Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a disease that has touched many American families. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American women. More women are living with breast cancer than any other cancer.

Three million women are living with breast cancer in the United States, 2 million of which have been diagnosed and 1 million who don't know they have the disease. Over 40,000 women will have died from breast cancer this year alone. It is the leading cause of cancer deaths among women between the ages of 20 and 59.

What is the Senate doing about breast cancer? Some of you may know that I have a bill, S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. This bill was first introduced on March 23, 2000, in the 106th Congress. Since that time, the bill has been introduced in the 107th Congress, where it had 44 bipartisan cosponsors and was on the verge of being included in the Women's Health Act of 2002 when negotiations broke down. In the 108th Congress, the bill again had tremendous bipartisan support, with 60 cosponsors. But again we did not act on the bill, which brings me to the current situation in the 109th Congress.

The bill now has 66 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate and 255 cosponsors in the House. Thanks to the support and leadership of Chairman Michael Enzi of the HELP Committee, this bill was reported unanimously by the committee on July 24, 2006. The bill was hotlined for floor consideration before the August recess, but it has not received Senate passage.

We as a Senate are denying millions of American women diagnosed with breast cancer the answers that might lead to a better understanding and perhaps a cure to this disease.

How can a bill with 66 cosponsors that was reported unanimously by the HELP Committee not be taken up and approved by the Senate?

This bill provides a targeted strategy and a long-term research investment needed to explore the links between the environment and breast cancer. Millions of women who are afflicted with breast cancer deserve the answers this legislation could yield.

I urge my colleagues to work with me to remove any obstacles and secure passage of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commend the Finance Committee and Senators Hatch and Rockefeller for holding a hearing on the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. This program has meant a decade of health care coverage for millions of low-income children who would otherwise be uninsured.

My interest and commitment to the success of the SCHIP program goes back to its inception. My father, the late Senator John H. Chafee, along with Senator Rockefeller, designed and introduced S. 674, the Children's Health Insurance Provides Security, CHIPS, Act on April 30, 1997. With help from a bipartisan coalition of Members, including Senators Hatch and Kennedy, this effort came to fruition later that year when Congress approved the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.

When SCHIP was introduced there were 10 million uninsured children in the United States including 3 million who were eligible for Medicaid but were not enrolled. The SCHIP program sought to alleviate this unmet need by offering States additional Federal funds if they provided Medicaid coverage to children from families whose income was under 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. This would mean coverage for a family of four earning $30,000 per year. The bill also provided grant funds for States to reach out and enroll eligible children.

Although some States were slow to implement their programs, to date all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories have SCHIP programs in operation. The SCHIP program has been a tremendous success; the share of uninsured children has dropped from 23 percent to 15 percent of the population since 1997. Today, more than 4 million low-income children who would otherwise be uninsured have access to doctors, immunizations, and preventative health care through SCHIP. Since 1997, enrollment has steadily increased to the point that 6.2 million children are currently covered.

Rhode Island's program has also been a success story. Since the program began on October 1, 1997, that State has enrolled 25,573 uninsured children. The State has also expanded its income eligibility requirement to cover additional low-income families. One reason for this great success is the SCHIP program's flexibility in benefit structure

and design. States are allowed to expand eligibility levels, cover parents of children on SCHIP, and in some cases childless adults. Rhode Island has utilized this flexibility to develop innovative strategies to address its uninsured.

One example of this innovation was Rhode Island's recognition of the importance of covering families. Studies cited by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured show that parents are more likely to enroll their children in SCHIP if the entire family is covered. Parents who have the proper health care coverage are more likely to stay healthy and avoid missed days at work. The same is true of their children; preventative screenings and immunizations will allow them to remain healthy, avoid expensive hospitalizations, and stay in school.

States may appeal to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for waivers to expand their program beyond current law requirements. Along with 15 other States, Rhode Island has a waiver that allows it to use SCHIP funds to cope with the growing number of uninsured. States such as Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Virginia have similar waivers.

We have a growing crisis with the number of uninsured in this country. Estimates place the number of uninsured at 45 million, up from 41 million a few years ago. We should reward States that use innovative approaches with their SCHIP programs to expand coverage. Until comprehensive solutions are found to help States fill the coverage gaps, we should not penalize them for taking advantage of existing resources and programs.

To this end, I have been proud to support legislation that maintained funding for the SCHIP program and reallocated funding to coverage- expanding States. In 2003 I was the lead Republican on legislation introduced by Senator Rockefeller to keep $2.7 billion in the program until the end of fiscal year 2004 and reallocate funds to other States through fiscal year 2005. This bill also included a provision I fought for that is important to States like Rhode Island. It allows States with expansive Medicaid Programs that covered uninsured children prior to SCHIP's enactment to use 20 percent of SCHIP funds to cover these children. This is significant since SCHIP provides a higher Federal match than Medicaid. States that did the right thing by covering pre- SCHIP children were being penalized by not receiving the higher match.

In closing, I thank Senators Rockefeller and Hatch for holding a hearing on SCHIP and honoring its tremendous accomplishments over the past 10 years. The SCHIP program has been an integral part of our health care safety net. As we turn to reauthorization and the challenges facing the program in fiscal year 2007, I look forward to working with the bipartisan coalition whose vision created the program. We must work together to keep SCHIP strong so that the progress and the innovations made with the program will not be lost.

Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to Terrence J. Leary, who has served as president and CEO of the Harmony Hill School in Glocester, RI, for the last 29 years. In all, he has worked at Harmony Hill for 40 years having begun his career as a teacher and then serving as education director under the school's founders, Edward and Laura Spring.

Terry has built upon the legacy of the Springs and led Harmony Hill to national status with a program providing an environment in which at- risk youth can prosper. In January 2000, Terry received the National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children's Executive of the Year Award for his outstanding contributions to private special education.

Terry Leary has served on many civic and charitable boards, including the Rhode Island Council for Exceptional Children, Big Brothers of Rhode Island, and the Lions Club of Smithfield, RI.

Terry's wife, Linda Leary, is a special education teacher in Lincoln, RI, and they have a daughter, Kara, a student at Gallaher Middle School in Smithfield.

Mr. President, Terry Leary's compassionate leadership at the Harmony Hill School is an inspiration for all who work in the field of education, and I ask unanimous consent that his achievement be recognized at an appropriate place in the Record.

Madam President, I take this opportunity to recognize Anne Webster Smith, a world-renowned preservationist, who died in Washington, DC on April 20, 2006.

Like Rhode Island's grand dame of historic preservation, Antionette Downing, Anne Webster Smith exhibited a tireless and infectious dedication to the preservation of our cultural heritage. Just last year, Ms. Smith was awarded the Piero Gazzola Prize, given once every 3 years by the International Council on Monuments and Sites, for her lifelong efforts to protect the world's historic and cultural sites. This tribute, seconded by scores of ICOMOS leaders from throughout the world, is a statement that leadership is as much about cultivation, persistence and persuasion as it is bold initiative.

In addition to her 30 years of service to ICOMOS, Ms. Smith served as New York's Deputy Commissioner for Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and as a professional staff member at the USDOT and Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. She was most active in those critical years when she and her colleagues created the modern institutional foundation for preservation in the U.S.

In her service to ICOMOS, Ms. Smith was dedicated to recognizing the world's greatest cultural and natural sites through the United Nations World Heritage Program. At the same time, as an American she had greater ambitions for her own country. In a letter she sent me just last January, she lamented: ``I have long been concerned by the fact that the United States, the first nation to ratify the Convention after its passage in 1972, has been so slow to recognize the importance of implementing the Convention. In my view the Convention has the potential for increasing community pride, for expanding educational awareness and interest in our Nation's heritage and history, for developing concern about the importance of distinguished architecture and planning, especially in urban areas, and for serving as an important tool for the expansion of development

of cultural tourism.'' Increasing numbers of Americans agree with Ms. Smith's vision.

Clearly, Ann Webster Smith was respected and loved by the entire cultural heritage and preservation community for a lifetime of leadership and friendship. Her work will live on because she inspired so many throughout the U.S. and the world to work as hard as they can to recognize, celebrate and protect our cultural heritage.

Mr. President, today I voted in favor of invoking cloture on S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act. I have concerns about various aspects of the legislation including the specific levels of the proposed damage caps. However, I do believe that reform of the medical malpractice system should be considered by the Senate to discourage frivolous lawsuits and to ensure that individuals are able to access affordable health care. For these reasons, I voted to invoke cloture on both of these bills in an effort to move this important debate forward.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be recognized at 3:15 p.m.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to pay special tribute to Dr. Robert E. Baute of Warwick, RI.

Since 1970, Dr. Baute has tended to the needs of Rhode Islanders in various capacities, specializing in internal medicine and pulmonary diseases. For the past 10 years, he has served with distinction as the President and CEO of Kent County Memorial Hospital in Warwick, RI. On March 30, 2006, Dr. Baute will retire after 36 years as a member of the Kent medical staff, and nearly 20 years as an administrator.

A graduate of Yale University in 1959, Dr. Baute went on to serve with distinction in the U.S. Navy and received his degree from the Hahnemann University School of Medicine in 1966. Following in the footsteps of his father, he engaged in a private medical practice for 18 years, and simultaneously emerged as a leader in the administration at Kent County Hospital. Throughout his distinguished administrative career, Dr Baute served as chief of internal medicine, vice president and medical director, and as a member of the board of trustees. In 1995, he was named as president and chief executive officer.

In all of these capacities, Dr. Baute fought tirelessly to further the scope and quality of care provided by Kent Hospital, and successfully brought new services and modern treatments to the community, while holding himself and his staff to the highest standards of quality, safety, and patient satisfaction. His support for the creation of the Care New England Health Care System was instrumental in its success, and his lifelong pursuit of quality, affordable, and accessible health care services has been nothing short of remarkable.

I join with all Rhode Islanders in expressing gratitude for Dr. Baute's efforts to advance the scope and quality of medical treatment in our State, and I congratulate him for the many achievements in his outstanding career.

Mr. President, I call up amendment 3014 which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senators Hagel, Collins, Kohl, Coleman, and Roberts be added as cosponsors if they are not already so listed.

I rise today to offer an amendment that moves us closer to honoring the promises we made when we enacted the Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. IDEA has its genesis in the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. As we all know, this decision declared separate but equal is inherently unconstitutional. Prior to 1975, it was estimated that 2 million young people either were not receiving any public educational services or the services they were receiving were inadequate.

Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, parents of disabled children sought redress through the courts. In 1972, the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in PARC v. Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in Mills v. Washington, DC Board of Education applied the principle in Brown to the education of disabled children. As a result, States felt compelled to provide educational services to individuals with disabilities and sought the Federal Government's help in providing those services.

On November 18, 1975, the House of Representatives passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act by a vote of 404 to 7. The Senate followed the next day by passing the bill by a vote of 87 to 7. They were overwhelming majorities, as they should have been.

As it was enacted, IDEA mandated that States provide public education to all children, and it also must provide a free appropriate public education to special needs students. In return, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the per-pupil expenditures for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, we have failed to fulfill our promise to this program. We have made great strides since 1995 when we were contributing just 7.3 percent of the cost. I would like to say a little bit about who pays these costs. There is a lot of talk in this Chamber about income taxes and marginal rates and dividend taxes and capital gains taxes. There is not enough talk in this Chamber about property taxes and that

these special education costs are borne by the property tax payer. Now, the income tax--obviously you pay more the more you make no matter what the percentage. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay. If a streak of bad luck hits and you unfortunately lose your job, you pay less income tax. The same thing with a sales tax. You don't have to buy the deluxe model, whatever it might be. You can buy the economy model and pay less sales tax. If you want to buy a Cadillac, you pay more sales tax. If you buy a Chevrolet, you pay less sales tax. That is your choice. But with property taxes, they are always there. You lose your job, that property tax is always there. And for many people, even if they have paid for that house, their castle, whatever it might be, their 2-bedroom castle, 10-bedroom castle, those property taxes are still there. And if an area gets gentrified or increases in value, sometimes those property taxes can soar. So for people on fixed incomes in particular, this is a very difficult tax, especially compared to income and sales taxes. And this IDEA is borne by the property tax payer.

In fiscal year 2005, we were providing 18.5 percent--far from the goal of 40 percent for IDEA--and last year, we actually regressed. We went down to only 17.8 percent of our promised 40 percent for IDEA-- contributing only 40 percent. We are not to 40 percent of these special education costs which are borne by the property tax payer. Essentially what these percentages mean is this: For fiscal year 2006, we provided $10.5 billion for part B grants to States, and our Federal share last year should have been $23.8 billion--far, far away from our goal. In fiscal year 2007, the President has proposed a $100 million increase. Our estimated full funding cost is $25.1 billion. Under this proposal, we fall further behind, and my amendment would increase funding by $2 billion and have the Federal Government pay at least half of what was promised or 20 percent. We are only going half of what was promised back in 1975.

Mr. President, our budget decisions have real-life consequences for our constituents. The burden of the Federal Government's failure to live up to its promises as I said is borne by these property tax payers. Full funding of IDEA is not a choice for State and local schools; it is a mandate. Schools are the largest cost to property tax payers; sometimes as much as 80 percent of the municipal cost is borne by its tax payers. It is usually above 50 percent. For any municipality all across the country, the most rapidly increasing school costs are in special education.

Listen to this. In North Providence, while general school spending has gone up $11 million or 19 percent over the last 5 years, special education has gone up $7.5 million or 74.9 percent in 5 years. And this is typical. That is just one town in Rhode Island, North Providence, RI. General school spending has gone up 19 percent over 5 years, special education has gone up 74 percent. And that is typical.

The Federal Government has an obligation, as we set forth in 1975, to help with these rising costs. That property tax is a tough tax to pay, as we all know. The IDEA burden on school districts is increasing because the costs are rising the more we learn about children's disabilities. We are getting better at diagnosing, but that is why these costs are increasing so much.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his continued leadership on this issue. I also thank Senators Collins, Kohl, Coleman, and Roberts for their support.

Yes.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the State of New Hampshire doesn't have an income tax or State sales tax. All of its revenue is generated by a property tax. Am I correct?

Does the Senator hear from his school committees and local councilmen about the rising costs of special education and the difficulty that places on the property tax payer?

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am a proud original cosponsor of Senator Burns's amendment to the budget resolution that increases VA funding by $823 million. Properly caring for our veterans is our Nation's duty. We asked these men and women to risk their lives in service of our country, and medical care is the least our country can give in return.

The President's budget request for VA medical services assumes an added $795 million in revenues; but it does this by more than doubling copays and instituting a $250 enrollment fee for certain categories of veterans. The cost of $795 million then is shifted from the Government to veterans themselves.

Not only would many veterans have to pay higher fees under the President's proposals, but those who could not afford the fees would have no choice but to abandon VA healthcare altogether.

Especially in a time of war, a policy that leads to increased denial of service to veterans is simply unacceptable. Battlefield medicine has made huge strides in the last few decades. The result has been a much higher percentage of wounded soldiers living through their initial injuries, able to return home to their families. These wonderful advances in medicine deserve and receive our praise, but they mean that the VA will be caring for more and more injured soldiers as they return home. And many of these injuries, such as burns, amputations, and blindness, are of the type that will require care for a lifetime. The United States owes these injured soldiers this care, and thus the funds to provide it should not come from other veterans.

Senator Burns' amendment will address these problems by adding $795 million to the VA budget in order to eliminate the higher copays and enrollment fees. Furthermore, it adds another $28 million to compensate for cuts in VA medical R&D.

I will proudly cast my vote for this veterans healthcare funding measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I call this amendment the Property Tax Relief Amendment of 2006. This amendment moves funding of IDEA to 20 percent of the cost of a municipality, only 20 percent of the promised 40-percent goal set in 1975.

Schools account for the majority of property taxes and special education costs are rising much faster than inflation. If we fund this to 20 percent, it will go right down to the property tax payer. We all know the property tax is one of the most difficult taxes of all we pay.

I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Warner and Senator Santorum as cosponsors of the amendment.

I also add that of all the talk about tax relief in this Chamber, we do not get enough talk about property tax relief.

I urge your support for this amendment.

I thank the Chair. I share Senator Kennedy's thoughts of prayer and peace for Senator Inouye. My thoughts are with the Inouye family.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Frist, McCain, and others as a cosponsor of legislation to establish a Presidential line item veto. This is a fiscally prudent measure which could reduce wasteful spending and bring down our Nation's deficit.

The proposal would give the President the authority to strike wasteful spending measures from legislation, to ensure that the American taxpayer is not footing the bill for projects that are not national priorities. I applaud President Bush for putting forth this initiative, which would be significant progress in the fight to reduce nonessential spending.

Throughout our country's history, the line item veto has enjoyed a long line of bipartisan support, with Presidents such as Ulysses Grant, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton calling for the authority. Additionally, the power has been given to Governors in 43 of the 50 States.

I am pleased that the proposed legislation would require the President to send recision proposals back to Congress for final passage. Not only does this make the legislation consistent with the Constitution, it also limits the scope of any President's veto authority, as proposed changes will need congressional approval.

I am heartened to see this call for fiscal responsibility from President Bush. I have joined as a cosponsor of this legislation because it will be impossible for us to reduce our national debt and balance the Federal budget unless we curb wasteful spending. I have been an advocate for the pay-as-you-go budget rule, which would require Congress to pay for any new spending or tax cuts, and will continue to press for its adoption.

Since chronic deficits add to the burden of debt we are bequeathing to future generations, congressional spending must be reigned in, and I am pleased to support this proposal which is one tool that can improve spending discipline in Washington.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Frist, McCain, and others as a cosponsor of legislation to establish a Presidential line item veto. This is a fiscally prudent measure which could reduce wasteful spending and bring down our Nation's deficit.

The proposal would give the President the authority to strike wasteful spending measures from legislation, to ensure that the American taxpayer is not footing the bill for projects that are not national priorities. I applaud President Bush for putting forth this initiative, which would be significant progress in the fight to reduce nonessential spending.

Throughout our country's history, the line item veto has enjoyed a long line of bipartisan support, with Presidents such as Ulysses Grant, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton calling for the authority. Additionally, the power has been given to Governors in 43 of the 50 States.

I am pleased that the proposed legislation would require the President to send recision proposals back to Congress for final passage. Not only does this make the legislation consistent with the Constitution, it also limits the scope of any President's veto authority, as proposed changes will need congressional approval.

I am heartened to see this call for fiscal responsibility from President Bush. I have joined as a cosponsor of this legislation because it will be impossible for us to reduce our national debt and balance the Federal budget unless we curb wasteful spending. I have been an advocate for the pay-as-you-go budget rule, which would require Congress to pay for any new spending or tax cuts, and will continue to press for its adoption.

Since chronic deficits add to the burden of debt we are bequeathing to future generations, congressional spending must be reigned in, and I am pleased to support this proposal which is one tool that can improve spending discipline in Washington.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Peace Corps on its 45th anniversary.

This week has been designated as National Peace Corps Week, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to salute the men and women of our Nation who have contributed their time and energy to serve as Peace Corps volunteers. Thanks to the selflessness of these Americans, the Peace Corps has reached a 30-year high in membership, serving in 75 countries across the globe.

The mission of the Peace Corps today has changed dramatically since it was established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Today, volunteers are providing assistance to developing nations around the world, working to find ways to address huge global challenges such as the need for HIV/AIDS prevention, and are embarking on other missions to further our diplomatic goals across the globe.

I also applaud the domestic efforts of the Crisis Corps Volunteers, in their assistance with relief in regions damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Members of

this special unit of Peace Corp volunteers were also deployed to Sri Lanka and Thailand to assist with rebuilding tsunami-devastated areas.

Today, I am proud to honor 27 Rhode Islanders currently serving in the Peace Corps. I wish them the very best in all their endeavors and I thank them for their service to our country in this important time in history. Their names are as follows:

Catherine M. Alexander, Courtney E. Briar, Anthony J.

Cabral, Mayerlin Caridad Mejia, Rebecca L. Champlin, Caroline

C. Cutting, Jennifer S. Doo, Shayne E. Doyle, Catherine

Farrell, Amanda H. Fogle-Donmoyer, Heron E. Greenesmith,

Geoffrey L. Jones, Jesse B. Joseph, Anna D. Karolyshyn, Maria

K. Kasparian, Christopher A. Kelley, Caroline N. Klein, Marie

A. Kobayashi, Mark A. Lange, Andrew J. Moulton, Leana A.

Nordstrom, David M. Reynolds, Ralph W. Riccio, Christi M.

Turner, Evan R. Usler, Deborah L. Vittner, and Erica K.

Zaiser.

Mr. President, President Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Justice O'Connor has had a remarkable career of public service. Her strong and moderate voice on the Supreme Court will be missed. I was lucky to get to socialize with her and her husband through mutual acquaintances and recommend her book about growing up on a ranch in arid Arizona--The Lazy B. She is an exceptional person.

As is the custom, Judge Alito sought a meeting with any Senator so interested. For our meeting, I suggested the Capitol steps and he agreed since it was a warm sunny day. I thought it was appropriate to be visually connected to two of the three branches of government as we talked about constitutional issues. If confirmed, the decisions he will make on the Supreme Court will affect the lives of Americans profoundly.

Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story. However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues. In particular, I carefully examined his record on executive power, women's reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause of article 1, section VIII of the Constitution.

On executive power, it is likely that cases dealing with the fourth amendment will be heard by the Supreme Court. The fourth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To me this language is very clear that a warrant is required for a search. That premise is now being questioned regarding warrantless wiretaps.

At the Judiciary Committee hearings, Judge Alito was asked a question on executive powers and warrantless wiretapping. He said he would have to determine ``whether the President's power, inherent powers, the powers given to the President under article 2 are sufficient, even taking away congressional authorization, the area where the President is asserting a power to do something in the face of explicit congressional determination to the contrary''.

The only power in article 2 that Judge Alito could be referring to would be:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and

Navy of the United States. . . .

Judge Alito was also asked ``. . . is it possible under your construct that an inherent Constitutional power of the President could, under some analysis or some case, override what people believe to be a Constitutional criminal statue?'' Judge Alito responded that this was possible, noting a ``possibility that that might be justified''.

How far do we want Commander in Chief stretched? As Justice O'Connor wrote in a recent case, ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens''.

On the issue of Roe v. Wade as with other issues, I am less interested in what Judge Alito wrote or said as a lawyer for his client the Reagan Administration, than how he has ruled as a judge and how he testified at his nomination hearing. As an appellate court judge, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court case reviewing the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.

The Supreme Court wrote on this landmark affirmation of Roe v. Wade:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal

choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to

personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of

liberty is the right to define one's own concept of

existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of

human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the

attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of

the state.

The five majority Justices, who wrote that, were all Republican appointees: two Reagan appointees, one each of Bush ``41'', Ford and Nixon.

An important standard of law is the concept of stare decisis--it stands decided. At the hearing Chairman Specter asked Judge Alito to discuss his view of stare decisis. He responded:

It's not an inexorable command, but it is a general

presumption that courts are going to follow prior

precedents''. In the Supreme Court dissent on Casey, the

justices who arguably wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade wrote

``stare decisis is not . . . a universal inexorable command.

Not only did Judge Alito rule in favor of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as a lower court judge, he used the same language as the high court dissenters at his Supreme Court nomination hearing. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.

Additionally, at his nomination hearing Judge Roberts was willing to call Roe v. Wade ``settled law'' but Judge Alito refused to make a similar statement.

The last point I would like to make concerning constitutional law is on the commerce clause. As you know the Constitution creates a Government of limited power--Congress can only enact legislation in areas that are specifically set out under the Constitution. Congress is expressly prohibited from enacting legislation in other areas, leaving this authority to the States per the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively,

or to the people.

Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution gave Congress broad power to regulate immigration, national security and economic activity between the states, and left most other power with the States.

However, section VIII of article 1 states that ``the Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states''. This is the commerce clause and it is the most powerful provision in the Constitution providing Congress the authority to enact legislation in a host of areas--including environmental protection. A key Supreme Court case regarding the commerce clause was in 1942 when the Supreme Court upheld legislation that allowed USDA to set quotas on local wheat growing. The Court noted that while crops regulated may never actually enter into interstate commerce, such local activity, coupled with similar activity in other States as an aggregate has a direct impact on interstate commerce. Since then using the ``aggregate effects test'' or ``substantial effects test'' Congress has passed broad ranging environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which were signed into law by Republican President Nixon.

While I agree there should be constitutional limits on legislative power, Judge Alito seems to have agreed with Justice Thomas who wrote:

I believe we must further reconsider our substantial

effects test with an eye toward constructing a stand that

reflects the text and history of the Commerce Clause.

Indeed in a dissent to a gun case heard before his court Judge Alito wrote:

In sum, we are left with no appreciable empirical support

for the proposition that the purely intrastate possessions of

machine guns, by facilitating the commission of certain

crimes, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and

without such support I do not see how the statutory provision

at issue here can be sustained.

What is noteworthy in this dissent is that Judge Alito was alone with all members of his appeals court ruling the other way.

If ``the aggregate or substantial effects tests'' are overruled as Justice

Thomas has advocated, federal environmental laws could be ruled unconstitutional. Indeed on February 21, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments on two cases, Carabell v. United States and United States v. Rapanos.

In both cases the lower court upheld protection of wetlands, which are currently protected under the Clean Water Act. Environmentalists argue that these wetlands are critical to the health of our nation's water supply and wildlife habitat.

Industry groups argue that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate ``isolated wetlands'' that have no connection with ``navigable waters.'' This would be a major setback to the Clean Water Act.

The critical issue is whether under the commerce clause, Congress has the authority to regulate non-navigable bodies of water within a single State. Based on the writing of Judge Alito, he would appear to side with the faction what would greatly limit the ability of Congress to protect such ``intrastate'' issues.

These constitutional issues, the scope of executive power, women's reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause are likely to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming months. I care deeply about these issues.

Believe me, having been an executive in government, I want to support President Bush's choice to the Supreme Court. The President did win the election. He has made his promises and I have made mine.

I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican and I will be voting against this nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of MG John W. Kiely. Major General Kiely was a man of exemplary service to our State and country. A veteran of three wars, he ascended to the rank of colonel, Regular Army as well as serving as brigadier general, National Guard of Rhode Island, adjutant general of Rhode Island, and also was promoted to the grade of major general and commanding general. General Kiely was a model soldier, receiving a Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars, Valor, and 3 Legions of Merit, along with 22 other Federal Government awards and decorations, as well as the Rhode Island Cross and the Rhode Island Star. His military knowledge and service to our Nation will be dearly missed, and my deepest condolences go to Mrs. Marilyn L. Kiely and the Kiely family in their time of mourning.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that today I reflect upon the life of Joseph O'Donnell. Mr. O'Donnell dedicated his life to his family and to public service. He served alongside my father as Lieutenant Governor in the 1960s, and is, in fact, the last Republican elected to the position. He remained active in politics until his passing. In addition to his tenure as Lieutenant Governor, Joe O'Donnell has served his community and the State of Rhode Island for over 55 years, including as State Director of Administration, as Chairman of the North Smithfield Water Authority, and in a number of other capacities. In addition, Mr. O'Donnell served the business community as a founding partner and chairman of the board of Keough Kirby Associates, Inc., as a trustee of Landmark Health Systems, and in other board positions for numerous business and civic organizations. As a panelist on the `Coffee-An' radio program in his later years, Joe O'Donnell contributed his knowledge of politics, his great sense of humor, and his penchant for gourmet cooking to a larger audience. His name is on the Wall of Honor at the Marine Maritime Academy for outstanding lifetime achievement, and he was a recipient of the Admiral Joel R.P. Pringle Society Award from the Naval War College Foundation in Newport. It is with heavy hearts that Stephanie and I send our deepest sympathies to Mrs. Yolande O'Donnell and their six children. Of all his accomplishments, I know he is most proud of the closeness of his family.