancy also works for Senator Durbin on the legislative branch bill.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, it is my understanding it is a 3-month clean extension.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1085

I ask it be modified to have the second vote also 10 minutes. We have a lot of work to do after that vote is over.

I have no objection.

Mr. President I say to my colleagues from Florida, I know how important restoring America's Everglades is to the United States and to the State of Florida, and I appreciate the efforts of Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez to keep this project on track. I agree that funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project is essential to restoring the Everglades and I know that it is the administration and not the elected representatives of the State of Florida that have changed how funding for this project has been allocated. With this in mind, I continue to believe this project should be funded through the Interior Committee, but I will work to ensure that all facets of the Everglades Project receives appropriate funding when our bill goes to conference.

I concur in these understandings.

I also thank the Virginia Senators for their support of the Energy & Water bill and for their strong support for programs that advance science. I will join with Senator Domenici in an effort to accommodate the matter that has been brought to our attention.

Yes, the Senator has my assurance that it is the committee's intent that $1 million of the funds provided to Altair Nanomaterials should be used for the ongoing partnership with Western Michigan University.

Mr. President, I second what the chairman has just stated and commit to work with the Senator from Rhode Island during conference to address his concerns. I am confident we can find a way to continue to support local and State weatherization efforts and the State energy offices that have depended on the guidance provided by DOE regional offices.

Mr. President, our water resources contribute mightily to our Nation's economic at environmental well-being.

Ports and waterways are integral to our national transportation system that contribute $718 billion to the Nation's gross domestic product while ensuring domestic and international trade opportunities and safe, low-cost and eco-friendly transportation of import products.

While some consider it an anachronism in the age of e-commerce, the system remains vital to a broad swath of the economy, carrying everything from consumer goods, steel, coal, fertilizer, salt, sand, gravel, cement, petroleum and chemicals, to the wax for coating milk cartons.

The U.S. maritime transportation system moves more than 60 percent of the Nation's grain exports and 95 percent of the Nation's imports. We cannot be competitive in world trade if we don't maintain efficient and reliable transportation.

Much of the infrastructure was built early in the last century. It's showing the effects of time and, according to some, of neglect. Old equipment takes longer to repair, and it's more vulnerable to nature's extremes.

Earlier this year, unusually heavy winter rains swelled rivers and caused a series of accidents, including one on the Ohio River in which a towboat pushing six barges sank after passing through a lock near Industry, PA.

After the accidents, General Electric Co.'s plastics division had to halt chemical operations at a plant in Washington, WV, because barges carrying butadiene, a key raw material, couldn't get through. The GE plant, which makes plastic used in phones and laptops, continued other production processes during the disruption.

Consol Energy Inc., based in Pittsburgh, moves about a third of the 68 million tons of coal it produces each year by water, with most of that going directly to power plants. After the recent accidents, the company told customers it was invoking the force majeure clause in its contracts, which indicates it won't be able to fulfill its obligations because of circumstances beyond its control.

Costs associated with problems on the waterway network, which carries about 13 percent of U.S. intercity freight annually, can be hard to measure. Towboat companies say it costs them hundreds of dollars an hour to have their vessels sitting idle with barges that can't move.

I was recently told about a port on the Texas coast where bauxite is shipped in to the local aluminum plant. Dredging of this port has not been a priority for the administration due to their budgetary criteria so it has not been dredged on a regular basis. For every inch that the ships have to be light loaded to enter the port, it costs the shipper $180,000. In other words, for every foot of authorized depth not provided here it cost the shipper nearly $2.2 million dollars. If one assumes at least one shipment per week, lack of dredging costs the shipper more than $100 million annually. Ultimately this cost is passed on to you and me in the form of higher prices.

The routine inspection of a lock in Greenup, KY, in September 2003 was supposed to close the facility for 3 weeks. When the inspectors found bad decay, the shutdown stretched to 2 months. Companies could continue using a much smaller auxiliary lock at that location to keep moving some goods, but that meant major delays. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees and maintains the waterways, studied that closure and found the cost of delays to towing companies alone totaled about $14 million.

Big companies like U.S. Steel Corp., DuPont Co. and Archer-Daniels- Midland Co. make extensive use of the inland waterway system, and usually don't have easy alternatives. The rail- and truck-freight systems, which carry about 45 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of U.S. intercity freight, are near capacity and much more costly. Moving materials by barge is about a tenth the cost of using trucks, and two- thirds that of rail.

Many of the facilities are at the fatigue point now, where they need major rehabilitation.

Each year, the U.S. spends about $500 million on operations and maintenance, including dredging channels of the inland waterway system. The budget for maintenance has held roughly steady in inflation- adjusted dollars for three decades. The fact that the system has held together as well as it has is a

tribute to the foresight and ingenuity of those that made the investments in these structures.

Ports are our gateways to international trade, and their channels must be enhanced and maintained to accommodate the new generations of ships sailing to our shores.

Our flood damage reduction program saves lives and prevents almost $8 in damages for each dollar spent.

Corps hydropower facilities supply 24 percent the hydropower generated in the United States.

Shore protection projects provide safety from hurricanes and other storm events for transportation, petroleum and agriculture infrastructure around our coastal waterways and deltas as well as recreational benefits, returning $4 in benefits for each dollar invested.

Projects for water supply, irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat provide innumerable benefits.

Investing in water resources sustains economic growth and the American worker, directly eases growing congestion on our Nation's roads and railroads and provides a finer quality of life.

Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the Nation's water a ``D-''--their lowest grade--because of their steadily deteriorating condition and reliability.

Our Nation simply cannot afford for this trend to continue. The administration, whether Republican or Democrat, has consistently refused to provide the resources necessary to reverse the decline in our infrastructure.

For fiscal year 2006, the Senate has asserted leadership in reversing this trend. The Senate Bill provides $5.3 billion for the Corps of Engineers.

The Senate has included $180 million for the Corps' general investigations program. This account funds nearly all studies that the Corps undertakes to determine the technical adequacy, environmental sustainability and economic viability of water resource solutions. The funding will provide the Corps with a robust national program as opposed to the paltry $95 million proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request.

The Senate bill includes $2.087 billion for the Corps' construction account. This account provides funding for construction of the water resource solutions authorized by the Congress. The Senate has provided nearly $450 million more than the administration's fiscal year 2006 request. These additional funds will allow the Corps to make substantial progress on projects recommended by the budget as well as all of the ongoing projects that the administration chose not to fund.

The Senate bill includes $2.1 billion for the operations and maintenance account. This is about $121 million more that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request and will allow the Corps to restore routine levels of services at Corps' facilities and provide dredging for projects that the administration has designated as low use.

The Senate bill rejects the budget proposals from the administration concerning multiple year contracting and direct funding of hydropower maintenance by the Power Marketing Administrations.

The Senate bill also recommends that the administration and the Corps go back to the drawing board on the process that they use to determine which projects should be budgeted. The current process introduces too much uncertainty into the project development process.

The administration needs to honor the commitments that they have made to local sponsors. The sponsors need the certainty that if they get their funding for these projects, the Federal Government will meet their commitments.

Finally, the Senate bill reaffirms the need for the Corps to be able to manage their program in an effective and efficient manner. The ability to reprogram project funds and the use of continuing contracts are a necessary part of this overall management strategy.

The Senate has produced a balanced and fair bill for the Corps.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House the emergency supplemental bill for veterans health care, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that if the bill is less than $1.5 billion, all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the amendment as authorized earlier today by the Appropriations Committee to include the full $1.5 billion as passed by the Senate yesterday by a vote of 96 to 0 be agreed to; that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, first let me say that I am surprised that the distinguished majority leader is surprised at what the Veterans' Administration and the administration has talked about today of what they need. We have been, for months, talking about the shortfall with the Veterans' Administration, months--not weeks, not days but months. We have had three votes, two in committee and two on the Senate floor, where we, the minority, have begged for more money for our veterans.

It seems somewhat unusual to me that approximately 24 hours ago, the Senate unanimously passed a $1.5 billion supplemental for veterans for health care. We just did it. The House Republicans have again shortchanged our veterans by reducing this number by over $500 million. We will insist on a right to amend the bill to bring it to the full $1.5 billion mark. This is the same amendment which the Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, unanimously authorized the chairman and ranking member to offer to the House supplemental, should it arrive here below the $1.5 billion mark. This is the real world we are in.

Now, I also say this: We are depending on the Office of Management and Budget and the Veterans' Administration at this late hour? Would it not be terrible, would it not be awful, if the veterans got a little too much money? What is this, some game that we are playing? We are playing with the lives of people.

In Las Vegas, we have people waiting as long as 11 months to get into a hospital to have some of the radiology work done. We learned yesterday that they are literally borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, they are robbing the capital accounts with the Veterans' Administration.

As we speak, we have about 140,000 troops in Iraq. They are being worked back all the time, and these people who come home need help, in addition to World War II veterans who need help.

Why don't we have the House Republicans meet their responsibilities? And why at this late hour are we trying to protect the White House when this body voted by a unanimous vote, everybody in the Senate voted for this? Yet we had a unanimous vote in the Appropriations Committee authorizing the chairman and ranking member to do the exact thing that I have asked to do.

I am happy to yield for a question.

Regular order, Mr. President.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, with all due respect to the distinguished majority leader, my friend, I will not agree to the modification. I am standing on the unanimous consent request I offered a few minutes ago.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy given by former Senator Bob Kerrey at the funeral of our late colleague, Jim Exon, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on the occasion of his retirement, to honor the 27 years of public service of Robert V. Abbey of Reno, NV. Bob hails originally from Mississippi. He was born in Clarksdale and earned his Bachelors Degree in Resource Management at the University of Southern Mississippi. Over the past 8 years, I am proud to say he has become a Nevadan.

Bob began his public service working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Later he moved to the Bureau of Land Management where he has distinguished himself as a dedicated land manager, visionary leader, and exceptional citizen.

Bob's early career at BLM included tours of duty as a budget analyst in Washington D.C.; assistant district manager in Yuma, AZ, district manager in Jackson, MS; and associate and acting state director in Colorado. Since the fall of 1997, Bob has served as the Nevada State director of the BLM. His job may very well be the toughest in Nevada and perhaps in the ranks of the BLM; in any case, it is among the most important for both.

Although his address has changed many times during his career, his commitment to public lands and public service has never wavered. The West and Nevada are better for it.

Today, Bob Abbey leads a staff of 750 employees who manage 48 million acres of public land in Nevada. He has led the Nevada BLM during an exciting and historic time. Increased public land use, record population growth, evolving management mandates and shrinking budgets represent just a few of the challenges facing the Nevada BLM. Bob Abbey has handled every difficulty with grace and vision.

During his tenure, Bob directed the implementation of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. This is no small task given that Clark County, NV leads the Nation in sustained growth and development and ever increasing recreational use of public lands.

Bob and his staff also helped me and the other members of the Nevada Congressional Delegation in the development of the Clark and Lincoln County land bills. These bills were among the most significant public lands legislation in the 107th and 108th Congresses, respectively, and Bob's leadership helped make them possible.

Bob's motto that we have more in common than our differences has set the tone for the best working relationships between Federal land managers and Nevadans in my memory. He has inspired his employees to solve problems, take pride in their work, and serve the public with distinction. The results serve as testament to his character, courage, and conviction.

At the end of next week, Bob Abbey will retire from Federal service with a remarkable record of achievements. But perhaps his greatest contribution as a land manager will come to fruition while he is enjoying his retirement with his wife Linda.

After wildfires devastated vast swaths of rangeland in Nevada and other Western States in 1999 and 2000, Bob played a key role in crafting a blueprint for rangeland and ecosystem restoration in the West. The so-called Great Basin Restoration Initiative is a grand vision and roadmap for healing the landscape in Nevada. Unfortunately, to date, the BLM and Department of Interior have yet to match Bob's vision with appropriate funding. It is my hope that this is a temporary delay and that one day soon, a thriving Great Basin ecosystem will serve as the enduring legacy of Bob Abbey's public service.

Although I regret that Bob Abbey is retiring, I know I speak for thousands of Nevadans when I thank him for his exemplary public service and wish him well with his future endeavors. We know Bob has made Nevada and our Nation a better place.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I say farewell to one of Clark County's most effective and innovative superintendents, Carlos A. Garcia.

I have worked with Carlos for several years and have had the pleasure of seeing first-hand his work as superintendent of Clark County schools, the fifth largest school district in the Nation.

I believe that one of the reasons he has acclimated so well to Clark County, and Las Vegas in particular, is because he grew up in Los Angeles. After graduating from high school in L.A., he earned bachelor's and master's degrees from Claremont College and an administrative credential in educational administration from California State University.

He developed experience as a teacher and principal in California. After several years, including serving as principal at a National Blue Ribbon School, he eventually became the superintendent of the Fresno Unified School District. When Carlos Garcia arrived in Clark County, he began to reorganize. He divided the county into regions; he began to address achievements and accountability; and he championed the cause of educating Nevada's young people to parents, teachers, business leaders and lawmakers.

It has been my pleasure to participate in different events and discussions with Carlos. We sat around a table with the other 16 superintendents in Nevada to discuss the No Child Left Behind Act. As a result of his organization and participation, I was able to come back to Washington with a clear idea of what Nevada's school districts needed. His leadership of the superintendents was impressive, and the mutual respect was apparent.

Together, Carlos and I welcomed 60 new teachers from the Teach for America program. As a result of this venture, I am a cosponsor of legislation that will ensure that recruiting, training, and supporting this teacher corps will be supported by the Congress. When it comes to our school children and teachers, he always has a plan and always looks toward the future.

Now, Carlos has a new future to plan: his own. I am sorry that I cannot be there to shake his hand. Thank you, Carlos, for being dedicated to providing the children of Clark County with a first-rate public education. All the best to you.

Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to adjourn for the July 4 recess, one of the most noteworthy developments is an event that has not occurred. Despite widespread speculation, there have been no announced retirements from the United States Supreme Court.

We are all aware that Chief Justice Rehnquist has faced health challenges. I am impressed with his courage and fortitude.

Many feared he would not be able to attend the January inauguration to administer the oath of office to President Bush. But there he was, braving the cold to perform his constitutional duty. Many thought he would retire from the Court long before the end of the Supreme Court term. But there he was last Monday, presiding over the Court's final session, and announcing an important First Amendment decision in which he had authored the majority opinion.

I was not a member of the Senate when William Rehnquist was nominated as an Associate Justice in 1971 or when he was promoted to be Chief Justice in 1986. He was not unanimously confirmed to either position. But the Chief Justice has won many new admirers in the Senate in recent years. We appreciate the dignity and clarity with which he has led the Federal judiciary for almost 20 years. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in commending Chief Justice Rehnquist for his tremendous service to the Court and to the country. I hope he stays on the bench for years to come.

Whenever the Chief Justice or any of the Associate Justices decide to retire, I hope and expect that the President will take seriously the ``Advice'' part of ``Advice and Consent.'' This is not just about the Supreme Court. The President should seek the advice of the Senate regarding all nominees. But consultation regarding a Supreme Court vacancy is especially important.

The Court is of paramount importance in the life of the Nation. These justices deal with complex legal issues that affect the lives of all Americans. It is the final guardian of our rights and liberties.

There is a long tradition of Presidents consulting with the Senate before a Supreme Court nomination occurs.

In 1869, President Grant appointed Edwin Stanton to the Supreme Court in response to a petition from Senators and House members.

In 1932, President Hoover gave Senator William Borah a list of the candidates he was considering to replace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Borah persuaded Hoover to move the name that was on the bottom of the list to the top. That candidate, Benjamin Cardozo, was confirmed unanimously.

In his autobiography, Senator Hatch takes credit for convincing President Clinton not to send the Senate potentially controversial nominees and instead to nominate individuals with broad bipartisan support. Both of President Clinton's nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, were easily confirmed with Senator Hatch's support.

Last week, 44 Senators sent President Bush a letter urging him to use the advice and consent process to unite the country behind a consensus nominee. This built on the bipartisan agreement that averted the nuclear option earlier this year. At least two of the signers of that agreement, Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Salazar of Colorado have separately written to the President to urge consultation. A third signer, Senator Pryor, spoke about the importance of consultation on the Senate floor last week.

Consultation with the Senate is not an end in itself. The purpose of consultation is to help the President arrive at a consensus choice for the Court, a nominee like Sandra Day O'Connor who will bring the country together, not tear it apart.

Meaningful consultation will ensure judges who are fair and independent and who are committed to protecting individual rights and freedoms.

Meaningful consultation will ensure that the President's judicial nominees are highly qualified men and women whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream.

And meaningful consultation will help us avoid a divisive episode like we saw over the nuclear option. There are too many important issues facing this country to waste the Senate's time fighting over radical extremist judges.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with the White House Counsel, Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers made clear that the White House is not yet prepared to engage in formal consultation with us regarding a possible Supreme Court vacancy because there have been no announced retirements from the Court. I respect that position.

When a vacancy does arise, the President should obtain the views of Senate Democrats about individuals under consideration for appointment to the Court, consistent with the advice and consent clause of the Constitution.

Let me be clear: real consultation does not consist of the White House asking Senators for the names of individuals we think should be considered for appointment to the Court. I am happy to provide such names, but that is not enough. Meaningful consultation under the advice and consent clause means that the President presents the names of individuals he is seriously considering and seeks our views on those candidates.

And of course the nomination of a candidate is just the beginning of the Senate process. There will be comprehensive hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a thorough debate in the full Senate. Any advice that Senators provide to the President in advance of a nomination is of course subject to review in light of information that comes out during the confirmation process.

As the President considers the range of individuals who might be considered for the Court, I hope he will not limit his search to sitting Federal judges. History demonstrates the value of considering individuals who have achieved prominence in civic life outside of the judiciary. In this century, such diverse figures as former President William Howard Taft, Alabama Senator Hugo Black, and California Governor Earl Warren have served with distinction on the Court.

The Senate may be especially fertile ground for finding a Supreme Court justice. Including Justice Black, some 14 Senators in American history have served on the Court. A current or former Senator would bring an important perspective to the Court's understanding of legislative history, and the need to strike a balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority in our society.

I have discussed publicly a number of current Senators who I believe are worthy of the President's consideration. Each of these Senators possesses relevant legal experience and enjoys the respect and admiration of fellow Senators.

Above all, I urge the President to work with the Senate at the appropriate time to identify a consensus nominee who can unite the country. With our country at war and our economy facing challenges, we don't have time for controversial, confrontational judicial nominations. We need cooperation and consensus.

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant to give the executive and the legislative branch shared responsibility for choosing members of the judicial branch. When properly executed, this division of labor ensures that our judges will be independent, and our rights will be protected.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ALS Registry Act. I am pleased that Senators Warner, Stabenow, Murkowski, Bingaman, Cochran, Durbin, Vitter, and Corzine are joining me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

ALS is a fatal, progressive disease where the nerve cells that connect the brain and spinal cord to the muscles slowly die. As the disease progresses, patients slowly lose control of their muscles. Through it all, patients remain completely aware of what is happening to their bodies because ALS does not affect the mind. The harsh reality of ALS is that a person can expect to live on average only two to five years from the time the first signs of the disease appear.

Lou Gehrig brought Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) to the public's attention more than 65 years ago and his courage put a human face on this terrible disease. Each of us has a Lou Gehrig back in our home State--someone who shows great courage in the face of ALS. Over the years, I have worked closely with the Nevada ALS Association and have met with many Nevadans who have been touched by this devastating illness. One of these Nevadans was a man by the name of Steve Rigazio who was invited to testify before the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee in May of 2000. Steve was at the height of his career when he was diagnosed with ALS. He worked through the ranks of the Nevada Power Company, the largest utility company in the State, for 16 years until he became President. He coached and played recreational hockey and at one point played semi-pro baseball. After his diagnosis, Steve continued to show up at work at 6 a.m. for as long as he could. Steve Rigazio died of ALS on December 27, 2001 at the age of 47 and left behind a family that included a wife, two children and hundreds of friends. The ALS Steve Rigazio Voice of Courage Award was named in his honor as a living testimony to the life of this special man.

Sadly, every year approximately 5,600 Americans will learn they have ALS. There is no cure for ALS and there is only one FDA approved drug to specifically treat ALS. That drug extends life for only a few months and only works in 20 percent of patients.

ALS has proven particularly hard for scientists and doctors to tackle for a number of reasons; including the fact that there is also not a centralized place where data on the disease is collected and no one place for patients to go to find out about clinical trials and new research findings. Currently, there is only a patchwork of data about ALS that does not include the entire U.S. population and only includes limited data for specific purposes, such as to determine the relationship between military service and the disease. Perhaps the most obvious example of the limitations of current surveillance systems and registries is that we do not know with certainty how many people are living with ALS in the United States today. Over 136 years after the discovery of ALS, estimates on its prevalence still vary by as much as 100 percent--from a low of about fifteen thousand patients to as many as thirty thousand.

The legislation I am introducing today would create an ALS registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will aid in the search for a cure to this devastating disease. The registry will collect data concerning: the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the U.S.; the environmental and occupational factors that may contribute to the disease; the age, race or ethnicity, gender and family history of individuals diagnosed; and other information essential to the study of ALS. The registry will also provide a secure method to put patients in contact with scientists conducting clinical trials and scientists studying the environmental and genetic causes of ALS.

A national registry will help arm our Nation's researchers and clinicians with the tools and information they need to make progress in the fight against ALS. The data made available by a registry will potentially allow scientists to identify causes of the disease, and maybe even lead to the discovery of new treatment, a cure for ALS, or even a way to prevent the disease in the first place.

The establishment of a registry will bring new hope to thousands of patients and their families that ALS will no longer be a death sentence. No one wants to wait another 65 years before a cure is found. I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of the ALS Registry Act.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Alexander in introducing this legislation authorizing Teach for America to recruit, select, train, and support its national teacher corps in underserved communities.

This bill comes at a crucial time. Federal law now requires more from our teachers, yet we have dwindling resources to draw from.

Many local education agencies are finding themselves having to supplement their teacher corps.

Clark County, NV, is the fifth largest school district in the Nation--in the fastest growing State. As one can only imagine, the influx of new residents has an incredible impact on our public works, especially our schools.

Clark County's outgoing superintendent told me that the district spends close to $1 million annually for teacher recruitment efforts across the country.

Clark County School District has made great strides in its commitment to reversing the trend of sagging high school graduation rates and college attendance by hiring nearly 2,000 new teachers a year to fill its classrooms.

But, last year, the school district did something that several other urban and rural districts around the country did: they partnered with Teach for America in order to augment their qualified teaching staffs.

Founded by Wendy Kopp, who conceived the idea for the program in her senior thesis at Princeton, Teach for America recruits some of the Nation's best college graduates to become teachers in low-performing urban or rural school districts for 2 years.

From the 500 college graduates who began teaching in its inaugural year,

Teach for America has grown to more than 3,100 corps members teaching in 21 regions across the country.

Indeed, this highly selective program--in which only 2,000 out of 16,000 applicants were accepted in 2003--has a powerful impact on the communities in which it serves.

This legislation authorizes Teach for America to receive $25 million to execute several activities related to teacher readiness, recruitment, and placement. Reports are also required, citing the progress of the Teach for America corps members.

I would not be Senator if it had not been for a couple of dedicated teachers. One teacher was Ms. Dorothy Robinson. Ms. Robinson pulled me out of class one day and said, ``Harry, I've watched your progress and I really think you should go to college and become a lawyer.''

I said, ``OK,'' and went back to class.

That is why I have dedicated myself at the Federal level to ensure that Teach for America and Clark County have the resources they need to continue this partnership.

Mr. President, it is 10 o'clock at home, 1 o'clock here. I am confident some of the veterans are watching this. We are talking about the veterans who have served our country so well for so long going back to World War II, to people who have come home today.

We are talking about helping these men and women. We are talking about the need for the full amount of money. They always get shortchanged. What if we gave them the right amount of money? What if we gave them a little bit of extra money? Would it matter?

I am very disappointed we are not able to do what the Senate requested and voted for just a few hours ago, even hours ago, after the Appropriations Committee, one floor below this Chamber, agreed unanimously that we stick by our number.

As a result we have done that. Again, the veterans have been shortchanged. I am disappointed. I don't in any way question the motives of my distinguished friend from Idaho. I know he has the best interests of the veterans at heart. But I don't know if the veterans understand that. I hope we can resolve this issue quickly. The veterans deserve this.

Even though it is early Friday morning in the Eastern United States, it does not take away from the seriousness of what we are doing. The House made a very big mistake, I repeat, and again shortchanged American veterans.

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, it is my understanding that sometime this morning CAFTA will be marked up and likely come out of committee. Is that the leader's understanding?

As the leader mentioned, we are going to go to Homeland Security appropriations next, is that right?

As I spoke to the leader, because Senator Domenici and I have done the bill for so long, if we needed to do a bill in a shorter period of time, an appropriations bill, I think we could do ours in a day at the longest. I don't anticipate any trouble with that.

As I said privately and now I say publicly, I think we have a tremendous obligation to see what we can do to move appropriations bills. Before we leave, I would like to get two of them done. When we get back in July, after the obligations that you and I have set up-- stem cells, China trade, native Hawaiians--then I hope we could get some more appropriation's bills done, but I know that is a big order.

In relation to what the majority leader has said, I do not think anyone should plan on staging their votes

when they think there are going to be a lot of people here, when everybody will be here, because all week we will have a lack of attendance. People are flying all over the country attending BRAC hearings. That will be the way it is all week long.

I think we have to plow forward and try to get as much done as we can as soon as we can because we do have the Fourth of July festivities around the country starting as early as Saturday.

Mr. President, this Monday all over America there will be celebrations regarding the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. It is a time that we celebrate our independence, but at this time in the history of our country, we certainly must celebrate and salute our veterans. Jim Nicholson is a veteran. I am sorry I didn't acknowledge his service to the U.S. military in addition to his being the chair of the NRC prior to his taking over the job as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I thank him personally for his service.

But I will not be lectured to about civility by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania who has repeatedly disrespected veterans. Three times he opposed funding for veterans, votes in committee and here on the Senate floor.

I ask unanimous consent that his voting record be printed in the Record.

Now, with an election cycle upon us, he supports, under pressure, voting for veterans. Talk about crass politics. The junior Senator from Pennsylvania can't run from his record. He owes the veterans more.

If the Presiding Officer would alert me when I have used 9 minutes.

Mr. President, like many Americans, I listened carefully to the President's Iraq speech last night. As I said in a letter to him yesterday prior to his speech, his address to the Nation afforded him an excellent opportunity to present to the American people his plan for success, to discuss the costs and sacrifices that will be required in the days ahead, and to assure our troops, active and retired, that he is committed to doing everything he possibly can to see that they get the services they have earned.

Unfortunately, I believe the President's address fell short on all of those accounts, and I will have more to say in the days and weeks ahead about the speech and the path forward in Iraq. But having said this, there is one part of the President's address that bears directly on my letter and the matters before the Senate right now. At the end of his speech, the President called on Americans to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying a flag, sending letters to our troops in the field, helping the military families down the street, or going to the new Defense Department Web site. I think we owe the men and women in uniform--of course we owe them flying flags, mailing letters, and logging on to this new DOD Web site, but we owe them far more than that.

I share and support the sentiment and will continue to make sure we recognize the services and sacrifices of our military personnel and their families. Although the President chose not to mention our veterans in his address last night, as I suggested, I believe we have an equally solemn obligation--I choose that word purposely--to recognize their sacrifices and to thank them for their willingness to defend our freedom. The amendments before us give us the opportunity to do just that.

Just as the obligation is clear, so is the need. At the start of the year, we knew that over 130,000 troops had returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Analysts told us to expect that an additional 150,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen would return in the months ahead. That is why in January and February Democrats, led by Senators Murray and Byrd, warned that the war in Iraq and the war on terror were generating hundreds of thousands of new veterans who would soon swamp the existing capacity of the VA health care system.

The Senator from Washington said this over and over again. She called me during her campaign last October and indicated there was a problem. After the election, she was concerned about the veterans, and we talked several times about veterans. So I applaud and commend the Senator from Washington for being so deliberate, so consistent and persistent in these efforts.

In addition to that, we were warned that many of the soldiers had suffered traumatic injuries that would require extended and intensive care. When I say this, my mind goes back to last Thanksgiving when I went to Bethesda and visited marines who had returned home with missing limbs, some who had been damaged in other ways. But before I left they asked me to go into the intensive care ward, and that is something that I will never, ever forget, the pictures of those men. Thank goodness I did not see any women. It would have been even more traumatic for me, I am sorry to say. I still feel that. I could see my little daughter there, which I did not--but it was very bad, terrible head injuries.

We had all these warnings, Democrats and independent veterans groups, to conclude that the veterans health care system was massively underfunded and unless drastic steps were taken immediately, tens of thousands of veterans, men and women, would be denied access to the health care this Nation owes them. Unfortunately, the Republicans responded by denying a problem existed. The Senate addressed issues that do not make a difference to most Americans. We worked for almost 2 months on something called the nuclear option, which was a way to try to help five people the President wanted to be judges. Other matters were just put to the side. Of course, this administration has wasted day after day, week after week, month after month talking about privatizing Social Security, but a problem does exist, and instead of talking about those issues, we should have been talking about veterans health care.

Keep in mind, the majority defeated Democratic efforts to provide our veterans the health care and resources they so clearly and desperately needed. At a time when hundreds of thousands of veterans were returning home in need of health care, the Bush administration submitted a budget request in February that did not contain a single dollar in additional resources to care for the newest generation of veterans. The administration budget was so out of step with reality that the head of the VFW, Veterans of Foreign Wars, called it shameful. That is a quote, ``shameful.''

The national commander of AMVETS called it, ``woefully inadequate.''

What did our Republican colleagues in the Senate do with that woefully inadequate and shameful budget? Did they support Democratic efforts to support veterans benefits, needed additional benefits? No.

Did they support Democratic efforts to increase veterans funding on other legislative vehicles? Did they make veterans a top priority of this session of the Congress?

The answer to every one of those questions, unfortunately, is no, no, no, no. While Senate Republicans found plenty of time to pursue issues that didn't matter, and don't matter, to the American people--I have named a few. We spent quite a lot of time on a matter that I don't think mattered for most Americans, but some of the things we worked on were intervening in the most private and personal decision a family can make--they found no time for tens of thousands of soldiers who they knew were coming home soon to a health care system that lacked resources to meet their needs.

On three separate occasions this year Senator Murray and Senate Democrats, led by Senator Patty Murray, asked the Senate to vote on additional resources for the veterans health care system. On each occasion, Senate Republicans, including the lead sponsor of one of the amendments we will soon vote on, voted no: ``no'' to add additional funding for our veterans, ``no'' to giving them the quality health care they have earned, ``no'' to keeping our Nation's commitment to those who have served.

Three strictly party-line ``no'' votes by the Republicans.

The response of the Bush administration was similar and similarly out of touch. Rather than acknowledge there was a problem and addressing the concerns raised by Democrats and outside groups, the Bush administration initially chose a path of denial that ultimately bordered on outright deceit.

In April, after Senator Murray offered an amendment on the emergency supplemental to increase veterans health care funding by $1.9 billion, VA Secretary Nicholson--by the way, his qualifications are he was chairman of the national Republican Party. He is head of the veterans benefits now--he said:

I can assure you that the VA does not need emergency

supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005 to continue to provide

the timely, quality service that is always our goal. . . . I

do not foresee any challenges. . . .

I will use leader time now for the rest of my remarks.

Continuing with Mr. Nicholson:

I do not foresee any challenges that are not solvable with

our own management decision capability.

The concerns raised by this head-in-the-sand statement were greatly exacerbated yesterday. At a hearing before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Veterans Affairs officials from the Bush administration made two astonishing admissions. First, Mr. Nicholson acknowledged that funding for veterans health care programs is short by at least $2.6 billion because the administration dramatically underestimated the number of military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the latest example of how poorly the administration planned for and prepared this Nation for what would be required in Iraq and the war on terror.

Second, and even more troubling, VA Under Secretary Perlin testified to Congress that at the same time Secretary Nicholson was assuring Congress no additional resources were needed, the VA was already dipping into reserve funds to meet its operational needs. And Secretary Nicholson admitted that a management decision had been made in early April--that is why I called what he said before ``deceitful''--made in early April to also dip into capital funds to keep veterans health care operations going.

What does this mean? Taking away from capital projects, hospitals that need to be renovated and repaired, outpatient clinics that need to be rebuilt. They were dipping into those funds when he was before competent committees of this Congress not telling the truth, misleading us, being deceitful.

Think about this for just a bit. The administration sends hundreds of thousands of men and women, our troops, abroad to fight in Iraq and elsewhere but says it didn't expect they would return home and need health care services? The administration then fails to provide any additional funds to address the health care needs of these soldiers and, when pushed by Democrats, tells Congress no additional funds are needed. And in the final act, the administration acknowledges that the very time it was insisting no additional funds were needed, the VA was tapping into reserve funds, and the VA Secretary had decided to pay for day-to-day health care expenses by dipping into capital funds, which would severely impact medical facilities across our whole country-- including, I might say, a major medical center that is needed in the most rapidly growing veterans population of any place in America, in Las Vegas, NV. Quite a performance.

Fortunately, today the Senate has a new day before it. At long last, we have the administration and Senate Republicans acknowledging there is a problem. And at long last, Senate Republicans are now willing to join Senate Democrats to do something about it. Although Republican support for our veterans has been long in coming, I welcome the 11th- hour conversion. While the needs of our veterans were not enough to get the attention of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, apparently the 2006 elections are.

Regardless of their motivation, we welcome their support. I only hope the administration and Senate Republicans remain willing and eager to join with us in the future to ensure that our troops--active and retired--and their families, receive the respect and recognition they deserve.

I am proud to represent a State with so many natural treasures. Of particular importance to me is the Lake Mead Natural Recreation Area, which is managed by the National Park Service. Because of its amazing natural beauty and its proximity to the residents of both southern Nevada and northern Arizona, Lake Mead receives nearly 10 million visitors a year. I rise today to bring attention to a water and wastewater maintenance project at Lake Mead that is need of serious attention. Is the distinguished ranking member familiar with the beautiful Lake Mead National Recreation Area?

The Senator from North Dakota is correct. Because Lake Mead's water and wastewater facilities were constructed in the 1950s, and some as long ago as the 1930s, the National Park Service and the President put these projects forward as priorities. Failure of the water systems--including force mains, gravity mains and manholes--would cause significant risks to public health and the environment due to discharges of raw sewage from these systems. Sewage is generated at the lowest point in these systems due to waste-generating activities occurring close to the lake, so the pristine water quality of Lake Mead and Lake Mohave could be jeopardized if there were a major spill caused by catastrophic failure of one of these mains. Failure of any force main would also virtually shut down all commercial, residential, and recreational use within the development and could expose visitors and employees and their families to the risk of disease transmission via direct physical contact with raw sewage, as well as undermining roads, buildings, utility lines, or other structures due to high-pressure spray. In short, this is no little problem.

The Senator is exactly right.

The chairman and ranking member are very kind to share my interest in this project. I greatly appreciate their assistance on this important issue.

Indian Health Facilities in Nevada

The Indian Health Service which is funded by this bill, is the agency charged with providing health care services to Native American people. We in this body must work to ensure that the Indian Health Service is meeting the needs of all Native Americans. My State is home to 22 Indian tribes, all of which are served by the Phoenix area office of the IHS. That same office also provides health services to the Indians of Arizona and Utah, except for the Navajo Nation. Am I correct that this year's appropriations bill contains $8 million in funding for the construction of one of the ambulatory care clinics in the Phoenix area of the IHS?

I thank the Senator. The tribes in my State are supportive of efforts to improve health care for tribes in Phoenix. They have told me that--of all the challenges that confront tribes today--health care is by far the most urgent, and perhaps the most daunting. I thank the Senator and the members of his subcommittee for realizing the importance of Indian health care and providing resources for it.

However, the tribes in my State face another challenge in terms of the replacement of this medical center system. The current plans call for the replacement of three out-patient clinics in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and will provide for the eventual renovation of the in-patient medical center. These are important projects. However, tribes in Nevada cannot realistically make use of these centers. Tribes in Northern Nevada, for instance, are more than a day's drive from Phoenix.

I am told that the Indian Health Services' plans to replace the Phoenix Indian Medical Center system were developed without adequately accounting for the health care needs of eligible beneficiaries in outlying areas, like Nevada, Utah or rural Arizona. I am also told that should those plans move ahead, the resulting health care delivery system will disadvantage eligible beneficiaries that reside a distance away from the Medical Center.

In order to address these concerns, it is especially important to me that the IHS meet and discuss with Nevada tribes ways to improve health care services in Nevada, including facility needs and the Contract Health Services Program. In addition, I expect that these meetings will result in a report to the committe, with recommendations, to assist the committee in its ongoing efforts to improve the quality of health care for Nevada's Native Americans.

Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Senators to ensure that Indian beneficiaries in Nevada receive the critical health care funding that they need. I thank the Senators for their work on behalf of Native Americans throughout Nevada and the Nation, and I thank them for engaging in this colloquy.

amendment no. 1030

Mr. President, the next vote that will be cast by my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, the junior Senator from New Jersey, will be his 7,000th vote.

Senator Lautenberg was elected in 1982 to the Senate, and served three terms before taking a ``sabbatical'' in 2000. I repeat, he was not defeated, he took a ``sabbatical.'' He decided to take leave of the Senate for a while. He ran again in 2002, when Senator Torricelli retired, and the Democrats were desperate for someone who could win in New Jersey. He stepped forward because he is always a sure winner. Senator Lautenberg has the rare distinction of having held both of New Jersey's Senate seats.

Senator Lautenberg may be a ``freshman'' of sorts, but the only other two Senators from New Jersey who have cast more rollcall votes than the junior Senator from New Jersey, my friend Senator Lautenberg, are Harrison Williams, who cast 8,349 votes over the course of his career, and Clifford Case, who cast 7,684 votes. Senator Lautenberg is third, having cast more votes than Senator Bradley, for example.

Senator Lautenberg's parents were poor but hard-working immigrants who came to America through Ellis Island. Senator Lautenberg joined the Army when he was 18 and served in the European Theater during World War II. When he returned from the war, he went to Columbia University on the GI bill. Then he and two friends started a payroll company. It was very small. They started from scratch. But they did not just start a company, they started an entire industry: computer services.

Today, that company--that little startup company, ADP--has annual sales of almost $8 billion a year, and employs 42,000 people worldwide. It issues the paycheck of one out of every six private sector workers in America, and it processes over 850 million investor transactions and communications every year.

After establishing and running one of the most successful businesses in America, Senator Lautenberg decided to ``give something back,'' so he became a commissioner at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Then after serving as a commissioner at the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg became Senator Frank Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg's motto is ``Only in America.''

He has done many great things legislatively. They are too many to list here tonight. But one thing I will always look back at, as to what this great Senator did, is what he did for my children. Years ago, when we traveled back and forth across the country, my children were allergic to cigarette smoke, literally allergic. They did not like it, and the little ones cried. Children in America no longer have to worry about that because of the Senator from New Jersey. He did a favor for me--because it made it so much easier on my children--and the rest of America.

Senator Lautenberg is a great Senator. The people of New Jersey are so fortunate this good man, who was financially set, would take public service as his life's work. I so admire him. I know the rest of my colleagues join me in congratulating the ``junior'' Senator from New Jersey on this significant milestone in an already accomplished career.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent that these next two votes be 10 minutes each. Everybody is here--10 minutes on the first one, 10 minutes on the second one. Then we can move on to the CAFTA bill at that time. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.