Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to share the very sad news that Sam Volpentest--a name many of us in Congress know well-- passed away last night at the age of 101.

Here in our Nation's Capital, Sam was a near constant fixture--always searching for new ways to help his beloved community of the Tri-Cities to move forward.

To fully appreciate Sam's contributions, you have to understand something about the geography and history of my State. The Tri-Cities-- which are Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick--are located on the Columbia River in the southeastern region of Washington State.

From the Hanford nuclear facility, to the pristine beauty of the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River, to the many varied agricultural and business challenges, the Tri-Cities are diverse and very unique.

Located across the Cascade Mountains from Seattle and other population centers, it could be pretty easy for these three communities to have their needs overlooked.

Well, Sam made sure that never happened.

Whenever something important was happening in the Tri-Cities, I could always count on Sam to show up in my Senate office to share it with me, even if I didn't know he was coming.

I vividly remember many years ago when the chair of the Energy Committee cut funding for the construction of HAMMER. HAMMER is a world-class training facility located in Richland, WA.

Well, I like to think I am always on top of the issues affecting my home State, but Sam kept me on my toes. I showed up at my office one morning at about 7:30 a.m. Guess who was already there, standing there, waiting for me outside my door. Sam Volpentest.

Although Sam may have only had about an inch or two on me, that man's passion could move mountains. And on that day, his passion was for building HAMMER.

Well, I didn't want to mess with Sam, so I marched right into that Energy Committee chairman's office, and I fought side by side with Sam to restore those cuts. And we won.

I was proud to stand with Sam at the HAMMER groundbreaking ceremony in July of 1995. Sam was 91 years young at that time. I still have that shovel on display in my office as a reminder of

what we can all do if we have passion and heart, and if we work together.

Just look at HAMMER today. It is a first-rate facility that keeps Hanford workers safe.

HAMMER has created jobs. It has created economic opportunities and development, and it has the potential now to be a Homeland Security training center for first responders across the country.

Our entire country owes Sam a debt of gratitude for all he has done for so many people.

During my years in the Senate, I have worked with a lot of people. But no one--no one--has come close to matching Sam's energy, his commitment, and his success.

Sam has been a role model to me and to all of us who want to spend our lives giving something back to the communities we care about most. I thank him for helping me be a better representative for all the people of my home State.

Sam was a one-person Chamber of Commerce. He was a visitor's center and he was a cheerleading squad all wrapped into one. Sam Volpentest was the heart and soul of the Tri-Cities. He was one of a kind. Sam will be dearly missed, but he will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Dayton, Dodd and Corzine, I am introducing legislation that, if adopted, will protect and even save the lives of victims of domestic or sexual violence and their families. This bill, the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, addresses the impact of domestic and sexual violence that extends far beyond the moment the abuse occurs.

I am introducing this legislation today as a tribute to Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were such champions for victims of domestic violence. Senator Wellstone and I first introduced this legislation together in 1998. Paul's desk was just behind me here on the Senate floor. I can still see him behind me waving his arms and making the case for people who have no voice.

Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a family problem, and many victims had nowhere to turn for help.

Today, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) we have made great progress in fighting these violent crimes. I worked to help pass this landmark legislation in 1994 and I am proud to be a part of reauthorizing it this year. But although VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet immediate challenges, there is still work to be done.

As someone who has spent my entire public life working with victims and experts to fight domestic violence, I am offering this bill based on what these courageous individuals have told me they need. Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children and keeping a roof over their heads. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence so that they can provide permanent safety for themselves and their families and so that they are not forced, because of economic dependence, to stay in an abusive relationship.

In order to do this, we must ensure that victims of domestic or sexual violence can seek the help they need without the fear of losing their jobs. Too many victims have been fired for missing work in order to find shelter or get a court restraining order, even after receiving permission from their employers. Today, a woman can use the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a sick or injured spouse, but she cannot use that act to seek protection from her abuser. The SAFE Act will allow victims to take time off from work without penalty in order to make court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning. For too many victims, access to these essential services can mean the difference between life and death.

Unfortunately, some victims of domestic or sexual violence are forced to leave their jobs and relocate to protect themselves and their families. We must ensure the continued financial security of these victims through the use of unemployment benefits. Currently, a woman can receive unemployment benefits if she leaves her job because her husband must relocate. But if that same woman is fleeing her husband's abuse, in many States she cannot receive the same benefits. Currently, 28 States and the District of Columbia provide some type of unemployment assistance to victims of domestic or sexual violence. Our bill will ensure that assistance is available in every State, so that no woman has to make the tragic choice of risking her safety to protect her livelihood.

Moreover, victims must not be made silent by the fear of discrimination in employment and insurance. Punishing victims for circumstances beyond their control is wrong and only helps abusers in their efforts to control their victims. Denying a woman employment

because she is a victim of domestic violence robs her of the economic security she needs to escape a dangerous relationship. Making insurance coverage decisions based on a history of abuse only encourages women to lie about their victimization and avoid seeking help until it is too late. The SAFE Act prohibits discrimination in employment and insurance based on domestic or sexual violence, to ensure that victims are never punished for their abusers' crimes.

Sadly, domestic violence and poverty are inextricably linked, and many victims of domestic or sexual violence are also recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Work requirements in this program often punish victims who must take time off to protect themselves and their children. In 1996, Senator Paul Wellstone and I offered an amendment to TANF called the Family Violence Option, which allows States to adjust TANF work requirements for victims of domestic violence. The SAFE act will strengthen the Family Violence Option, in order to protect some of the most economically vulnerable victims.

Despite the great progress that has been made, domestic violence is still a serious problem in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and over 5.3 million incidents occur every year. Domestic or sexual violence also continues to have severe economic consequences, costing businesses between 3 and 5 billion dollars each year in lost productivity. The SAFE Act will help victims to escape dangerous situations and prevent abuse from occurring. This will not only protect the lives of countless victims, it will allow them to be more productive members of the economy.

I am proud of the guidance we've received from advocates in crafting this legislation. I want to thank them for their efforts and their commitment to breaking the cycle of violence. I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the advocates in Washington State who have provided invaluable input in drafting this legislation. The support and leadership of our communities will help us take this critical next step in passing SAFE.

For victims of domestic violence, an abusive relationship can seem like a hopeless situation. Through VAWA, we have already provided new hope to millions of these victims. The SAFE Act is the crucial next step in ending the cycle of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide victims and their families with the tools they need for productive, independent and most importantly, safe futures.

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

Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Dayton, Dodd and Corzine, I am introducing legislation that, if adopted, will protect and even save the lives of victims of domestic or sexual violence and their families. This bill, the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act, addresses the impact of domestic and sexual violence that extends far beyond the moment the abuse occurs.

I am introducing this legislation today as a tribute to Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were such champions for victims of domestic violence. Senator Wellstone and I first introduced this legislation together in 1998. Paul's desk was just behind me here on the Senate floor. I can still see him behind me waving his arms and making the case for people who have no voice.

Not long ago, domestic violence was considered a family problem, and many victims had nowhere to turn for help.

Today, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) we have made great progress in fighting these violent crimes. I worked to help pass this landmark legislation in 1994 and I am proud to be a part of reauthorizing it this year. But although VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet immediate challenges, there is still work to be done.

As someone who has spent my entire public life working with victims and experts to fight domestic violence, I am offering this bill based on what these courageous individuals have told me they need. Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence. Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children and keeping a roof over their heads. It is critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of domestic or sexual violence so that they can provide permanent safety for themselves and their families and so that they are not forced, because of economic dependence, to stay in an abusive relationship.

In order to do this, we must ensure that victims of domestic or sexual violence can seek the help they need without the fear of losing their jobs. Too many victims have been fired for missing work in order to find shelter or get a court restraining order, even after receiving permission from their employers. Today, a woman can use the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for a sick or injured spouse, but she cannot use that act to seek protection from her abuser. The SAFE Act will allow victims to take time off from work without penalty in order to make court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning. For too many victims, access to these essential services can mean the difference between life and death.

Unfortunately, some victims of domestic or sexual violence are forced to leave their jobs and relocate to protect themselves and their families. We must ensure the continued financial security of these victims through the use of unemployment benefits. Currently, a woman can receive unemployment benefits if she leaves her job because her husband must relocate. But if that same woman is fleeing her husband's abuse, in many States she cannot receive the same benefits. Currently, 28 States and the District of Columbia provide some type of unemployment assistance to victims of domestic or sexual violence. Our bill will ensure that assistance is available in every State, so that no woman has to make the tragic choice of risking her safety to protect her livelihood.

Moreover, victims must not be made silent by the fear of discrimination in employment and insurance. Punishing victims for circumstances beyond their control is wrong and only helps abusers in their efforts to control their victims. Denying a woman employment

because she is a victim of domestic violence robs her of the economic security she needs to escape a dangerous relationship. Making insurance coverage decisions based on a history of abuse only encourages women to lie about their victimization and avoid seeking help until it is too late. The SAFE Act prohibits discrimination in employment and insurance based on domestic or sexual violence, to ensure that victims are never punished for their abusers' crimes.

Sadly, domestic violence and poverty are inextricably linked, and many victims of domestic or sexual violence are also recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Work requirements in this program often punish victims who must take time off to protect themselves and their children. In 1996, Senator Paul Wellstone and I offered an amendment to TANF called the Family Violence Option, which allows States to adjust TANF work requirements for victims of domestic violence. The SAFE act will strengthen the Family Violence Option, in order to protect some of the most economically vulnerable victims.

Despite the great progress that has been made, domestic violence is still a serious problem in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and over 5.3 million incidents occur every year. Domestic or sexual violence also continues to have severe economic consequences, costing businesses between 3 and 5 billion dollars each year in lost productivity. The SAFE Act will help victims to escape dangerous situations and prevent abuse from occurring. This will not only protect the lives of countless victims, it will allow them to be more productive members of the economy.

I am proud of the guidance we've received from advocates in crafting this legislation. I want to thank them for their efforts and their commitment to breaking the cycle of violence. I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the advocates in Washington State who have provided invaluable input in drafting this legislation. The support and leadership of our communities will help us take this critical next step in passing SAFE.

For victims of domestic violence, an abusive relationship can seem like a hopeless situation. Through VAWA, we have already provided new hope to millions of these victims. The SAFE Act is the crucial next step in ending the cycle of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide victims and their families with the tools they need for productive, independent and most importantly, safe futures.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to announce my vote on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.

I do not cast this vote lightly. I recognize how critical the courts are in protecting and advancing the rights of all Americans. I know what is at stake. I am also mindful that John Roberts has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the highest seat on the highest Court in our country. In our system, there is no backstop or review of a Supreme Court Justice once he or she is confirmed. That means under the Constitution we in the Senate have the responsibility to fully evaluate each nominee before voting, and that is exactly what I have done.

For me personally, casting a vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court carries special meaning. Thirteen years ago the nomination of another Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, helped launch my own path from the kitchen table in Shoreline, WA to this historic desk on the floor of the Senate. During the Thomas confirmation, I was deeply frustrated that the questions I believed needed to be answered were not even raised. I was troubled that average Americans, moms and dads, had no voice in a process that would affect their rights and liberties.

This time I had the opportunity to ask those questions directly to the nominee. I was pleased to work with my Democratic women colleagues to open the process and empower people across the country to submit questions to the nominee via a Web site that Senator Barbara Mikulski created. Today not only did I have the opportunity to ask those questions directly, but the weight has also been on my shoulders.

For days I have struggled with whether this nominee represents the fear I have of the worst motives of this administration or whether he represents the best hopes of a country for wise decisions that protect our rights and our freedoms and our responsibilities. No one of us can know for sure. There is no doubt that anyone I would have nominated would have come from a different background with a different history, but this was not my choice. There is much I do not know about how Judge Roberts will rule, but as history has shown, none of us can predict that. And without a crystal globe, I must make this very difficult decision based on what I do know and upon the criteria I have long used to evaluate nominees for judicial appointments.

This evening I talk about how I have applied my standards to other nominees for the Federal bench. I am especially pleased that in Washington State we do judicial nominations the right way, through a careful, bipartisan process that helps us select qualified candidates without regard to politics. In Washington State, I have worked with different administrations to craft a process that helps us identify and confirm qualified individuals for the Federal bench. We solicit input from a wide variety of respected individuals within the Washington State legal community, and then we personally interview each recommended candidate prior to submitting his or her name to the White House for consideration.

During the Clinton administration, my colleague Senator Gorton and I worked together to recommend and support individuals for appointment to the Federal bench. Senator Gorton and I disagreed on a lot of issues, but we did agree that when it came to our duty in confirming individuals to the third and coequal branch of our Government, we should set aside partisanship and focus on qualifications. That tradition has continued with my colleague Senator Cantwell. We got off to a rough start on this approach because the Bush administration at first did not want to continue the fair process Senator Gorton and I had established, but eventually the wisdom of our process prevailed. While there have been hiccups along the way, we have used it to confirm qualified people to serve on the bench.

Through this fair and deliberative process, I have supported nominees with a wide variety of backgrounds. I have supported people who have come from privileged backgrounds and those who beat the odds to realize their achievements. I have supported Democrats and Republicans. Each time, though, I was confident that I was supporting an individual who would serve every American who came before them well, and I have not been disappointed.

My home State of Washington is 2500 miles away from Washington, DC. In many ways it is even further than that in terms of our independence of thought. The White House would do well to learn from the example we set in Washington State, and I hope the Bush administration will do a better job of consulting with the Senate on its next nominee and providing a more complete record of that nominee's background and writings.

Some have suggested to me that I use my vote to register my disapproval at things the Bush administration has done or that I use my vote to send a message to the President. While I am angry about mistakes and miscalculations and misrepresentations and misdirected priorities of the Bush administration, this vote is not the place to vent those frustrations. Fairness requires that I evaluate each nominee on his or her own merits, without a predetermined outcome, just as I expect every judge to do when a case comes before them. My vote is based on the same standards I have used for years, not on anger or in sending messages or ignoring a nominee's actual record.

This would be an easier decision if we had a complete record. The White House has refused to provide more recent memos from Judge Roberts' work in the Solicitor General's office which would have provided us with a clearer picture of the nominee. I, frankly, think the White House's position is a reflection of the general breakdown in the process that we use to select and confirm judges today. With this administration, consultation with the Senate is cursory at best, and from the very beginning there has been often a kind of ``spoils of war'' approach to how they view appointments to the Federal bench. I believe this approach has resulted in unqualified individuals being forwarded by the administration to the Senate for consideration. This approach has contributed to the partisan rancor regarding nominations to the courts.

These actions are even more concerning in light of the second vacancy the Bush administration is set to fill in the coming weeks. I do not believe that an honest, fair evaluation could be completed with any less material information than we were provided during this confirmation process. I believe the Bush administration is attempting to set a dangerous precedent with its words and actions or lack thereof, and I fear that future court nominations could be even more contentious as a result.

In looking at nominees for our courts, I always follow a very deliberative process of having a set of standards and comparing individuals who come before us as nominees to that set of standards. I examine their record and their experience and their testimony. I see if they meet the basic standards of honesty and ethics and qualifications and fairness. Then I evaluate if they will be independent, evenhanded in deciding cases, and if they will uphold our rights and our liberties. Those standards help me ensure that when any American, regardless of background, comes before the court, he or she receives a fair hearing and that the resulting decision renders justice according to the law.

In reaching a decision on Judge Roberts, I reviewed all of the information that was available, and then I examined how Judge Roberts measured up to my criteria for judicial nominees. I followed the Judiciary Committee hearings closely. I read the transcripts. I have spoken directly with Judge Roberts twice, once in a meeting in my office and once by phone.

Looking at my standards, I found Judge Roberts to be honest, ethical, qualified, and fair. I believe he will be evenhanded in deciding cases. On those criteria, Judge Roberts clearly met my test. It was my last criteria, upholding the rights and liberties of all Americans, where I had a harder time evaluating Judge Roberts. I wish the White House had been more forthcoming in making available more documents that would have shed light on some of his more recent work and opinions. I wish the nominee himself had been more responsive to questions in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Through this process, I have concluded that Judge Roberts is a decent person with keen intellect and high ethical standards. I believe he does know the difference between the role of advocacy, which he has held in the past, and the role of judge. I think he has the capacity to be fair, and I think he aims to serve all of the American people.

On the question of upholding the hard-won rights and liberties of the American people, I believe Judge Roberts has a healthy regard for precedent and intends to apply a thoughtful approach to interpreting the law. This is not to say I would expect or even hope to agree with every decision he might make or every opinion a Chief Justice Roberts might author. In making my decision, I recognize that history has shown no one can accurately anticipate what type of Justice a nominee may ultimately become.

For many weeks I have known some people in Washington State will be disappointed in my decision regardless of what that decision is. I have heard from friends and colleagues, constituents and strangers, on all sides of the question. Many of them have surprised me in their candor and in their position. All this has led me to struggle with the decision for many days now. I have read up on Judge Roberts. I have listened to the thoughts of others. I have talked with the judge himself. All the while, it has been an extremely close call in my mind, for I know the gravity and the consequences of this important vote. I have had deep and lasting concerns. But I have had strong, heartfelt hopes as well.

In the end, I returned to the basic criteria I use on any tough question and to the values the people of Washington State sent me here to protect. In examining that criteria and those important values, I have made a decision that I hope everyone can understand and appreciate and even be proud of. I am satisfied that Judge Roberts meets my long- held criteria and, therefore, I will vote to confirm his nomination.

I believe Judge Roberts is well qualified to serve. I believe he is intelligent and honest and fair. Is he wise? Only time can answer that. I cast this vote with the hope that John Roberts will be an individual who will combine common sense and decency with a real respect for how the law affects each American as he serves out his tenure on the Supreme Court. In spending time with him and reviewing the available record, I believe Judge Roberts has the capacity to be that kind of justice.

Throughout our history, America has always had to confront challenges and enjoyed a lively debate on how to meet them. Today is no different. Our great Nation is confronting enormous challenges, and the debate over how to address those challenges has caused great divisions in our country. Many people, as I do, fear the direction in which this country is headed. They fear for our security. They fear we are not doing enough at home to secure a stronger future, and they fear the progress we have made in the last several generations is being eroded by a political agenda. Those fears are well founded, and they are real. But our country was also founded on hope, hope that by securing individual liberty, a free people could govern themselves in the interest of promoting the common good, hope that despite our differences, we could band together to create strong communities and a better future for generations of Americans to come. That spirit of hope is alive today and should help guide us at least as much as our fears.

My vote tonight is a vote of hope--hope that despite our differences, we can unite around the common good; hope that equal justice under the law means something powerful to every American, regardless of background or political persuasion; and hope that John Roberts responds to the needs of this Nation to have a Supreme Court that honors our past and helps secure the rights and liberties of every American into the future.

When I asked Judge Roberts what kind of judge he wanted to be, he said: A Justice for all Americans. I hope my vote, along with the diverse group of my Senate colleagues, reminds him every day that he must be a judge for all Americans.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is some time remaining

on the Republican side. I ask unanimous consent to hold that remaining time, for me to begin with the Democratic side, and use such time as I shall need.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter of extreme importance, women's health, public safety, and the independence and credibility of one of our Nation's most revered Federal agencies, the FDA.

I am very concerned. American women are concerned, and consumers all across this country should be concerned that the FDA is letting politics trump science in the way it approves medicine for American consumers.

I have always supported a strong and independent Food and Drug Administration. It is the only way in which the FDA can truly operate effectively and with the confidence of American consumers and health care providers.

Americans must have faith when they walk into the local grocery store or local pharmacy that the products they purchase are safe, that they are effective, and that their approval has been based on sound science, not on political pressure or pandering to interest groups. By allowing politics to play a role in the decisionmaking, the FDA is now opening a Pandora's box that could have profound consequences in determining the safety and efficacy of the drug approval process.

Unfortunately, recent decisions and delays at the FDA have now called into question the agency's independence and allegiance to science-based decisions, and plan B is exhibit A. But don't take my word for it. Listen to Dr. Susan Wood, the former director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health. In resigning in protest, Dr. Wood wrote:

I have spent the last 15 years working to ensure that

science informs good health policy decisions. I can no longer

serve a staff when scientific and clinical evidence fully

evaluated and recommended by the professional staff here has

been overruled.

In later comments to the Associated Press she said:

There's fairly widespread concern about FDA's credibility

among agency veterans as a result of the Plan B process.

Those are the words of a health care professional who worked for years within the FDA to improve women's health. Her resignation is a huge loss to the agency, to those in Congress who have championed women's health and, most importantly, her resignation is a loss to the millions of American women who rely on the FDA to make choices based on sound science.

Let me take a step back and explain what plan B is and why the FDA's actions are such a threat to the public's health. Plan B is a form of contraception. Plan B contains a specific concentrated dose of ordinary birth control pills that prevent pregnancy. Emergency contraception cannot interrupt or disrupt an established pregnancy. In fact, plan B has the potential to reduce the incidence of abortions, something I think every one of us can agree on. It is an important goal.

Raising the awareness and use of emergency contraceptives such as plan B is an important component to reducing the rate of abortion in the United States. An analysis conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 51,000 abortions were prevented by emergency contraceptive use in 2000 and that increased use of emergency contraceptives accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. Plan B has already been approved by the FDA for prescription use and it is available over the counter in seven States, including my home State of Washington. However, it is not available nationwide.

When it comes to emergency contraceptives, every hour counts. The effectiveness of plan B declines by 50 percent every 12 hours. The longer a woman must wait to see a doctor, get a prescription, and then find a pharmacy that will fill the prescription, the less effective plan B becomes. Even privately insured women with regular access to a health care provider have to overcome significant barriers to obtain a prescription for emergency contraceptives, including finding a pharmacy that stocks plan B within a short timeframe. For many uninsured women and teens, the barriers are often insurmountable.

Back in December of 2003, almost 2 years ago, the FDA's own scientific advisory board overwhelmingly recommended approval of plan B over-the-counter application by a vote of 23 to 4. However, the FDA has not adhered to its own guidelines for drug approval and continues to drag its heels.

In fact, Alastair Wood, who is a member of the advisory panel, told USA Today:

What's disturbing is that the science was overwhelmingly

here, and the FDA is supposed to make decisions on science.

At a HELP Committee hearing in April of this year, I pressed the President's nominee to head the FDA, Dr. Lester Crawford, to answer questions about this long-pending application for nationwide over-the- counter approval of plan B. When Dr. Crawford informed me that he couldn't answer my questions in a public forum, I invited him to my office to discuss the process in a private meeting. My colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton joined me for a very frustrating meeting in which Dr. Crawford failed to provide any timeline or specific reasons for the FDA's highly unusual foot dragging on the plan B application. It was very clear to me after this disappointing meeting that politics had trumped science, and the public health mission of the FDA had been compromised.

For this reason, Senator Clinton and I joined to place a hold on Dr. Crawford's nomination to head the FDA on June 15, 2005. We placed that hold saying we want a determination on the application. We did not advocate for a particular outcome. All we asked was that the FDA abide by its own rules and regulations. That is a very important point. Senator Clinton and I did not demand approval. We simply called on the FDA to follow its own procedures. In the end, apparently, even that was asking too much.

The administration and the chairman of the HELP Committee understandably wanted Dr. Crawford confirmed. We began what I consider to be a very productive conversation about restoring integrity to the FDA's process and getting Dr. Crawford confirmed. I thank the chairman for his responsiveness and good-faith efforts. Our discussions culminated in a July 13 letter to the HELP Committee and cochair, to Senator Enzi and to Senator Kennedy, from Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.

This chart shows the letter from Secretary Leavitt:

I have spoken to the FDA, and based on the feedback I have

received, the FDA will act on this application by September

1, 2005.

Based on this letter, based on his personal assurance, Senator Clinton and I then dropped our hold on Dr. Crawford and subsequently his nomination passed the Senate.

Now, unfortunately for the American people and especially for the integrity of the FDA, Secretary Leavitt and the FDA broke their promise. The FDA had a chance to restore the confidence of American consumers in promoting safe and effective treatments, but it failed in its mission.

A delay is not a decision. For over 6 months, Senator Clinton and I asked for a simple answer, yes or no. It is a breach of faith to have had this administration give us their word that a decision would be made and have that promise violated. Now the FDA is claiming there are ``unanswered'' questions about plan B's effect on girls under 17. The fact is the pending application does not apply to that group. Today, girls under 17 may only receive this drug with a prescription. That would remain the case if the FDA were to approve plan B's application. The FDA's argument is highly suspect because the Government already regulates products with age restrictions. They do it with tobacco, nicotine gum, and alcohol.

The administration gave us their word, and then they pulled the rug out at the last minute. This continued delay goes against everything the FDA's own advisory panel found nearly 2 years ago, that plan B is safe, it is effective, and it should be available over the counter. There is no credible scientific reason to continue to deny increased access to this safe health care option. In fact, in his statement of further delay, Dr. Crawford acknowledged that the application has scientific merit, but he still refused to approve it.

I can only infer that the FDA and Dr. Crawford, as its head, are continuing to put politics ahead of science. I am not the only one. According to the Washington Post editorial page, August 30:

In recent months, critics have accused the FDA--which is

required by law to make decisions exclusively on scientific

and legal grounds--of falling victim to outside political

agendas.

They have claimed that the Plan B decisions have reflected

not sound science and legitimate caution but rather the

influence of ``moral'' antiabortion lobbies . . .

By abruptly rejecting an application that had been tailored

to meet the FDA's requirements, Mr. Crawford appears to

confirm the critics' worst fears.

Whatever the legal arguments taking place, this unexpected

delay at this stage of the approval process makes the FDA--

long admired around the world for its neutrality and

professionalism--look like an easily manipulated political

tool.

Here is what Newsday said:

Drugs and politics do not mix.

The current case in point is Plan B, the morning after

emergency contraceptive, and the politics of abortion.

Taken together, they are threatening the Food and Drug

Administration's credibility as an agency that

dispassionately evaluates the safety and effectiveness of

drugs.

The FDA said Friday it will delay for 60 days a decision on

whether to allow Plan B to be sold to those 16 and older

without a prescription.

Officials attributed the foot-dragging to a concern that

younger teens would get the drugs and wouldn't use it

responsibly.

That rings hollow.

When the FDA rejected an application for over-the-counter

sales without age restriction 2 years ago it overruled that

staff and an advisory panel, and discounted the experience of

six states and 33 countries where such pills are sold without

prescription.

The most recent application responsibly included the age

restriction.

Here is how the Virginian Pilot put it:

Plan B contraceptives can prevent tens of thousands of

abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Restriction on

availability to minors is consistent with other national

reproductive policies and therefore valid.

A country that can put a man on the moon can surely figure

out how to distinguish between younger and older women in

selling a pill. If, that is, policymakers care half as much

about science in one case as in the other.

And perhaps most succinctly, I quote from the Baltimore Sun:

Dr. Crawford has been forced to adopt many improbable

positions in order to keep his job. But now he is at risk of

turning the world's most respected drug reviewing agency into

a laughingstock.

Nobody wins if that happens.

No amount of semantics or politicking can change the fact that the HHS Secretary and the FDA performed a bait and switch with the Senate and, more importantly, to the American people. Today, the Bush administration has its FDA Commissioner, but the American public still does not have an answer on plan B. Unfortunately, the FDA, which has long been known as the gold standard in drug approval, is now at risk of becoming known for a double standard.

The health and well-being of the American people should not blow with the political winds. Caring for our residents is an American issue, and part of that goal is ensuring that our residents have access to safe, effective medicines in a timely fashion. As a new member of the Senate HELP Committee back in 1997 I faced the daunting task of working to help reform the FDA. I, along with my colleagues, was dedicated to making the Food and Drug Modernization Act work.

The intent of this landmark legislation was to introduce a new culture at the FDA, one which would expedite the drug approval process by eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic delays while ensuring product safety.

This new partnership was intended to open the lines of communication and ensure that manufacturers had a clear understanding of what would be required in our drug approval process. The FDA has broken those lines of communication and has now called into question the future of drug approval within the agency.

I believe strongly in a strong and independent FDA, but I believe this agency has made a mockery of Congress and of its own procedures and its own protocols. They have abused the trust of Congress and of the American people in the way they have played around with plan B. It is far past time to return credibility to the FDA. The FDA needs to return to the gold standard, not continue to create a double standard that puts politics ahead of the health and safety of the American public.

This is not the last word on this issue. The problem with politics subverting the FDA's adherence to science and its integrity is so profound and so urgent that I intend to use every tool available to me as a Senator to make sure this discussion about our priorities and our future is not lost.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the purposes of a colloquy.

Senator Kohl, the legume plant pathologist position currently working in the CRIS titled ``Improving Disease Management of Soil-borne Diseases of Edible Legumes'' is being eliminated in a reorganization proposed by USDA ARS.

Root diseases are fast becoming a major problem in all of the production areas. These root diseases cause a loss of yields and quality of pulse crops.

A reduction of research support by USDA ARS at this time of rapidly increasing acreages of pulses in ND, MT, SD and NE is unacceptable. Eliminating this research could substantially hurt the entire pulse crop industry.

Within the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations, there is funding provided for a legume pathologist focused on root diseases. Due to the reorganization of the ARS Prosser facility, this pathologist will not be funded unless that position is moved to the ARS Pullman facility. The need for this project is clear and should be supported by ARS. In order to continue this vital research it is clear that it will need to be moved to ARS Pullman.

I ask that the conference report accompanying the Agriculture bill include language directing ARS to transfer the legume pathologist position and the $250,000 from the Vegetable and Forage Legume Research Unit at Prosser, WA, to the Grain Legume Genetics and Physiology Research Unit at Pullman, WA. This requires no new funding, as it will solely involve the transfer of the legume pathologist from Prosser to Pullman.

This will allow ARS to continue its research on pulse crops at no additional costs.

Senator Kohl, would you support this language moving the legume pathologist position from Prosser, WA, to Pullman, WA?

Thank you, Senator Kohl, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support on this issue. This project is critical to the long- term health and viability of dry pea and lentil producers in Washington State and all across the country.

Citrus Canker Compensation

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for organizing the AskRoberts.com in which we are all participating to allow people across this country to be a part of this very important process that is occurring in the Senate today.

Today, our country faces many challenges. We look at the suffering along the gulf coast, we face ongoing military operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we face the solemn and significant task of not only filling two Court vacancies but confirming a new Chief Justice. While the confirmation of a new Justice may not be the topic of dinner table conversations across the country tonight, the actions of the next Supreme Court Justice will impact the lives of every American family for generations to come.

Last week, this Chamber mourned the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist who served on our Nation's highest Court for over three decades. The great range of issues on which the Supreme Court ruled during Justice Rehnquist's tenure--from Roe v. Wade to capital punishment to Miranda rights to the conclusion of a Presidential election--shows the American public just how closely the Court touches each of our daily lives. My home State of Washington is 3,000 miles away from the Nation's Capital, but the issues the Supreme Court takes up, whether it be title IX or eminent domain or a woman's right to choose, hits home for them as well.

Back in 1991, when I was a State Senator and a former school board member and a mother, I watched the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings that came before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For days and days, I sat in frustration at home. I simply could not believe that this nominee was not asked about the issues about which I cared. I did not believe the Senators in that room were representing me or asking the questions I wanted answered. So I did something about it: I ran for the U.S. Senate. Now, thankfully, I am here and I can get my questions answered. But I remain very concerned for the women and the men in my State and around the country. Certainly they have issues that are important to them that will come before the Supreme Court. Certainly they have questions they want answered. Not everyone is going to be able to run for the Senate, but everyone should be able to have their voice heard.

This is a process in which the American public deserves to be involved. Judge Roberts is being considered for a lifetime appointment, and the American people deserve to know where he stands on a number of issues that affect our Nation's future. That desire to give Americans around the country a voice in this process is what inspired me and my colleagues from California and Maryland to set up a Web site: AskRoberts.com. Through our Web site, we have collected tens of thousands of questions over the past several months that have now been delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee in hopes that they will be asked of Judge Roberts during his confirmation hearing.

This is not an inside-the-beltway debate. Judge Roberts has been nominated to a lifetime appointment on the highest Court in the land, and he will influence our path on issues ranging across the spectrum.

Many Americans must be wondering what this all means to them, how it will affect them. Let me make it clear: This debate we are now having is about whether we want to protect essential rights and liberties, including the right to privacy about which the Senator from California talked. This debate is about whether we want free and open government. This debate is about whether we want a clean, healthy environment and the ability to enforce laws to protect it fairly. And this debate is about preserving equal protection under the law.

Judge Roberts has an obligation--not to the Senate but to the American people--to make his views known on these basic values. Only then can we make a reasoned judgment on his nomination. That is why I have joined with a number of my colleagues in calling on the Attorney General to fulfill the request that was made by our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for documents related to 16 key cases on which Judge Roberts played a leadership role during his service as Solicitor General. Not only is there precedent for the disclosure of those documents--similar information was provided to the Senate when it considered the nomination of Justice Rehnquist--but there is also clear imperative. If we are going to fulfill our constitutional duty to provide meaningful advice and consent on this nomination, that consent must be informed and this process must be opened, not only to the Members of this body but to the American people.

With the questions and concerns of Americans from coast to coast in mind, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that the President's nominee to fill this position will be fair and impartial, evenhanded in administering justice, and will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join my colleagues in offering my support and sympathy and certainly everything we can do from my home State of Washington to so many of our fellow Americans who are suffering so tragically from the outfall of Hurricane Katrina. I want them to know we will do everything we can to make sure we are there for them.

I have to say that over the past week, citizens from this end of the country to my end of the country on the west coast have been glued to their television screens and really overwhelmed by the tremendous devastation and the unfathomable suffering of so many of our fellow Americans. The images have become almost too much to bear, watching families without food and water, people who have been trapped on their roofs, people searching for their loved ones. People have come up to me everywhere when I have gone through my State over the last week. My office has been inundated by calls from my fellow citizens in Washington State who are really horrified at the conditions they have seen on TV. They are asking, rightfully, what can we do to help and how can we be there for our

citizens? They are reaching into their own pockets and doing everything they can, and that truly has been heartwarming to see.

They are also asking, How could this have happened? I have to say that people in my home State are upset and, really, with good reason. Our Government failed in its initial response. We now have to see that we succeed in this ongoing recovery. That certainly is my focus right now.

There is going to be a lot of time for hard questions and accountability, but I think today we need to focus on meeting the tremendous needs that rescue workers and our guard and police forces are meeting on the ground. We also need to recognize that the recovery area is now no longer just limited to the gulf coast. As Americans have opened their hearts and their homes and they have opened up their communities and their stadiums and their hospitals and their homes in towns and cities from coast to coast, that need has spread across the country.

Shortly, in my home State of Washington, we are expecting to welcome 2,000 evacuees. Nearly 200 of them are going to arrive by this Thursday, and we need to make sure we are doing everything and being prepared to meet their needs as they come to our States. Right now we have to ensure that the evacuees have the bare essentials, that they have food, clothing, and shelter. We also have to make sure we are preparing for the long term.

For most children in this country, as we all know, this week marks a very exciting time, the beginning of the school year, a time that they head off to meet their new teachers and reconnect with old friends and make new ones. For all of the children who have been displaced from their homes and their school districts by the effects of Hurricane Katrina, the beginning of the school year is really the least of their worries. But we will need to come together as a country to help these schools across the Nation that are taking in these students from the gulf coast.

I just heard on the television before I came here that there will be probably 200,000 or more of these young students, and we have to do everything we can to absorb the costs and help the transition for these children and families, to make it as smooth as possible.

We also need to make sure we pay special attention to funding for support for homeless and foster children and ensure that the most vulnerable among us have the support they need to succeed and to build brighter futures again.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many different sectors of our transportation system have also stepped up to the plate to deliver critical service, and because this region's infrastructure is so devastated we need to immediately explore alternatives to moving people and freight throughout the region. I think we all know it is going to take time to get our transportation infrastructure back to where it was, but we need to start concentrating on that and getting systems put in place now as well.

Rest assured, I will be asking very hard questions in the days to come about what went wrong and what we need to do to ensure that Americans never endure such preventable suffering again. All of those questions will be explored in detail, but right now I am going to continue to make sure that we are providing the immediate support that our families and our communities again need. Once again, I just want to say my thoughts and my prayers go out to everyone who has been touched by this disaster.

I see my colleague from Illinois who has been down in the region is on the floor with us. I look forward to hearing about his firsthand experience as well.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator, the ranking member, and chairman of the Interior appropriations bill for their accommodation on this.

The Senate has done the right thing now for American veterans. I stand in support of this bill because it does represent a step in the right direction for our veterans. Today when we pass the Interior appropriations bill, it will include my amendment to fix the VA's funding shortfall by providing $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2005. This victory is long overdue and I thank Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, Senator Akaka, Senator Feinstein, Senator Burns, and Senator Dorgan for their work on this critical issue within this bill.

I want to make sure, however, that the VA uses this money in the way Congress intended. As the author of this amendment, I can tell you these dollars have to go to helping our veterans. They cannot be used for budget shell games to make the VA look solvent and they should not be used for red tape or accounting tricks and they should not be used as a rainy day fund. The money we have put in this bill is there to help veterans get the medical care they need. It should be used to end the hiring freeze, to provide mental health services for our veterans, and expand the VA's outpatient clinic initiative.

I want my colleagues to know I am going to be watching to make sure this money is used in the way we have all voted for it to be used. Now that we have taken care of the shortfall for fiscal year 2005, we have to turn our attention to fiscal year 2006. I want to make sure we do not make the same mistakes that left our veterans so vulnerable this year.

I have to say I am very troubled by what I hear coming out of the administration so far. With all of our new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan every day, this problem is only going to get more severe. Veterans funding has not kept up with medical costs. When adjusted for inflation, the VA is spending 25 percent less per patient than it did in fiscal 2000. That is having a huge impact on our patients and on VA health care personnel. In my home State of Washington, at the VA's American Lake facility, you can only get an appointment now if you are 50 percent or more service-connected disabled. In Puget Sound, as of January there was an $11 million deficit, forcing our VA hospital to leave positions vacant. The VA has dedicated, highly professional employees and they work very hard every day to help our veterans. We have to make sure the VA system helps them do that and not get in their way.

Now as we look toward fiscal year 2006, I want to be clear that veterans need real funding, not budget games. Congress cannot accept gimmicks such as forcing higher fees and copayments on our veterans and calling that new revenue. Any plan that increases the burden on our veterans is a nonstarter in my book.

What is needed now is for us to step up and meet our responsibility to our men and women in uniform and that requires an infusion of cash to stop the bleeding at the VA, and a real investment toward assisting our veterans. Now is the time we have to come together and provide the needed dollars so our veterans have the quality accessible care they need and they deserve.

The security and integrity of our Nation depends on our willingness to keep our promise to our veterans. We have all heard of the military reports that recruiting is not meeting its goal, and each day we limit veterans' access to care, we are sending the wrong message to the troops of tomorrow.

As I have done before, I want to quote President George Washington, who knew that helping veterans helps America's security when he said:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to

serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly

proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier

wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

I call on my colleagues to support this bill and work with me to keep the full $1.977 billion in emergency supplemental funding for the Veterans' Administration for fiscal year 2006. We have to do everything to assist the VA with this funding now so we do not face future shortfalls. I hope everyone will continue to support that funding in the coming year as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

I do so because this bill fails to move us beyond the status quo of today's energy situation. Congress rarely steps forward to address our Nation's energy policy, and I believe when we do so we should provide real direction that addresses real problems. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.

I voted for the bill as reported by the Senate, but only narrowly. A few provisions in the Senate bill attempted to address our need to promote renewable energy resources and decrease our consumption of foreign oil. Those few forward-looking provisions have been dropped from this final bill, leaving me with little choice but to vote no for our failure to truly provide some new direction to our Nation's energy policy.

Crafting comprehensive energy policy should offer the opportunity to address the most difficult issues facing our country. The bulk of this bill sidesteps those tough issues and in place of solutions it offers bandaids. Moving toward independence from foreign oil should be a top priority, but it is not addressed meaningfully.

Climate change is a serious issue that Congress simply refuses to address. While some voluntary measures are included, these are simply not enough. We must have meaningful action if we are to protect our health, environment, and economy of our country.

Gone from this bill is the renewable portfolio standard promoted by the Senate. The Senate's provision would have increased the penetration of alternative energy sources. This bill also fails to take adequate steps to develop conservation and efficiency technologies, and yet it offers substantial subsidies to the fossil fuels industry.

This is not the bill I would have written, and this is no longer a bill I can support.

There are sections of the bill that are positive. For example, I am pleased that the conference bill contains provisions protecting the Pacific Northwest's electricity system from unwarranted interference by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, and protects Washington ratepayers from excessively high electricity rates. I am also pleased that the current bill contains a fair and balanced hydroelectric relicensing process and sets new grid reliability standards. I commend my colleague, Senator Cantwell, who championed Washington State interests.

This bill in particular supports cutting edge research and development at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Washington State universities in the areas of smart energy, advanced scientific computing, and systems biology.

I am equally pleased to see that the bill does not provide MTBE liability protections.

As the world's leading energy consumer, the United States should lead by example and innovation. However, this bill stops short of taking commonsense measures that would truly reduce foreign oil dependence and mitigate the looming threat of climate change. To diversify energy sources in America, fossil fuel use must be offset by conservation, energy efficiency, and clean and renewable fuels.

Yet proposals to set ambitious, yet achievable, targets for reduced oil imports, tighter fuel economies for cars and trucks were defeated. Instead, oil and gas companies will be allowed to scour our fragile coastlines for more oil and gas reserves. Furthermore, this bill awards multimillion dollar tax breaks to those same companies, which are reaping windfalls from record-high oil prices at the expense of Washington consumers, to continue us down the path of fossil fuels, which are a key contributor to climate change. This bill also rolls back significant clean water laws that keep our water safe to drink.

Despite ample protections for Washington ratepayers, it is hard to ignore that this bill, this national energy blueprint, does absolutely nothing to improve energy security or reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need a national energy policy but one that acknowledges the needs for the future, sets a plan, and moves us forward, not a bill that delivers the status quo.

Mr. President. I would like to briefly explain the scope of the Transit New Start project listed as ``Seattle Monorail Project Post-Green Line Extensions.'' The project authorization does not authorize any Federal funding for the 14-mile Green Line approved by Seattle voters in November 2002. The 14-mile Green Line was approved by voters using entirely local funds. The authorization in this bill is for a possible second monorail line or an extension of the Green Line following construction of the 14-mile line.

Mr. President, I want to take time to comment on the resolution I am introducing today which designates the month of November 2005 as the ``Month of Global Health.''

Today we live in a global community where all nations both benefit from those countries that prosper, and suffer with those that do not. The Month of Global Health is a great opportunity to increase awareness of the pressing global health crisis that threatens our own public health and that of all nations around the world.

I believe this resolution is important and draws attention to the needs of a growing population of children in the developing world that are living without proper health care and the essential nutrients they need to survive. The resolution also highlights the necessary steps that must be taken to increase child survival rates in developing countries.

Child survival is one of the key elements to addressing global health. As a nation, there is much more we can do to assist developing nations in their effort to increase child survival rates. We must work on a global scale to avert the millions of unnecessary deaths among children caused each year from preventable diseases.

This resolution reaffirms our commitment to the children of the world and sends a message that child survival is a fundamental component in our efforts to improve global health.