Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize the Middlebury College women's ice hockey team for its recent NCAA Division III National Championship--the school's third in as many years and its fifth national title in the last 7 years.

In defeating Plattsburgh State by a score of 3 to 1 on March 18, the Panthers finished their season 27 to 2, tying the school record for victories. The Panthers had four players named to the all-tournament team including Emily Quizon, the American Hockey Coaches Association's National Player of the Year.

I am proud this hockey dynasty is being built in the Green Mountain State. I am particularly pleased that the student athletes who have created this dynasty are doing so while studying at a top-notch academic institution. The demanding academics at Middlebury make the accomplishments of these great student athletes that much more impressive.

Since Bill Mandigo took over as the head coach of the Panthers in 1988, the women's team has posted a record of 329-86-11. That gives Coach Mandigo the most wins by a women's hockey coach at any level. Although the team will graduate five seniors this May, Middlebury will return seven of its top eight scorers from this season, and I am sure that Coach Mandigo's program will continue to develop successful students and athletes.

I congratulate each member of the team: head coach Bill Mandigo, assistant coach Jean Butler, Abby Kurtz-Phelan, Shannon Tarrant, Emily McNamara, Rose Babst, Kerry Kiley, Liz Yale-Loehr, Molly Vitt, Karen Levin, Gillian Paul, Shannon Sylvester, Emily Quizon, Annmarie Cellino, Randi Dumont, Erika Nakamura, Gloria Velez, Alison Graddock, Margaret MacDonald, Lacey Farrell, Ellen Sargent, Tania Kenny, Abby Smith, Nina Daugherty, and Kate Kogut.

Again, congratulations to the Middlebury College Panthers for their third straight national championship.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Middlebury College men's ice hockey team on winning its third straight NCAA Division III National Championship with a victory over St. Norbert College on March 19.

After eight national titles in the last 12 years, there is little new that can be said about Middlebury hockey. The eight national championships, including this recent three-peat, speak for themselves. Under the leadership of Coach Bill Beaney, the Panthers have achieved an unprecedented level of success, making them the envy of college hockey programs everywhere.

Last week, in reaction to the Panthers' hat trick of national titles, the Burlington Free Press called Middlebury hockey players ``talented, determined, motivated student-athletes . . .'' Although this description goes without saying, it reminds us that this great hockey team is comprised of students that must balance their athletic and academic responsibilities. At a college as academically renowned and demanding as Middlebury, balancing these responsibilities is no easy task, and these great student athletes must be commended for their efforts both on and off the ice. As a U.S. Senator from Vermont, I am proud to have such a great academic institution in our State, and I am also proud of the incredible hockey program Middlebury has developed.

I congratulate each member of the team: head coach Bill Beaney, assistant coach Chris LaPerle, assistant coach Frank Sacheli, student assistant Ryan Cahill, manager Ryan McQuillan, Ross Cherry, Tom Maldonado, Jed McDonald, Samuel Driver, Jack Kinder, Ryan Harrington, Mickey Gilchrist, Darwin Hunt, Jamie McKenna, Eric LaFreniere, Justin Gaines, Evgeny Saidachev, Robert MacIntyre, Mack Cummins, Jeff Smith, Brett Shirreffs, John Sales, Doug Raeder, Kyle Koziara, Ian Drummond, Richie Fuld, Yen-I Chen, Jocko DeCarolis, Leonard Badeau, Mason Graddock, and Scott Bartlett.

Again, congratulations, Panthers, on another national title and another fantastic season.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in seeking to rename the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the Green Mountain National Forest of Vermont in honor of our great friend, and my mentor and predecessor, Robert T. Stafford.

Twenty-two years ago, Senator Stafford introduced the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 on behalf of himself and Senator Leahy. Senator Stafford said at that time, ``It is our intention to present this legislation to Vermonters and seek their comments . . . I am willing to listen to the voices of other Vermonters before a decision is made.'' And listen he did.

Senator Stafford then led Senator Leahy and me back home to Vermont to hear from hundreds of our constituents. Their input changed the bill, and the result was the creation of the White Rocks National Recreation Area.

This magnificent, 36,000-acre recreation area exists because of Senator Stafford's insistence upon listening to Vermonters and seeing their views embodied in the law.

Senator Stafford's public service spanned four decades, and included six years as chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Throughout his career, he proved himself a true steward of our environment. As he approached his retirement at the end of the 100th Congress, Senator Stafford gave a series of floor statements describing the environmental threats that faced our Nation.

On September 12, 1988, he said, ``We humans have degraded the environment of our world, and now we must set ourselves on the path of reversing that course. It will not be an easy task to accomplish, but it is a necessary one . . . If only we can recognize this circumstance for what it is--an opportunity to redirect ourselves toward a brighter future--then setting ourselves to the task ahead will not be a burden, but a joy.''

That was 18 years ago, and unfortunately, those threats remain very much with us today. But it is my hope that the White Rocks recreation area, which Senator Stafford can look out upon from his home in Rutland, Vermont, will be a constant reminder of Senator Stafford's devotion to Vermont and his devotion to our environment.

No monument or statement or park renaming can do justice to the unparalleled contributions Senator Stafford has made to both Vermont and this Nation. Senator Stafford has been one of the most devoted, capable and complished public servants the Senate has ever known. That said, naming the White Rocks area after Senator Stafford is as fitting a tribute as I can imagine.

Just as the Wilderness Act of 1984 named the George Aiken Wilderness Area in honor of that great Vermont Senator, we seek to bestow the same honor upon Senator Stafford with the naming of the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area.

Mr. President, the proposed budget, while far more realistic than previous years, falls short of our commitment to America's veterans. The amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion for VA health care in fiscal year 2007, improving funding for mental health, vet centers, and rehabilitative care, among others. The increase would be offset by closing corporate tax loopholes, rather than by increasing overall taxes. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

We have a moral responsibility to provide this care to all veterans, regardless of income. This amendment removes both the $250 enrollment fee for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, and the copay increase from $8 to $15. While these amounts may seem inconsequential to some, many of these veterans make as little as $26,902 a year. At this income level, such added expense forces difficult choices between essential needs. All veterans have served our country without reservation. Our commitment to them should not be contingent on income level.

The VA faces a growing challenge as soldiers return to their homes and families from Iraq and Afghanistan. Their return will impose new demands for care directly related to injuries and experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and for routine health care. Growing demand, coupled with the rising costs of health care nationally, increases pressure on the VA budget. We must ensure that the VA has adequate funding to meet these growing costs.

This amendment provides support for an essential program and has a fiscally responsible source of funding. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Our moral responsibility to America's veterans must not be limited.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of the Vermonters participating in the recent Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy. These Olympians proudly follow a long line of Vermonters competing at the highest levels of winter sports.

Three Vermonters made particularly extraordinary impressions in Turin: Hannah Teter, Bud Keene, and Lindsey Jacobellis.

Hannah Teter, of Belmont, VT, was the first Vermonter to medal in Turin when she earned the gold in the women's halfpipe competition. Hannah is very much a product of Vermont, growing up amidst the beauty of the Green Mountains in a family that embraced the outdoors. More importantly, Hannah was raised on homemade maple syrup, one of Vermont's most treasured products.

In her halfpipe competition in Turin, despite already holding a comfortable lead, Hannah won the gold medal with a bold and inspired final run. Though I will not pretend to perfectly understand terms like front-side 900, I can tell you that Hannah's snowboarding acrobatics were some of the most impressive athletic sights I have ever seen.

Coaching Hannah to her success was Bud Keene of Moscow, VT, the U.S. Olympic snowboard team's halfpipe coach. Bud was an avid snowboarder long before the sport was included in the Olympics. Bud coached at Mount Mansfield before becoming an assistant snowboarding coach during the 2002 Olympics. Bud was named the head halfpipe coach for the 2006 Olympics and he led the team to a remarkable performance: the U.S. won an amazing two gold medals and two silver medals in the men's and women's halfpipe competitions. Bud deserves a lot of credit for the unparalleled success of the American snowboarding team at this year's games.

Vermont's second Olympic medal also came in snowboarding when Lindsey Jacobellis of Stratton, VT, earned the silver medal in the women's snowboardcross. As many know, snowboardcross is a dangerous and difficult event that requires snowboarders to navigate a narrow 1,000- yard course while avoiding the three other competitors trying to navigate the terrain at the same time. Lindsey survived two of these incredible races just to qualify for the final medal heat, where she emerged with a silver medal in a race so challenging that two of her competitors crashed and one left the course on a stretcher.

In addition to Hannah, Lindsey, and Bud, I would like to commend the other Vermonters who traveled to Turin for the Olympics. These accomplished men and women include snowboarder Kelly Clark of Mount Snow, cross-country skier Andrew Johnson of Greensboro, freestyle skier Hannah Kearney of Norwich, alpine skier Chip Knight of Stowe, cross- country skier Andrew Newell of Shaftsbury, honorary Vermonter Jimmy Cochran of the famed Olympic ski family in Richmond, and countless other athletes who have trained, studied, or lived in Vermont and competed in Turin.

I would also like to acknowledge two Olympians who are currently serving our country in the Vermont National Guard: SP Jeremy Teela and SGT Tuffield ``Tuffy'' Latour. An Alaskan, Jeremy competed in the biathlon in Turin, while Tuffy coached the U.S. Men's bobsled team.

We are very lucky in Vermont to have the privilege of watching and following such an impressive group of athletes. There are many reasons why our small State has so many top-tier competitors but, to steal a line from Hannah Teter, I bet one of those reasons is Vermont's great maple syrup.

Mr. President, last Thursday I submitted a statement expressing my concerns with the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

I am here today to reiterate these concerns as we move toward a final vote on this nomination.

There is no higher legal body in the United States than the Supreme Court. It is the final authority on the meaning of laws and the Constitution.

A Supreme Court Justice could serve for the life of the nominee, so the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court Justice can span decades.

The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important votes a Senator will take.

With that in mind, after careful consideration, I have concluded I cannot support Judge Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

My first step in evaluating a nominee is to consider whether he or she is appropriately qualified and capable of handling the responsibilities of a Justice.

Looking over Judge Alito's qualifications, it is clear this minimum standard has been met. However, there are additional factors in considering a judicial nominee.

One such factor is the judicial philosophy of the nominee. Many of my colleagues argue this should have no part in the Senate's deliberations.

However, if judicial philosophy helps determine who the President chooses, the Senate should also be allowed to consider this factor when deciding whether to approve or disapprove the nominee.

This information is critical to retain the balance of power that the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.

In addition to the individual's judicial philosophy, we must also consider the cumulative effect that approving a nominee will have on the Supreme Court.

In the recent past, Republican Presidents have made 15 of the last 17 nominations to the Supreme Court.

The Republican stamp on the current Court is undeniable, and clearly the prospects of the Court becoming more moderate in the near future are unlikely.

Upon this backdrop, I have evaluated the decisions and writings of Judge Alito, closely watched the nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and listened to the statements of many colleagues on his nomination.

I have come away from this review with a number of concerns.

First, Judge Alito did not provide complete answers on many important topics the way now Chief Justice Roberts did during his nomination hearing. These included many critical issues such as: Is Roe settled law? What are the limits of the executive branch's power?

Second, Judge Alito failed to distance himself from the radical views he expressed in his earlier writings on the supremacy of executive power.

Third, Judge Alito's record includes troubling decisions on vital issues such as search and seizure, reproductive rights, the power of Congress, civil rights, and affirmative action.

Because of these facts, I have concluded that the addition of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court would unacceptably shift the balance of the Court on many critical questions facing our county, such as:

Are there limits on the power of the presidency?

Can the Congress regulate the activities of the states?

How expansive is the right to privacy?

What deference should be given to legislative acts of the Congress?

How the Court addresses these questions goes to the heart of what we stand for as a country, which is why this nomination is so important.

While many of my colleagues will disagree with my assessment of Judge Alito, this will be a lifetime appointment and a lifetime is too long to be wrong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is no higher legal authority in the United States than the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the final arbiter on the meaning of laws and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court gives meaning to the scope of the right of privacy; whether Vermont's limits on campaign contributions and spending are constitutional; what is an unreasonable search and seizure; how expansive the power of the President can be; and whether Congress exceeded its power in passing a law.

A Supreme Court Justice could serve for the life of the nominee, thus the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice last well beyond the term of the President who makes the nomination, a Senator's term, and maybe even the Senator's own life. Therefore, one of the most important votes a Senator takes is the confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

I have carefully considered the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and have concluded I cannot support his nomination.

My first step in evaluating a nominee is to consider whether the nominee is appropriately qualified and capable of handling the position for which he or she has been nominated. Looking over Judge Alito's qualifications, it is clear this minimum standard has been met. Judge Alito has served in the U.S. Department of Justice, has been a U.S. Attorney, and for the last 15 years has been a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. However, while I use this minimum standard in my evaluation of executive branch nominees, there are additional factors to be considered in my evaluation of a judicial nominee.

The Framers of our Constitution recognized the limits of democracy and created three coequal branches of government. They realized that passion and whim could cause the elected representatives to enact legislation on the cause of the day, which treads near or on constitutional rights. In addition, while the diversity of Congress can stop most of these ideas before they are adopted, no such check exists on the executive branch of our government. Thus, the third branch of government, the judiciary, was created. This branch was to be independent, unaffected by the public's whim and opinion, and serving the law and the public.

The Framers split the responsibility of filling the judiciary between the executive and legislative branches. The President nominates an individual to be a judge, while the Senate has the duty to advise and consent on each nominee. This framework was established to ensure that the executive branch could not exercise so much control over the nominating process that the judiciary would lose its independence and become ideologically driven.

While the Senate's duty is to evaluate a nominee, the Constitution provides no guidance as to what exactly Senators should take into account. This decision is up to each individual Senator. I have already touched on one factor I consider, ``qualified and capable of handling the duties of the position.''

An additional consideration is the judicial philosophy of the nominee. Many of my colleagues argue that this factor should have no part in the Senate's consideration of a nominee to the Supreme Court. However, if judicial philosophy is the determining factor in the choice the President makes from a list of many qualified candidates, the Senate should also be allowed to consider this factor when deciding whether to approve or disapprove the nominee. Not allowing the Senate to consider this factor would shift the careful balance the Framers put in our Constitution away from equal partners toward giving the executive branch an unfair advantage.

In addition to considering the individual's judicial philosophy as a stand-alone matter, we must also consider the cumulative effect our approving a nominee will have on the Supreme Court. In the recent past, Republican Presidents have made 15 of the last 17 nominations to the Supreme Court. The Republican stamp on the current Court is undeniable. Consider the prospects for the Court in the coming years based on the ages of the sitting Justices and their years of service:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Date of birth Current age Years on court Appointment age ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stevens.......................... April 2O, 1920...... 85 30 55 Ginsburg......................... March 15, 1933...... 72 12 60 Scalia........................... March 11, 1936...... 69 19 50 Kennedy.......................... July 23, 1936....... 69 17 52 Breyer........................... Aug. 15, 1938....... 67 11 56 Souter........................... Sept. 17, 1939...... 66 15 51 Thomas........................... June 28, 1948....... 57 14 43 Roberts.......................... Jan. 27, 1955....... 50 <1 50 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This information clearly shows that the prospects of the Court becoming more moderate in the near future are unlikely, as the more liberal to moderate members are the more likely to be replaced.

The table also clearly lays out a concern about the shift in the balance of the court by replacing Justice O'Connor with a younger, more conservative Justice.

This concern is also made clear by looking at some important cases where Justice O'Connor provided the critical fifth vote for a moderate, common sense position. These cases include:

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004): The Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency can enforce the Clean Air Act and overrule a State decision to allow a major pollutant emitting facility to build a power generator when the State agency is not doing an adequate job of enforcement.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): The Court upheld the principles that, before viability, women can choose to have an abortion, and that any restriction on the right to an abortion must have an exception for the mother's health.

Tennessee v. Lane (2004): The Court held that as part of its enforcement power under the 14th amendment, Congress has the right under the Americans with Disabilities Act to force States to provide physical access to the courts.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003): The Court upheld as a valid exercise of congressional power the soft money and electioneering communications restrictions enacted by Congress as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Upon this backdrop, I have evaluated the decisions and writings of Judge Alito, closely watched the nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and listened to the statements of many colleagues on his nomination. I am concerned that Judge Alito did not provide complete answers on many important topics such as: Is Roe settled law, or what are the limits of the executive branch's power? On the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts did provide answers to these questions during his nomination hearing and I voted for Justice Roberts. Given the importance of a Supreme Court Justice replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, we should expect even more complete answers than we received from Judge Alito.

After careful deliberation, I have concluded that the addition of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court would unacceptably shift the balance of the Court on many critical questions facing our county: Are there limits on the power of the presidency? Can the Congress regulate the activities of the States? How expansive is the right to privacy? What deference should be given to legislative acts of the Congress? While many of my colleagues will disagree with my assessment of Judge Alito, this will be a lifetime appointment and a lifetime is too long to be wrong.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of myself and Senators Carper, Boxer, Clinton, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Obama.

Last night, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. These standards must be set at a level ``requisite to public health'' with ``an adequate margin of safety.'' They are to be based on the ``latest scientific knowledge,'' and EPA is prohibited from considering costs in setting them. Their fundamental purpose is to ensure that our air is safe to breathe.

We have known for years that fine particle pollution causes premature death, increased asthma attacks, and numerous other health effects. In 1997, EPA revised the particulate matter standard on the basis of that evidence. The Clean Air Act directs that EPA, together with an independent scientific review panel, examine the available scientific evidence and determine whether the existing standard needs to be changed. The proposal by EPA last night, coming almost 5 years late, represents the end result of that effort. Unfortunately, EPA selected the weakest option available to it.

In determining whether to revise the standard, EPA reviewed the more than

2000 scientific studies that have been published since 1996. These studies confirm the earlier research results that demonstrate the strong relationship between particle pollution and illness, hospitalization, and premature death. Some of the more recent studies show the strong relationship between particle pollution and cardiovascular illnesses that trigger heart attacks and strokes. These studies also indicate a stronger relationship between short term PM exposure and health effects than was evident in 1997.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to consider the advice of an independent scientific review panel, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, CASAC, which must include at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing State air pollution control agencies. That body exhaustively reviewed the current body of scientific evidence and concluded that EPA must revise both its short term--24 hour or daily-- PM standard, and its annual PM standard. Unfortunately, EPA chose to disregard that advice and proposed to only revise the daily standard. And in making its proposal on the 24-hour standard, it choose the highest level recommended by CASAC--35 micrograms per cubic meter.

It is apparent that the level proposed by EPA was not based entirely on the latest scientific knowledge. The level of the standard proposed by EPA will leave millions of Americans unprotected. It will also require few, if any, additional controls to be put in place. EPA chose the least protective approach that it could and disregarded the advice of the CASAC by failing to revise the annual standard. Had EPA followed the recommendations of CASAC, it could have proposed options that would have prevented more than twice as many deaths. That is not even considering the Clean Air Act requirement for an ``adequate margin of safety'' that considers ``sensitive subpopulations.''

Playing politics with public health is unconscionable. When these standards were last revised in 1997, they were subject to multiyear litigation battle. Ultimately the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 1997 standards and the scientific process that was used to develop them. The science we have available to us today is even clearer than it was then. Fine particle pollution kills people at levels below the existing standards. We need to change these standards and heed the advice of our best and brightest scientific minds. We need to let them tell us when the air is safe to breathe. When EPA makes its final decision in September regarding a new national ambient air quality standard, it must do so based on scientific, rather than political considerations. The very lives of our citizens depend on it.

Mr. President, I rise today to make some comments and share my concerns about the provisions of the Department of Defense appropriations conference report that open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. I do not support drilling in the Refuge. But even if I did, I would not support the language in this bill. It is inappropriate to make management decisions regarding one of our Nation's largest and most ecologically important wildlife refuges in a closed conference. Doing so restricts the ability of the Senate and the administration to ensure that drilling is done in an environmentally sound way. It is particularly troubling that a military spending conference report is being used as the vehicle to sneak this unrelated, controversial, and reckless legislation through the Senate.

As ranking member of Environment and Public Works Committee, I feel I must make clear to the Senate that the language in that this conference report has not passed the Senate before. It does not just open the Refuge to oil drilling, it does so in the least environmentally sensitive way possible. And, Mr. President, it does so in a manner that treats the Arctic Refuge differently than any other Federal lands or wildlife refuges.

Arctic Refuge drilling proponents repeatedly profess that oil development in the Refuge would be done in an environmentally sensitive way. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I want to inform the Senate that this bill is actually riddled with clauses that weaken existing environmental standards, exempt drilling from key rules, or otherwise allow oil development activities to sidestep environmental protection laws. First, for example, the conference report exempts parts of the proposed Arctic oil and gas leasing program from environmental review requirements. In particular, it declares that the Department of Interior's Environmental Impact Statement EIS prepared in 1987 satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, for preparation of the regulations that will guide the leasing program and any preleasing exploration or other activities. NEPA is supposed to ensure that public and Federal decisionmakers have the most recent, accurate information concerning the environmental impacts of projects, but this clause seems to ensure the opposite. In fact, as long ago as 1991, a Federal court found that due to new scientific information, Interior should have supplemented this very same 1987 EIS analysis before recommending to Congress that it allow development on the Coastal Plain.

In 2002, some 15 years after the 1987 EIS, the U.S. Geological Survey released a significant report detailing 12 years of study about the potential impacts of oil drilling on the wildlife of

the Arctic Refuge. This information can, and should, be incorporated as the Interior Department's consideration of drilling.

Many now question whether the existing final legislative environmental impact statement, prepared in 1987 to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, is adequate to support development now or whether a Supplement or a new EIS should be prepared. As I mentioned, a court in a declaratory judgment action in 1991 held that the Interior Department should have prepared a supplemental invironmental impact statement SEIS at that time to encompass new information about the Coastal Plain in connection with the Department's recommendation that Congress legislate to permit development. Therefore, without the language of this bill, it seems clear that either an SEIS or a new EIS would have to be prepared before drilling could begin.

But, in this provision, we change the law and the legal precedent. The bill before us states that the Congress finds the 1987 EIS adequate to satisfy the legal and procedural requirements of NEPA with respect to the actions authorized to be taken by the Secretary of the Interior in developing and promulgating the regulations for the establishment of the leasing program. This language explicitly eliminates the need to redo or update the EIS for the leasing regulations.

The Secretary is only directed to prepare an EIS with respect to actions other than the preparation of the regulations. This is noteworthy because only the smaller document, an environmental assessment, might not normally be sufficient, given on the magnitude of the action involved. The rest of that paragraph sets out limitations on the alternatives that the Secretary must consider as to leasing, as though this paragraph relates only to the leasing stage, rather than to all actions. But, the language is unclear and may curtain environmental review at all stages. The section goes on to say that the Secretary is to identify only a preferred action for leasing and a single alternative and analyze only those two choices and to consider public comment only on the preferred alternative. Public comments must be submitted within 20 days of publication of the environmental analysis, and the Secretary may only consider public comments that specifically address the preferred action. Compliance with this law is stated as satisfying all requirements for consideration and analysis of environmental effects.

There is no question that this language substantially weakens environmental review requirements. It significantly diminishes the comprehensive analysis traditionally required by NEPA, by stating that the Secretary of Interior need consider only its preferred action and a single leasing alternative. The ``alternatives analysis,'' which is all but eliminated by this section of the bill, is the heart of NEPA. Senators supporting this provision should be fully aware that these limitations strike at the core of our country's environmental review process and requirements.

Further, this language undermines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's authority to impose conditions on leases. It states that the oil and gas leasing program are ``deemed to be compatible'' with the purposes of the Arctic Refuge. According to the Congressional Research Service, this provision ``appears to eliminate the usual compatibility determination process for purposes of refuge management.'' CRS notes that without the compatibility process, the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose conditions on leases is called into question.

Finally, this language changes judicial review of leasing decisions. Judicial review is limited to ``whether the Secretary has complied'' with this legislation. It also states the only appropriate legal venue is the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The judicial review provisions undermine drilling proponents' claims that the language will result in sufficient environmental protection. A leasing program that is truly ``environmentally sound'' would be at no risk from judicial review.

We can do better, and we should. This debate will never lead us to actually fix these problems because a conference report cannot be amended. And putting this provision in a conference report constrains the way in which Senators who are concerned about these issues and who do not serve on the Appropriations Committee are able to address those issues on the floor.

I would caution all Members of the Senate who have committed to support Arctic drilling only in certain cases, or only if certain other legislative or regulatory actions take place, to closely examine the language in this conference report.

Finally, I oppose including this in a conference report because I believe it is being used to limit consideration of a controversial issue. The American people have strongly held views on drilling in the Refuge, and they want to know that the Senate is working to pass legislation to manage the area appropriately in a forthright and open process.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of myself and Senators Lieberman, Biden, Carper, Feingold, Feinstein, Kerry, Lautenberg, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, and Wyden.

Over the last 2 weeks, 189 countries, including the United States, met in Montreal, Canada, to discuss the issue of global climate change. These countries are all signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Montreal talks also included discussions by the 157 countries that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol.

A key topic of the discussion was whether future talks could include discussions of additional commitments under the Framework Convention or the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration's position from the outset was that such discussions were a ``nonstarter'' and that the United States would not engage in any such talks.

On December 5, 2005, 24 members of the Senate wrote to the Bush administration to note that the United States remains a signatory to the Framework Convention and thus is obligated to take actions to ``prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' In the view of those Senators and others, blocking such talks would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States under the Framework Treaty.

The letter, which I submit for the Record, also noted that in June of 2005, a bi-partisan majority of the Senate approved a resolution calling for domestic legislation to achieve mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions and recognizing the need for comparable action by major GHG emitters nations worldwide. It urged the Bush administration to be mindful of this fact and to conduct its negotiations accordingly. The signers of this letter hoped that it would be useful in making clear that many in the United States, including a majority of members of the Senate, do not agree with the Bush administration's position.

Despite the letter, the Bush delegation did their best to block and stall the negotiations and to send the message that the United States will not take mandatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for many years to come. When it was time to actually negotiate about further commitment discussions, the chief negotiator of the United States bluntly indicated that such discussions were unacceptable and abruptly walked away from the negotiating table.

The good news is that the rest of the countries involved were not deterred by the U.S. walkout and ultimately reached agreement on a set of decisions that will allow initiation of further talks next year. Only when confronted with this agreement in a public way did the United States ultimately accept a version of those agreements.

This means that we have made progress and that further discussions will take place under both the Framework Treaty and the Kyoto Treaty about additional commitments. The clear message from the rest of the world to the Bush administration is that we are moving forward. Such progress can take place with or without the United States at the table.

The results of these negotiations are encouraging and open a variety of pathways to future U.S. engagement. The developments expand the opportunities available to the U.S. to fulfill its Framework Convention obligations to engage the international community prior to the Framework Convention and Kyoto Protocol meetings in 2006--in meeting the Convention's goal of ``preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.''

Even without the United States, those nations that are parties to the Kyoto protocol have agreed to initiate a process by which commitments will be established for the period following 2012, when the first commitment phase of the Protocol ends. Contrary to the claims of some, the Framework Convention process and the Kyoto process remain as viable legal vehicles for future reductions of greenhouse gases.

It is also worth noting that the parties to the Framework Convention, including the United States, also agreed to initiate a process for considering reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through avoided deforestation. As much as 25 percent of global GHG emissions are generated by tropical deforestation. The avoided deforestation initiative, prompted by the efforts of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica and endorsed by the G77 Group of Developing Nations and China, means that developing countries are open to ways in which they could reduce their greenhouse gases emissions, consistent with the Framework Convention principle of ``common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.''

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and has been for some time. We have an obligation to be a leader in the fight to reduce greenhouse gases. We have an obligation under the Framework Convention to take actions to ``prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' We have not yet honored those obligations, even as other countries, including developing countries, move forward.

A majority of Americans support taking some form of action on climate change. A recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, sponsored by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, found that 86 percent of Americans think that President Bush should act to limit greenhouse gases in the United States if the G-8 countries are willing to act to reduce such gases. All the G-8 countries except the United States are signatories to the Kyoto Treaty. Finally, the study found that 83 percent of Americans favor ``legislation requiring large companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.''

We cannot afford further delay on climate change, which appears to be the desired outcome of the Bush administration policy. The Montreal talks are a positive step forward, but we need to do much more, much faster. Climate change is here and it will accelerate the longer we wait. The time has come for the United States to adopt mandatory legislation to reduce greenhouse gases and for the United States to reengage in the international negotiation process in a constructive way.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since the beginning of our country's history, Americans have recognized the vital importance of balancing the safety and security of our people with the need to uphold civil liberties in our society. There have been times when the Congress has succeeded in achieving this fine balance, and there have been times when the Congress has failed to do so.

In 2001, I supported the passage of the PATRIOT Act because I believed the legislation that emerged from the conference between the House and the Senate had achieved this goal. However, this legislation has since been used for purposes beyond what we had envisioned 4 years ago, and that troubles me. As a result, I have cosponsored the Security and Freedom Enhancement, SAFE, Act, which would modify the law.

I was pleased to support the legislation to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act as it unanimously passed the Senate earlier this year. This version reflected many of the important changes contained in the SAFE Act. It would have restored the balance between security and civil liberties, while the House version would further tilt the balance away from civil liberties. I was hopeful the final conference report on this legislation would reflect the Senate version, but unfortunately, this is not the case.

This conference report falls short in restoring the balance between security and civil liberties, and therefore I cannot in good conscience support its passage. The conference report falls short because the legislation contains no sunset for controversial provisions like ``sneak and peek'' warrants; the legislation's standard for being able to obtain records is only mere relevance, rather than requiring an actual connection with a spy or terrorist; the legislation makes it nearly impossible to obtain a meaningful judicial review of production orders and the gag orders that accompany them; and the legislation allows for a disturbing lack of notice to individuals whose records are obtained under the law.

In short, this legislation fails to restore the critical balance between security and civil liberties, a balance that I believe all Americans consider a vital part of our democracy.

Therefore, I will oppose limiting debate on the conference report and final passage of the conference report in its current form. Given that the end of the session is fast approaching, we should pass a short-term extension of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions, as advanced by Senators Leahy, Sununu and others, to allow this conference report to be improved and ultimately strike the proper balance.

Mr. President, one of the most important issues facing mankind is the problem of human-induced climate change. The broad consensus within the scientific community is that global warming has begun, is largely the result of human activity, and is accelerating.

Global warming will result in more extreme weather, increased flooding and drought, disruption of agricultural and water systems, threats to human health and loss of sensitive species and ecosystems. We must take action now to minimize these effects, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and future generations.

Over the last 2 weeks, 189 countries met in Montreal to discuss the important issue of global climate change. These countries met in a spirit of cooperation and in hopes of agreeing on the next steps for reducing harmful emissions of greenhouse gases. These countries, including the United States, have all already agreed, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to take steps to ``prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' These past 2 weeks were a test of their resolve.

Unfortunately the United States, led by the Bush administration delegation, attempted to slow, stall, and block the progress of these talks. This is unconscionable, given that the United States is the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases. Fortunately the U.S. negotiators' efforts were not completely successful, and an agreement was reached to have additional talks commencing next year. Although that is a small step and not nearly enough, it is vastly preferable to the outcome this administration wanted, which amounts to no action at all.

In advance of the Montreal meetings, I joined with 23 other Senators in sending a letter to President Bush, reminding the administration of its legal obligation to participate in the Montreal talks. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, the administration disregarded this obligation.

A decision to block further discussions on missions reduction commitments cannot be viewed as consistent with the obligations of the United States under the treaty.

While the U.S. has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol despite the fact that 157 nations have become parties, actions to block those countries from moving forward with additional commitments under that Protocol is also inconsistent with the U.S. Framework Treaty obligations.

In our letter to the President, we noted that just this year the Senate, by a vote of 53-44, approved a resolution calling for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases within the United States. We wrote this letter and distributed it to interested parties at the negotiations to ensure that other countries

understand that not everyone in the United States agrees with the Bush plan for prolonged inaction.

To this end, members of my staff traveled to Montreal and met with representatives and negotiators from other countries. They also met with public interest groups, business groups, and others interested in taking positive action on climate change. They witnessed firsthand how the Bush administration worked very hard to dissuade other countries from agreeing to even discuss further commitments. This is not the position that our Nation should be taking. We should be leading the way on climate change, not burying our head in the sand.

From the outset, even before they left Washington, the administration's delegation insisted that any discussion of future commitments was ``a non-starter'' and that any discussion about future commitments prior to 2012, which marks the end of the first set of Kyoto commitments, was premature. They continued at the conference to make this point to all parties. And when the rest of the world decided to engage in actual negotiations about discussions of further commitments under both the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. stated bluntly that such discussions were unacceptable and pointedly walked away from the negotiating table.

The good news is that the rest of the world stayed at that table and talked throughout the night and into the next morning, reaching agreement on a set of decisions for further discussions. And when those decisions were brought into the light of day, and it became apparent that the United States would have to state its opposition publicly, before all 189 countries, the U.S. was forced to agree to return to the negotiating table and to allow talks to continue next year.

This means that 157 countries have agreed to discuss additional commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, even without the U.S. as a party, and that 189 countries, including the U.S., have agreed to look at the issue of further steps under the Framework Convention. Despite arguments to the contrary, cooperative international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions remain a reality, and slow, but significant, progress is taking place to strengthen those commitments.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support taking some form of action on climate change. A recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, sponsored by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, found that 86 percent of Americans think that President Bush should act to limit greenhouse gases in the U.S. if the G8 countries are willing to act to reduce such gases. All the G8 countries except the U.S. are signatories to the Kyoto treaty and therefore have already committed to such action.

In addition, the study found that 73 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. should participate in the Kyoto treaty. Finally, the study found that 83 percent of Americans favor ``legislation requiring large companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.'' Thus, in one way or another, more than 80 percent of Americans favor taking real action on climate change. The current administration is completely out of step with the American public on this issue.

States, regions and even localities are taking on climate change related commitments. Nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States are working together through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, to develop a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions from power plants. On June 1, 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order setting greenhouse gas emissions targets for the State. The order directs State officials to develop plans that would reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 emissions levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020. The U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted an agreement, sponsored by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that mirror the Kyoto Protocol limits. California has also adopted a greenhouse gas emission standard for automobiles, and a number of States, including Vermont, have followed suit and adopted the same standards. These actions confirm that there is widespread political desire and motivation to take action within the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I have sponsored legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from powerplants, which are a large source of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas. My bill, S. 150, the Clean Power Act, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010. This would be a very important first step by the United States towards combating global warming that would show the rest of the world that we are serious about doing our part. Congress needs to act to provide a mandate and undisputed authority to this and future administration negotiators.

I am both discouraged and heartened by the outcome of the talks in Montreal. Those of us who care about stopping climate change did everything we could to help aid these talks, and despite the Bush administration resistance, the international dialogue on climate change will continue.

But a dialogue is not nearly enough, and the consequences of additional delay are dire. The U.S. has been and remains the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It has a responsibility to its own people and to the people of the world to be a leader on this issue. Thus far, it has been anything but a leader and these talks highlighted that fact.

I look forward to the day when I can once again be proud of the United States role in these talks, when we can enter these negotiations having done our part. I believe that is what we agreed to in 1992, when the Senate ratified the climate treaty and it is high time we live up to our obligation.

Mr. President, the people of Vermont are proud of the important role that Senator Patrick Leahy is serving in trying to improve the USA PATRIOT Act.

My colleague from Vermont rightly believes that security and civil liberties need not be mutually exclusive objectives. We can and we should advance both goals. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy worked closely with Chairman Arlen Specter in helping to produce a bipartisan bill to renew and improve the USA PATRIOT Act. That bill was unanimously approved both by the Judiciary Committee and by the Senate. Now he is working with Senators of both parties in trying to win further improvements in the proposed conference report on that bill.

Just as he did in 2001, then as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the leader of the Senate's negotiations with the administration in crafting the initial USA PATRIOT Act, Senator Leahy now, once again, has worked tirelessly to ensure that we do not hastily pass flawed legislation. Back in the fall of 2001, the Bush administration had demanded that Congress pass the PATRIOT Act in 1 week. The Senator from Vermont knew that rushing such an expansive law through Congress was a mistake, and he secured more time, allowing Congress to add crucial checks and balances to the law. In the best tradition of the Senate, Senator Patrick Leahy has championed effective law enforcement and the rights and freedoms that we cherish as Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that two recent editorials which have spotlighted these issues and Senator Leahy's role be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Tire Derived Fuel Safety Act of 2005 to ensure that Americans living near pulp and paper mills that burn tires for energy are protected from the potential harmful effects of air pollutants such as fine particulates.

As the price of oil and natural gas continues to rise, U.S. manufacturing facilities are seeking alternative energy sources. Pulp and paper mills, in particular, are replacing these high cost energy sources with lower cost tire derived fuels or TDF due to its high- energy value.

The burning of tires results in the emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury, chromium and vanadium. These air pollutants can have serious health impacts on the people living downwind of facilities when effective emissions control technologies are not used.

Luckily, most U.S. pulp and paper mills that burn TDF have already installed electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters to control for fine particulate emissions. And, in fact, EPA's 1997 ``Air Emissions From Scrap Tire Combustion'' report states that it is not likely that a solid fuel combustor without add-on particulate controls--such as an ESP or fabric filter--could satisfy air emissions regulatory requirements in the United States.

Yet, that hasn't stopped International Paper from proposing to burn 72 tons a day of tires at its Ticonderoga, NY mill without the addition of commonly accepted emissions control technologies. Doing so jeopardizes the health of Vermonters and New Yorkers alike.

My bill requires EPA to issue performance standards for fine particulates for pulp and paper mills that switch to tire-derived fuels to ensure that all communities across United States are equally and fairly protected.

My bill also requires EPA to study and report to Congress on the health impacts of increased emissions, particularly fine particulates, from the use of TDF. It also requires EPA to work with Health and Human Services to document the rates of childhood diseases--particularly respiratory diseases--of children that live or attend school within a 20-mile radius of a pulp and paper mill burning TDF.

I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to ensure that all Americans are equally protected from the harmful effects of the burning of tire-derived fuel without adequate air pollution controls. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Tire Derived Fuel Safety Act of 2005 to ensure that Americans living near pulp and paper mills that burn tires for energy are protected from the potential harmful effects of air pollutants such as fine particulates.

As the price of oil and natural gas continues to rise, U.S. manufacturing facilities are seeking alternative energy sources. Pulp and paper mills, in particular, are replacing these high cost energy sources with lower cost tire derived fuels or TDF due to its high- energy value.

The burning of tires results in the emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury, chromium and vanadium. These air pollutants can have serious health impacts on the people living downwind of facilities when effective emissions control technologies are not used.

Luckily, most U.S. pulp and paper mills that burn TDF have already installed electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters to control for fine particulate emissions. And, in fact, EPA's 1997 ``Air Emissions From Scrap Tire Combustion'' report states that it is not likely that a solid fuel combustor without add-on particulate controls--such as an ESP or fabric filter--could satisfy air emissions regulatory requirements in the United States.

Yet, that hasn't stopped International Paper from proposing to burn 72 tons a day of tires at its Ticonderoga, NY mill without the addition of commonly accepted emissions control technologies. Doing so jeopardizes the health of Vermonters and New Yorkers alike.

My bill requires EPA to issue performance standards for fine particulates for pulp and paper mills that switch to tire-derived fuels to ensure that all communities across United States are equally and fairly protected.

My bill also requires EPA to study and report to Congress on the health impacts of increased emissions, particularly fine particulates, from the use of TDF. It also requires EPA to work with Health and Human Services to document the rates of childhood diseases--particularly respiratory diseases--of children that live or attend school within a 20-mile radius of a pulp and paper mill burning TDF.

I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to ensure that all Americans are equally protected from the harmful effects of the burning of tire-derived fuel without adequate air pollution controls. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.