Floor Statements

Mr. President, stem cell research has brought to the forefront the longstanding debate between bioethics and advancements in medical science. Stem cell research evokes hope in scientific progress while at the same time reminding us of its ethical hazards. Unquestionably, this is one of the most difficult public policy issues the Senate has discussed in many years.

I wish to make it very clear that I do not oppose stem cell research. I support and encourage research that uses cells derived from adult tissues and umbilical-cord blood and hope that an alternative source of embryonic stem cells, one that does not destroy embryos, can be found. I believe that it is possible to advance scientific research without violating ethical principles. It is my intention to support the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, which will support the use and further development of techniques for producing pluripotent cells like those derived from embryos but without harming or destroying human life.

After much reflection on this issue, I have determined that I personally cannot support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Taking stem cells from an embryo kills that embryo, and destroying human life is never justified even if it is done in order to benefit others. Obtaining good for oneself at the cost of another is contrary to my deepest held moral beliefs.

I do not believe the American public should have to fund research that many find morally objectionable. The future of this research does not require a policy of Federal funding. There is no ban on private funding of embryonic stem cell research, and there are other resources available to fund this type of research. The State of California has even chosen to use State taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research.

It is also my intent to support S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition bill. This bill would make it illegal to perform research on embryos from ``fetal farms,'' where human embryos could be gestated in a nonhuman uterus or from human pregnancies created specifically for the purpose of research.

Although it is often portrayed as such, the debate over embryonic stem cell research is not easily reduced to simple positions in support or opposition. Good people can and do disagree on this very complex issue. It is my belief that by pursuing the appropriate scientific techniques we can alleviate human suffering and also preserve the sanctity of human life, and it is for these reasons that I cast my vote today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Protection and Prosperity Act of 2006. I would like to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their support by cosponsoring this important legislation.

The Agricultural Protection and Prosperity Act of 2006 seeks to clarify the original intent of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, by providing an exemption for manure derived from agricultural operations. This clarification is badly needed in order to protect America's agriculture industry from onerous and frivolous lawsuits. Without clarification, agriculture operations could be fined up to $27,500 per day per violation, thereby bankrupting many livestock operations in this country. American livestock operations are already some of the most regulated businesses with regards to environmental quality. Additional requirements and liability under CERCLA, which is designed to clean up toxic industrial pollutants, is unwarranted and unfair for America's farmers.

Agriculture has been the backbone of this country since its inception and we owe our farmers a debt of gratitude. However, in an environment where our farmers and ranchers are struggling to

compete on the international stage, it seems unconscionable that some people wish to place them at a further disadvantage.

This clarification is especially important for New Mexico's dairy industry. This relatively new sector of our economy has grown by leaps and bounds over the years to a point where it contributes substantially to the overall economic output of my great State. On a national level, New Mexico enjoys one of the largest average herd sizes and per capita milk production in the country. This dramatic increase benefits many related businesses from the alfalfa growers along the Rio Grande to the implement salesman in our small towns. However, this growth and the future of the dairy industry in New Mexico are in great jeopardy. If this clarification to CERCLA is not made, the resulting dairy closures and the effects on related industries would devastate my State.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 20, 2006, 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of:

John Ray Correll, of Indiana, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, vice Jeffrey D. Jarrett.

Mark Myers, of Alaska, to be Director of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, vice Charles G. Groat, resigned.

Drue Pearce, of Alaska, to be Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects for the term prescribed by law. (New Position)

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce the Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources Restoration Act of 2006, an important piece of legislation for some of our constituents, the people of the Pueblo of Isleta.

The Pueblo filed suit against the United States under Public Law 104- 198, which conferred jurisdiction on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with respect to land claims of the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe, alleging loss and injury to the Pueblo's lands and property interests because of mismanagement by the Federal Government. The parties to the suit have spent several years reviewing and discussing these allegations, and this year the Pueblo of Isleta, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Interior have come to an agreement on how to resolve those claims. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Bingaman will codify the parties' agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed on how to use the funds paid to the Pueblo of Isleta. Some of the funds will be used for drainage and remediation of the Pueblo's agricultural lands that have been waterlogged. Some of the funds will be spent to rehabilitate and remediate the Pueblo's forest lands. Other funds will be used for the acquisition, restoration, improvement, development, and protection of land, natural resources and cultural resources of the Pueblo and for the payment and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit.

The Pueblo of Isleta, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Justice have worked long and hard to resolve this matter. I believe Congress should act expeditiously to ratify the agreement they have reached.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce the Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources Restoration Act of 2006, an important piece of legislation for some of our constituents, the people of the Pueblo of Isleta.

The Pueblo filed suit against the United States under Public Law 104- 198, which conferred jurisdiction on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with respect to land claims of the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe, alleging loss and injury to the Pueblo's lands and property interests because of mismanagement by the Federal Government. The parties to the suit have spent several years reviewing and discussing these allegations, and this year the Pueblo of Isleta, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Interior have come to an agreement on how to resolve those claims. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Bingaman will codify the parties' agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed on how to use the funds paid to the Pueblo of Isleta. Some of the funds will be used for drainage and remediation of the Pueblo's agricultural lands that have been waterlogged. Some of the funds will be spent to rehabilitate and remediate the Pueblo's forest lands. Other funds will be used for the acquisition, restoration, improvement, development, and protection of land, natural resources and cultural resources of the Pueblo and for the payment and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit.

The Pueblo of Isleta, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Justice have worked long and hard to resolve this matter. I believe Congress should act expeditiously to ratify the agreement they have reached.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Albuquerque Indian Schools Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Bingaman for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill.

The Albuquerque Indian Schools--AIS--Act of 2006 seeks to consolidate two parcels of federal land and take this land into trust for the 19 pueblos--Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia and Zuni. I believe this property, if transferred, would receive greater utilization and benefit the economic development of the 19 pueblos.

In 1981, the 19 New Mexico pueblos petitioned the United States for the transfer of 44 acres from the Albuquerque Indian School site for the purpose of economic development and in 1984 the Assistant Secretary of the Interior conveyed the 44 acres to the pueblos. This land is currently under development by the 19 New Mexico pueblos. They have constructed a 150,000 square foot Department of the Interior building which houses the southern regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and a 150,000 square foot Department of the Interior office building that houses the National BIA Training Center and the BIA Data Center. In addition, the pueblos are starting construction on a hotel and are preparing to begin several retail projects.

In 2003, the 19 pueblos requested conveyance of the two remaining tracts of land that are located south of Interstate 40. This land contains various metal buildings, which have deteriorated to the point that they have no value at this time.

The return of these two properties to the 19 pueblos is supported by the southwestern regional office of the BIA. With the addition of these two tracts, the 19 pueblos will be able to continue their successful economic development of the Albuquerque Indian School property, which will benefit not only the 19 New Mexico pueblos, but each individual tribal member.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Albuquerque Indian Schools Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Bingaman for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill.

The Albuquerque Indian Schools--AIS--Act of 2006 seeks to consolidate two parcels of federal land and take this land into trust for the 19 pueblos--Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia and Zuni. I believe this property, if transferred, would receive greater utilization and benefit the economic development of the 19 pueblos.

In 1981, the 19 New Mexico pueblos petitioned the United States for the transfer of 44 acres from the Albuquerque Indian School site for the purpose of economic development and in 1984 the Assistant Secretary of the Interior conveyed the 44 acres to the pueblos. This land is currently under development by the 19 New Mexico pueblos. They have constructed a 150,000 square foot Department of the Interior building which houses the southern regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and a 150,000 square foot Department of the Interior office building that houses the National BIA Training Center and the BIA Data Center. In addition, the pueblos are starting construction on a hotel and are preparing to begin several retail projects.

In 2003, the 19 pueblos requested conveyance of the two remaining tracts of land that are located south of Interstate 40. This land contains various metal buildings, which have deteriorated to the point that they have no value at this time.

The return of these two properties to the 19 pueblos is supported by the southwestern regional office of the BIA. With the addition of these two tracts, the 19 pueblos will be able to continue their successful economic development of the Albuquerque Indian School property, which will benefit not only the 19 New Mexico pueblos, but each individual tribal member.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Monday, July 17, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act provisions on hydrogen and fuel cell research and development.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Dr. Kathryn Clay at (202) 224-6224 or Steve Wasewicz at (202) 228-6195.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to examine United States and India energy cooperation in the context of global energy demand, the emerging energy needs of India, and the role nuclear power can play in meeting those needs.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Henry Abeyta at (202) 224- 8339, Clint Williamson at (202) 224-7556, or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. President, the fossilized trackways near the Robledo Mountains in Dona Ana County came to my attention in the early 1990s. During the 101st Congress, I cosponsored Senator Bingaman's legislation that directed the Bureau of Land Management to study and report on the prehistoric sites.

I understand the very difficult challenge we face in managing our public lands in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner. I believe our Federal lands are truly National treasures that demand our most thoughtful management. Local leaders, special interest groups, multiple users, New Mexico State University, and the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, have identified numerous land issues in the Las Cruces area that need to be addressed. The trackways are but one of these issues that can and should be addressed in the context of a broader lands bill. I believe that introduction of comprehensive or omnibus legislation is a preferable approach, rather than the introduction of individual bills to deal each separate issue.

I support the intent of this bill, as the trackways are remarkable artifacts that need and deserve protection. While I am very supportive of the overall goal to protect these prehistoric trackway sites, there are several particulars in this bill that I do not fully embrace and on which I want to continue to work with Senator Bingaman, such as ensuring that we authorize all uses in the area that are not inconsistent with the purposes of the bill, and reworking the section regarding BLM authority with respect to hunting activities. As we work through the committee process, I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman to accomplish the objective of protecting the prehistoric trackway sites, while at the same time addressing some of the broader Federal land issues that need to be addressed in Dona Ana County.

Mr. President, the fossilized trackways near the Robledo Mountains in Dona Ana County came to my attention in the early 1990s. During the 101st Congress, I cosponsored Senator Bingaman's legislation that directed the Bureau of Land Management to study and report on the prehistoric sites.

I understand the very difficult challenge we face in managing our public lands in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner. I believe our Federal lands are truly National treasures that demand our most thoughtful management. Local leaders, special interest groups, multiple users, New Mexico State University, and the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, have identified numerous land issues in the Las Cruces area that need to be addressed. The trackways are but one of these issues that can and should be addressed in the context of a broader lands bill. I believe that introduction of comprehensive or omnibus legislation is a preferable approach, rather than the introduction of individual bills to deal each separate issue.

I support the intent of this bill, as the trackways are remarkable artifacts that need and deserve protection. While I am very supportive of the overall goal to protect these prehistoric trackway sites, there are several particulars in this bill that I do not fully embrace and on which I want to continue to work with Senator Bingaman, such as ensuring that we authorize all uses in the area that are not inconsistent with the purposes of the bill, and reworking the section regarding BLM authority with respect to hunting activities. As we work through the committee process, I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman to accomplish the objective of protecting the prehistoric trackway sites, while at the same time addressing some of the broader Federal land issues that need to be addressed in Dona Ana County.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been rescheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held on Thursday, July 13, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the same room.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact John Peschke or Shannon Ewan.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on geothermal energy and other renewable energy production on Federal lands in the Western States.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony

for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Dick Bouts or Sara Zecher.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Henry M. Paulson, Jr., to be Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. Mr. President, American

economy has changed dramatically in the past decade. International economic policy now has a direct effect on our domestic economy. The information age has transformed America's economic future. This new economy requires a new kind of Treasury Secretary. It requires someone who is experienced and knowledgeable in both the domestic and the international marketplace. It requires someone who has demonstrated exemplary leadership in both government and private enterprise. Henry Paulson will bring these vital skills to the Department of Treasury.

Mr. Paulson's outstanding career in both the public and private sectors has clearly demonstrated his ability to serve as our Nation's next Treasury Secretary. Prior to joining The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Mr. Paulson served the public as White House domestic Council staff assistant to the President from 1972 to 1973 and as staff assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon from 1970 to 1972. In 1974, Henry Paulson decided to enter the private sector. He joined The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., in Chicago. Mr. Paulson worked his way up through the ranks of Goldman Sachs and is currently serving as chairman and chief executive officer. Clearly, Henry Paulson has had a very distinguished 32 year career in the private business sector.

Our Nation will be fortunate to have a Treasury Secretary with such broad and varied expertise, and these experiences will prove vital in leading a progressively diverse economy. I believe Henry Paulson will be an exemplary Treasury Secretary. He has already spoken of his keen appreciation for the role capital markets play in driving growth and efficiency, the globalization of finance and interdependence of major world economies, and ensuring that America's industries can compete in the new global economy. I am confident Henry Paulson will seek to strengthen and advance the competitive edge of our economy. I am certain his experience and leadership will be great assets in achieving these important goals.

Mr. President, it is my great honor to support Henry Paulson to head the Department of the Treasury.

Mr. President, today I rise to share my concerns about the water crisis that has ravaged the West for more than 5 years.

Water is our most precious and scarce resource. This year, my home State of New Mexico is battling a very real and devastating drought that has expanded throughout most of the Western United States. The ongoing drought continues to break records, and I believe that in years to come, 2006 will be looked at as the year where most basins set new record lows. The question on the minds of New Mexicans is, Will there be enough water to meet the current needs?

Drought is a unique emergency situation because it creeps in unlike other abrupt weather disasters. New Mexico, like many other States in the West, has had little to no precipitation, and our winter snow pack was far below average. Many New Mexico towns, municipalities, and agricultural producers heavily rely on runoff provided by snowpack.

On April 18, 2006, the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station predicted a dramatic decrease in water flows and reservoir storage throughout New Mexico. Early predictions indicate that river water supply will be at 54 percent due primarily to receiving half our annual snowpack and above average temperatures in my State. Additionally, several of our reservoirs are at severely diminished capacity. Specifically, the Elephant Butte, El Vado and Caballo reservoirs are all well below 10 percent of capacity. Earlier this year New Mexico's State engineer, John D'Antonio, correctly predicted that it will be difficult, if not impossible, without really good snowpack to keep the Rio Grande River flowing through the summer.

The drought has exacerbated many of New Mexico's most acute problems. For example, wells are running dry, ranchers are being forced to sell their livestock, farmers are being forced to watch their way of life blow away with the dust, and many of our cities are in various stages of water restriction. Because of a lack of precipitation, many New Mexico communities are running out of water. The disruption to water supplies will have disastrous implications for affected communities. Absent some immediate help, it is unclear where these communities will get water for municipal purposes.

The communities of Ruidoso, Ruidoso Downs, Las Vegas, Capitan,

and Cloudcroft, NM, are already operating under stringent water restrictions. I am happy to say that the fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations bill provided $9 million for drought emergency assistance to these and other New Mexico communities that have been especially hard hit by the drought.

The Rio Grande River is another unfortunate example of the water shortages in New Mexico. Water flowing in the Rio Grande provides water to almost a million people living along its banks. New Mexico's largest cities and fastest growing towns are along the Rio Grande--the Pojoaque Valley, Santa Fe, Rio Rancho, Albuquerque, Los Lunas, and Belen.

The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and Rio Grande Rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis in New Mexico. Indeed, every river in the intermountain west seems to be facing similar problems. Drought conditions have affected nearly everyone in our States in some way. As I have said many times, we must continue our efforts to stretch existing water supplies and create new water supplies by encouraging increased conservation efforts, a better understanding of available resources, and a more reasoned approach to endangered species and water quality regulations.

America is reaching the extent of our water supply, and we cannot wait to address this problem. I believe we must bring to bear every tool available to confront these problems in the West, and doing so remains one of my top priorities.

The fiscal impacts of drought on individuals, businesses, and governments are not insignificant. According to NOAA, there have been 12 different drought events since 1980 that resulted in damages and costs exceeding $1 billion each. For instance, in 2000, severe drought in the South-Central and Southeastern States caused losses to agriculture and related industries of over $4 billion, and the Eastern drought in 1999 led to $1 billion in losses.

While drought affects the economic and environmental well-being of the entire Nation, the United States lacks a cohesive strategy for dealing with serious drought emergencies. The current state of the drought should prompt us to take action. Better planning on our part could limit some of the damage felt by drought. I believe that passage of the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006, S. 2751, is a good start. Without a national drought policy in place, we constantly live with the uncertainty of what next year will bring.

The past several days have brought some precipitation in places, but it alone will not be enough. These are difficult times, and all we can hope for is help where we can get it. I want to make the Senate aware of the difficulties we are experiencing in my home state because of the prolonged drought and the hot, dry, windy conditions, and as their Senator, I continue to ask for help on their behalf. As this drought persists, I want to ensure each New Mexican that I am committed to doing everything possible to make sure they have the tools and resources they need to help cope during this very difficult time.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been postponed before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building has been postponed and will be rescheduled for a date to be announced.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact John Peschke at (202) 224- 4797 Shannon Ewan at (202) 224-7555.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the flag protection amendment, S.J. Res. 12.

This amendment was precipitated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which overturned a law which prohibited flag burning. The ruling made the burning of the American flag a legitimate exercise of free speech.

I believe freedom of speech, guaranteed in the first amendment, is one of the fundamental freedoms the Founding Fathers sought to protect since it is the basis for every other freedom we enjoy. However, in the past the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. For example, it is unlawful to yell ``fire'' in a crowded auditorium, and it is also illegal to threaten to harm the President of the United States.

I disagree with the Supreme Court's analysis of flag burning. The Supreme Court erred in equating free speech with the desecration of the American flag. The act of desecrating the American flag goes beyond merely expressing a point of view--it is a violent act against the symbol of our Nation. It is not an act of free speech. Every American is free to denounce our Nation and ideals for which the flag stands. Frankly, I think it would be terribly misguided, but if that is what they want to say, they have the right to say it. There is a vast difference, however, between speaking one's mind and desecrating the symbol of our Nation.

The American flag is a unifying symbol of our Nation and is considered by many to be the physical embodiment of the founding principles of this country. The predominance our flag holds in the national psyche was reconfirmed after the September 11 attacks, when the vision of the red, white and blue galvanized our Nation.

The American flag is not just a piece of cloth. It is a symbol of freedom and of the sacrifice it takes to gain that freedom. The red stripes are there to

remind us of the blood that was and continues to be shed in defense of this Nation.

I have the deepest reverence for the U.S. Constitution, and I do not believe it should be amended casually. However, in this case, I believe the American flag and all it represents deserves the protection of our laws. Therefore, I have decided to support a constitutional amendment that would require due respect for this great symbol of freedom.