Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution with Senator Stabenow to commemorate the National Audubon Society's Centennial Anniversary. Senators Snowe, Boxer, Carper, Nelson (FL), Martinez, Jeffords, Kerry, Feingold, Durbin, Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Collins, Cantwell, Lieberman, DeWine, Crapo, Bond, Landrieu and Vitter have joined us as original cosponsors.

The National Audubon Society was first incorporated in 1905 by a dedicated group of conservationists with the goal of protecting birds such as the Great Egret from the plumage trade. Feathered hats were at the height of fashion in those days, and plume-traders would hunt egrets and other birds as part of a highly profitable business. By raising the awareness of the problem, the men and women who founded the National Audubon Society saved egrets and many other bird species from extinction.

Since that time, Audubon has worked to preserve and protect species and the habitat upon which they depend throughout the United States. The organization has been instrumental in setting aside natural areas as wildlife sanctuaries, and supporting major habitat restoration efforts including ongoing conservation work in the Florida Everglades, San Francisco Bay, and along the Mississippi River. As the U.S. partner in BirdLife International's Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program, Audubon has fostered the stewardship and protection of essential wildlife habitat from coast to coast. Through a science-based process of site identification, monitoring, education and outreach, Audubon's IBA program has laid the groundwork for community-based conservation with over 1,600 sites recognized as ecologically important for bird species. In recent months, Audubon has worked with partners to raise awareness of the plight of the Red Knot, a long-distance migratory bird species in steep decline as the result of the over-harvesting of its food source, habitat destruction and invasive species concerns.

The Senate Resolution we are submitting today recognizes the National Audubon Society's dedication and commitment to protecting wildlife and the Nation's ecological heritage. We commemorate the National Audubon Society on it's 100th anniversary, and wish the organization many more years of success.

Mr. President, this month we observe National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and reflect on a disease that has touched countless American lives. There are more than 3 million women living with breast cancer in the United States and tens of thousands of women die from breast cancer each year. Breast cancer is now the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. While important advances have been made, the causes of this disease and the means to prevent it are still unknown.

Scientific evidence about what aspects of the environment play a role in the initiation and development of breast cancer also remains scarce. Although it is generally believed that there is a correlation between environmental factors and the prevalence of breast cancer, the extent of the environment's role is not well understood. Given the clear need to explore the potential relationship between the environment and breast cancer, I have introduced S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. This bill would authorize $30 million per year for 5 years for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants to study the relationship between environmental factors and breast cancer. Under a competitive, peer- reviewed grant making process, the Director of NIEHS would award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting multidisciplinary research. The bill would seek to foster community collaboration between the research centers, patients, and the patient advocacy organizations.

The targeted research proposed in S. 757 holds the promise for a better understanding of the causes of breast cancer, breakthroughs in prevention and treatment, and ultimately a cure. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. 757 so that we may work together toward Senate passage this year.

Mr. President, after careful consideration, I will support the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

When he was nominated by President Bush in July, it was clear that Judge Roberts had the necessary professional qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. He graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, in 1976, and received his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1979 from the Harvard Law School where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Mr. Roberts clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist.

John Roberts has served his country twice, working for the President. First, he served as Special Assistant to United States Attorney General William French Smith. He returned to government service in the first Bush administration, serving as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.

As a lawyer, Roberts has presented 39 oral arguments before the Supreme Court covering the full range of the Court's jurisdiction, including admiralty, antitrust, arbitration, environmental law, first amendment, health care law, Indian law, bankruptcy, tax, regulation of financial institutions, administrative law, labor law, federal jurisdiction and procedure, interstate commerce, civil rights, and criminal law.

During the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators extensively probed the judicial philosophy of Judge Roberts. I think our colleagues Senator Specter and Senator Leahy did an excellent job and conducted a fair and thorough hearing.

We do not know how Judge Roberts will rule in many cases. What we do know is that he was nominated by a President who, in the glare of the lights of a campaign, clearly indicated the type of Supreme Court nominee that he would favor. We also know that Judge Roberts is an extraordinarily accomplished man with the right temperament.

I have long noted that I believe we must retain an appropriate balance on the Supreme Court. I was pleased that during the hearings, Judge Roberts unequivocally acknowledged that the Constitution contains a right to privacy. He further testified that the right to privacy is not a narrow right. He explained his belief that the right to privacy was sufficiently broad to allow the courts to apply it to changing circumstances. It was important to hear Judge Roberts state that as a Supreme Court justice, he would strive to follow precedent in order to ensure stability in the law.

I wish Judge Roberts well as he takes his seat as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. President, Congress must make an immediate, thorough review of the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

As a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I am committed to working with Chairwoman Susan Collins and Ranking Member Joe Lieberman to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a bipartisan fashion.

We have already begun this investigation. On Wednesday, September 14, our committee held its first hearing on the effects of Hurricane Katrina and heard from former California Gov. Pete Wilson, former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial, and former Grand Forks, ND, Mayor Patricia Owens. Each of these respected public officials have led their citizens through past natural disasters and shared their experiences with us in the hearings.

In the coming weeks, we will call in leaders from the administration and other relevant parties to determine what was done right and what was done wrong in responding to Hurricane Katrina. We intend to make whatever changes in structure, funding and personnel that are necessary to ensure that we are prepared to handle disasters--either natural or manmade--in the future.

During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, Senator Hillary Clinton offered an amendment to create a new committee to investigate Hurricane Katrina. I did not support this amendment for two reasons. First, it violated Senate rules by adding legislation to an appropriations bill. I have strongly opposed such legislative ``riders'' in the past since many of the ``riders'' have been used to undermine environmental laws. I believe that legislation should move through the appropriate authorization committees for consideration.

Second, I believe that our Homeland Security Committee is doing the necessary work to conduct a full investigation. The work has already begun. A new committee could take months to be organized and set up. The American people should not have to wait to have accountability.

Amendment No. 1670

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to register my opposition to the Kyl amendment No. 1050 to H.R. 2361, the Senate Interior Appropriations bill.

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program is essential for protecting public health, watersheds, and the natural environment by providing critical federal seed money for the maintenance and improvement of water infrastructure. Despite important progress in protecting and enhancing water quality since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, serious water pollution problems persist throughout the Nation.

The need for continued Federal investment in the Nation's water infrastructure is undeniable. The Environmental Protection Agency's September 30, 2002 Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. In November 2002, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the annual investment in clean water infrastructure needs to be at least $13 billion for capital construction and $20.3 billion for operation and maintenance.

The Kyl amendment would restructure the current formula for distributing federal funding to the states under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SRF, Program. As chairman of

the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, with authorizing jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and the SRF Program, I thank Senator Kyl for his interest in the clean water formula.

However, I believe the Interior appropriations bill is the wrong forum for discussion of any statutory changes to the Clean Water SRF formula. Members of the subcommittee and the Environment and Public Works Committee are working closely to craft water infrastructure legislation that would authorize new funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, as well as address the antiquated Clean Water SRF formula.

Senator Kyl is correct, the Clean Water SRF formula is in need of revision. Arizona is one of many States that have seen their needs grow since the last time the formula was updated in 1987. The Environment and Public Works Committee is working on the necessary changes to the SRF, and hope to move water infrastructure legislation by the end of the summer.

I encourage my fellow colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment and support the ongoing process of updating the Clean Water formula by the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr President, I recently spoke on the floor about the Ninth Annual World Congress on Civic Education in Amman, Jordan sponsored by the Center for Civic Education. The purpose of that conference was to share information about successful education programs under the Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange Program, an authorized program of the No Child Left Behind Act and one which is helping to strengthen democratization efforts throughout the world.

A recent news editorial in The Jordan Times supporting the goals of the conference and the outstanding work the Center for Civic Education and their international colleagues are doing in this strategic part of the world was welcome support. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from The Jordan Times on Sunday, June 5, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Mary Barden, as she is recognized for her scholastic achievements on National History Day.

Mary, a student at Coventry High School in Coventry, RI, was one of 17 students chosen out of a half million across America, to display and present her history project at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Mary's project is titled ``Cesar Chavez: Understanding the Chicano Farmworkers Need for Justice.'' The National History Day program allows students to create exhibits, documentaries, and performances, by using their critical thinking and research skills in the subject of history.

I strongly support the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy, and this national observance promotes history education in Rhode Island and throughout the Nation. This year, National History Day celebrates its 25th anniversary as a national organization.

I congratulate Mary as she is honored for her presentation, and commend her for her dedication and commitment. I join with the citizens of Rhode Island in wishing Mary well in all her future endeavors.

Mr. President, next week, from June 2-6, 2005, the Center for Civic Education will host the Ninth Annual World Congress on Civic Education in Amman, Jordan. Nearly 200 civic education leaders will attend this event, representing 58 countries and 28 U.S. States.

The purpose of the World Congress is to share information about the best practices and materials developed through Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange Program, an authorized program of the No Child Left Behind Act. The program addresses the full range of civic education activities. These include the development of educational policy, standards, curricular frameworks, and materials, as well as teacher education, classroom implementation, and research and evaluation.

One program developed through Civitas is Project Citizen, a middle school level program on public policy in the United States. Project Citizen is now being used in more than fifty countries, and is one of the most effective programs in promoting the development of a political culture supportive of democratic values, principles, institutions, and participation.

Another important component of Civitas is the series of exchanges among leaders in civic education in the United States and those in emerging and established democracies worldwide. The purpose of the exchanges is for civic education leaders to learn from and assist each other in improving education for democracy in their home nations.

Therefore, I think it is an important step that for the first time the World Congress on Civic Education will be hosted in the Middle East. Joining the Center for Civic Education in hosting this year's World Congress is Arab Civitas--a regional network of nine Arab countries in the Middle East--and the Jordanian Center for Civic Education Studies.

Arab Civitas, which is funded through the Middle East Partnership Initiative at the State Department, administers a program of citizenship education in elementary and secondary schools in the Middle East. Civic educators in Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain, and recently Saudi Arabia, work with the Center for Civic Education through Arab Civitas. The goal of the program is to help students understand and respect the core concepts of freedom and democracy such as free expression, pluralism and the rule of law, and human rights.

As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, it is my strong belief that many of the conflicts and problems in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, could be lessened by strong investments in education. I am particularly supportive of education programs which seek to improve tolerance and understanding of others. Thus, the theme of this year's congress is of particular interest to me: Advancing Peace and Stability through Active Citizenship.

Mr. President, I think we can all agree that this is exciting work that the Center for Civic Education is accomplishing. Its work in strengthening democracy, and promoting tolerance and moderation, in the United States and throughout the world, is admirable. I hope and expect the attendees will have a successful Ninth Annual World Congress on Civic Education.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to George Redman of East Providence, RI. The Greenways Alliance of Rhode Island, the Ocean State Bike Path Association, and the Narragansett Bay Wheelman are honoring George tonight for his ``Spirit, Dedication and Commitment to Rhode Island Greenways.''

George is an active neighborhood volunteer, an avid bicyclist, an amateur genealogist, historian, and sailor. His extraordinary service during World War II aboard the USS Mississippi began a career of service to his community and country.

He has dedicated much of his life to the revitalization of the East Providence waterfront, beginning with a shoreline cleanup that he organized as an Assistant Master of a Boy Scout troop. His efforts continued with his work as chairman of the Fort Hill Waterfront Park Committee, the East Providence Beautification Committee, the East Providence Shoreline Committee, and the Narragansett Bay Commission Advisory Council.

I would especially like to commend George for his vital role advocating for the East Bay Bike Path. This 14-mile trail, built on an abandoned railway connecting East Providence to the coastal towns of Barrington, Warren, and Bristol, has been hailed as a national example of the benefits of recreational trails. In the early 1980s, George headed a petition effort that received more than 4,200 signatures and spurred the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to complete the path in 1992. His bike path advocacy has earned him recognition in the Christian Science Monitor, the Providence Journal, Rails to Trails Magazine, and other local media outlets covering bike path and waterfront-related issues.

Active for many years in local politics, George was elected a delegate to the 1986 Rhode Island Constitutional Convention. He has received numerous letters of appreciation and recognition from past Governors and Federal, State, and local officials. It was my privilege to take a bike ride with George last August on the newly constructed Washington Secondary Bike Path that runs from Cranston to Coventry, RI. As I said at the time, if the East Bay Bike Path had not been built, there would not have been the momentum to go forward with other trails.

George has been married for 53 years to his wife, Adeline, and they have two children, Paul and Mary, and three grandchildren.

George Redman's success in pushing for the East Bay Bike Path affirms the notion that members of grassroots organizations can partner with state and federal agencies to improve the quality of life in their communities. I am delighted to join in recognizing his achievements, and his passion for the environment and public recreation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing appropriations for the Water Resources Research Act. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, respectively, as well as Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Baucus, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi and Corzine have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation to address our nation's water resource concerns.

Originally enacted in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act authorizes the establishment of a nationwide, State-based network of Water Resources Research Institutes. These Institutes represent a partnership among State universities; Federal, State, and local governments; and stakeholders aimed at solving problems of water supply and water quality. They are located at the land-grant universities in each of the 50 States, the territories and the District of Columbia.

The 54 Water Resources Research Institutes are charged with conducting competent research to develop new technologies and more efficient methods for resolving local, State and national water- resources problems; fostering new research scientists into water resources fields; and facilitating water research coordination and the application of research results through information dissemination and technology transfer.

The Institutes provide important support to the States in their long- term water planning, policy development, and management. A significant portion of the Institutes' work is intended to help State and local water managers implement Federal regulations in ways that are tailored to local and State institutions and natural conditions. Water quality regulations, drinking water standards, wastewater treatment, and water reuse programs are examples of areas in which the Institutes provide research and information transfer.

In my own State, the Rhode Island Water Resources Center is located at the University of Rhode Island. The Center's recent activities have included working with the Rhode Island Airport Corporation to develop a plan for mitigating runoff contamination due to deicing and anti-icing operations at T.F.Green Airport. Other work conducted by the Center has encompassed evaluating the scour potential of streams and river banks in the State to study how they may be affected by land use and other changes; developing a statewide public water-supply GIS coverage program; and working with communities to evaluate MTBE drinking water contamination.

In addition to research, the outreach and information transfer activities of the Institutes are highly valued by multi-level stakeholders at the local, State and regional levels. The Institutes are the training grounds for the next generation of the Nation's water scientists, economists and engineers. This nationwide network of water institutes provides an efficient and effective method to meet the diverse water resource needs in different parts of our country.

Another key component of the program is the importance of its small Federal grants for leveraging funding from non-federal sources to identify and address local and State needs for water research. Without this Federal seed money, many institutes would lose a valuable resource and the visibility within their universities and among Federal, State and local water agencies for working on challenging water resource problems. The Federal grants allow immense leverage capacity for conducting water research activities and are the key to maintaining a valuable national network.

The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes $62 million in funding through fiscal year 2010 for the Nation's Water Resources Research Institutes and $32 million for the Act's Interstate Research Program. I look forward to working with the bill's original cosponsors as well as my colleagues on the Environment and Public

Works Committee to ensure this national network of university-based research institutes continues to support the water resources needs of the Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing appropriations for the Water Resources Research Act. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, respectively, as well as Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Baucus, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi and Corzine have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation to address our nation's water resource concerns.

Originally enacted in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act authorizes the establishment of a nationwide, State-based network of Water Resources Research Institutes. These Institutes represent a partnership among State universities; Federal, State, and local governments; and stakeholders aimed at solving problems of water supply and water quality. They are located at the land-grant universities in each of the 50 States, the territories and the District of Columbia.

The 54 Water Resources Research Institutes are charged with conducting competent research to develop new technologies and more efficient methods for resolving local, State and national water- resources problems; fostering new research scientists into water resources fields; and facilitating water research coordination and the application of research results through information dissemination and technology transfer.

The Institutes provide important support to the States in their long- term water planning, policy development, and management. A significant portion of the Institutes' work is intended to help State and local water managers implement Federal regulations in ways that are tailored to local and State institutions and natural conditions. Water quality regulations, drinking water standards, wastewater treatment, and water reuse programs are examples of areas in which the Institutes provide research and information transfer.

In my own State, the Rhode Island Water Resources Center is located at the University of Rhode Island. The Center's recent activities have included working with the Rhode Island Airport Corporation to develop a plan for mitigating runoff contamination due to deicing and anti-icing operations at T.F.Green Airport. Other work conducted by the Center has encompassed evaluating the scour potential of streams and river banks in the State to study how they may be affected by land use and other changes; developing a statewide public water-supply GIS coverage program; and working with communities to evaluate MTBE drinking water contamination.

In addition to research, the outreach and information transfer activities of the Institutes are highly valued by multi-level stakeholders at the local, State and regional levels. The Institutes are the training grounds for the next generation of the Nation's water scientists, economists and engineers. This nationwide network of water institutes provides an efficient and effective method to meet the diverse water resource needs in different parts of our country.

Another key component of the program is the importance of its small Federal grants for leveraging funding from non-federal sources to identify and address local and State needs for water research. Without this Federal seed money, many institutes would lose a valuable resource and the visibility within their universities and among Federal, State and local water agencies for working on challenging water resource problems. The Federal grants allow immense leverage capacity for conducting water research activities and are the key to maintaining a valuable national network.

The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes $62 million in funding through fiscal year 2010 for the Nation's Water Resources Research Institutes and $32 million for the Act's Interstate Research Program. I look forward to working with the bill's original cosponsors as well as my colleagues on the Environment and Public

Works Committee to ensure this national network of university-based research institutes continues to support the water resources needs of the Nation.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate considers the conference report on the President's emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the REAL ID Act which had been attached in the House bill was included in the final measure.

The REAL ID Act should have been debated as a part of comprehensive immigration reform. By attaching REAL ID to a must pass spending measure, the critical process of vetting the bill in committee was circumvented and an opportunity for discussion and debate, which is essential for effective legislation, was denied.

There are many concerns I have with REAL ID in addition to the process used to bring it to the floor. First, the measure is an unfunded mandate to the States. Furthermore, unless every State complies, the Federal Government will have to mandate the creation of a national ID. Between the creation of a new database and approval system, training for DMV workers, and struggling State budgets, REAL ID will impose real costs.

More importantly, a database of this type will open up many privacy concerns and there must be security safeguards in place to prevent the gathered information from being obtained inappropriately.

Many States, including Rhode Island, have already passed legislation setting their own requirements for driver's license recipients. The Federal Government should not impinge upon the States' ability to decide who can and cannot drive on their roads, especially without the funding to support the idea. REAL ID will put more drivers on the road without licenses and without insurance.

I am also concerned about another provision of the REAL ID Act that would allow for the waiver of all laws--Federal, State, and local--to build barriers and roads at our borders. As a strong advocate of environmental protection, I am troubled about blanket waivers from environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The REAL ID Act, at its best, should be a catalyst for discussion of comprehensive immigration reform. That discussion cannot take place in a forum primarily devoted to quickly releasing funds for our troops around the world and veterans returning home.

Mr. President, yesterday marked the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. A date of great significance for many Rhode Islanders, and growing in significance for all Americans, this day not only commemorates the atrocities of the past, but also reminds us that it must not happen again. Remembering the victims is our duty to the past and to the future.

The term ``genocide'' did not even exist when these atrocities occurred from 1915 to 1923, yet the numbers are staggering. Over 1.5 million people perished. Over 500,000 people were forcibly removed from their homes and their homeland. Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were killed. Men were removed from their families and women and children were left vulnerable to deportation, kidnapping, and starvation, and 132,000 Armenian orphans became foster children in American families.

It is vital for the distinct identity of every culture to be honored and celebrated. Over one and a half million Americans are of Armenian heritage, and on this day we are grateful for their many contributions to our country. Rhode Island and this entire Nation continue to benefit from a strong and vibrant Armenian community.