Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize and give thanks to the Jewish community's tremendous relief efforts in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Countless Jewish individuals and organizations have stepped up to combat this national crisis, providing the victims of Hurricane Katrina with money, supplies and volunteers, while opening the doors of their homes, schools and synagogues.

I would like to highlight a few of these efforts.

Millions of dollars haven been raised in the name of the Katrina victims. The United Jewish Communities, local federations throughout the United States and Canada, and their partners have raised at least $14 million, including a $500,000 donation given by the Baltimore-based Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Inc. The Weinberg Foundation gave another $500,000 to Catholic Relief Charities. A smaller, but no less inspiring, fund was raised by students of the Sacramento, CA Shalom School, which donated proceeds from sales of their Rosh Hashanah honey pots.

Educational aid for displaced students has come from Jewish organizations such as the Avi Chai Foundation, a group sending emergency grant money to the dozens of Jewish day schools that are admitting evacuees into their classrooms. And the Jewish Agency for Israel, MASA--the Gateway to Long-Term Israel Programs and Hillel are coordinating efforts to allow displaced students to take classes at Israeli universities.

I would also like to recognize the synagogues that are contributing their resources to the effort by providing housing, schooling and free synagogue memberships--even adopting other synagogues in impacted states damaged by the storm.

But the Jewish assistance provided to the victims of Hurricane Katrina does not stop at our borders. The State of Israel has been incredibly generous as well, donating 80 tons of supplies including 15 tons of bottled water, 4 tons of rations, 4 tons of diapers, 1 ton of baby food, Medical supplies including adult and children's wheelchairs and

crutches, thousands of first-aid kits and thousands of blankets and cots. They have also sent teams of professionals trained in disaster relief to assist victims of this terrible disaster, including doctors, paramedics, mental health professionals, search and rescue teams and disaster relief planning and operations specialists.

In times such as these, it is critical that people of all faiths come together to help those in need and I am proud to see that the Jewish community has stepped up and met the challenge head on.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate my colleague yielding to me and particularly highlighting the need for some real accountability and protection for the taxpayers at this time. We are seeing expenses for the Government-- the war in Iraq, the various disasters that have hit--exploding to the point where people are saying, well, let us hold off on giving senior citizens some help with their prescription drugs.

I think what the Senator is saying is, before one takes those kinds of steps, put the brakes on the opportunity for ripping off taxpayers.

I want to ask the Senator a question that really stunned me. There are now about 392,000 Federal employees who have these credit cards across the country. We have been trying to figure out how many folks have them on the gulf coast and how many of the folks have this $250,000 authority. The two of us feel very strongly that there are a lot of dedicated people down there who are working very hard and nobody is suggesting otherwise, but what possible argument would there be for not having something along the lines of some guardrails to try to make sure that people did not abuse these credit cards?

That strikes me as a pretty modest step, just have some guardrails rather than saying, look, go out and take $250,000 worth of authority and we will see what happens.

Mr. President, it seems to me that the bottom line is we want Federal workers in the hurricane zone to have all the tools they need to get the job done. But a month after the hurricane hit, we do not need $250,000 worth of authority on a credit card. One needs permission to spend that kind of money. The fact is, under the current rules one can have it when they need it, just not on a credit card where they do not even have to ask. This is a commonsense step.

Senator Dorgan indicated if somebody needs to spend more than $15,000 a shot, there are already streamlined, simplified acquisition procedures in place to let them do that. Those procedures at least have some oversight. The two of us supported the Katrina bills that came through the Congress. We support the rule that was already in place that increases the spending power of these cards by a reasonable amount in an emergency from $2,500 to $15,000. What the two of us feel strongly about and what we do not support is how can one support excessive spending without any safeguards at all?

We heard from a Dr. Yukins at George Washington that there is extraordinary potential for abuse here. Dr. Yukins said it was staggering.

In looking at Government waste at a variety of agencies, Senator Dorgan and I have come to the conclusion that when one is talking about the Department of Homeland Security, when one is talking about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and when one is talking about the Department of Defense, what one needs is more accountability and more oversight rather than less.

In Homeland Security, we have seen massive outlays for ineffective programs to hire the TSA screeners. At FEMA, it is hard to know where to start there, but folks may have heard on public radio yesterday that a Government Accountability Office audit more than a year ago said that only one in several dozen FEMA employees could prove that they had done the proper paperwork for procurement authority.

When it comes to Iraq, all one needs to do there is talk about Iraqi contracts. Senator Dorgan and I have tried to put in place some oversight and some accountability there, and we will continue on that as well. So this is not the only avenue for abuse of taxpayer dollars. If one wants to come to the floor and talk about no-bid contracts and the like, there is plenty to dig into in terms of more oversight and more accountability for our taxpayers. This is a commonsense step that the Senate can take.

I have listened to Senator Collins on this issue, as well as Senator Grassley. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about this in effect blank check to use credit cards, and use them on some pretty high ticket items.

I am going to yield the floor back to Senator Dorgan, but given the fact that there is a catalog of abuses--this happened outside the hurricane zone before anybody knew about Katrina--let us now deal with an emergency, let us recognize that there are different spending needs given that emergency, but let us also make sure that there are some safeguards in place to make sure the taxpayers' interests at a critical time when costs in Government are exploding, let us make sure there are some safeguards in place to protect the public.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate my colleague yielding to me and particularly highlighting the need for some real accountability and protection for the taxpayers at this time. We are seeing expenses for the Government-- the war in Iraq, the various disasters that have hit--exploding to the point where people are saying, well, let us hold off on giving senior citizens some help with their prescription drugs.

I think what the Senator is saying is, before one takes those kinds of steps, put the brakes on the opportunity for ripping off taxpayers.

I want to ask the Senator a question that really stunned me. There are now about 392,000 Federal employees who have these credit cards across the country. We have been trying to figure out how many folks have them on the gulf coast and how many of the folks have this $250,000 authority. The two of us feel very strongly that there are a lot of dedicated people down there who are working very hard and nobody is suggesting otherwise, but what possible argument would there be for not having something along the lines of some guardrails to try to make sure that people did not abuse these credit cards?

That strikes me as a pretty modest step, just have some guardrails rather than saying, look, go out and take $250,000 worth of authority and we will see what happens.

Mr. President, it seems to me that the bottom line is we want Federal workers in the hurricane zone to have all the tools they need to get the job done. But a month after the hurricane hit, we do not need $250,000 worth of authority on a credit card. One needs permission to spend that kind of money. The fact is, under the current rules one can have it when they need it, just not on a credit card where they do not even have to ask. This is a commonsense step.

Senator Dorgan indicated if somebody needs to spend more than $15,000 a shot, there are already streamlined, simplified acquisition procedures in place to let them do that. Those procedures at least have some oversight. The two of us supported the Katrina bills that came through the Congress. We support the rule that was already in place that increases the spending power of these cards by a reasonable amount in an emergency from $2,500 to $15,000. What the two of us feel strongly about and what we do not support is how can one support excessive spending without any safeguards at all?

We heard from a Dr. Yukins at George Washington that there is extraordinary potential for abuse here. Dr. Yukins said it was staggering.

In looking at Government waste at a variety of agencies, Senator Dorgan and I have come to the conclusion that when one is talking about the Department of Homeland Security, when one is talking about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and when one is talking about the Department of Defense, what one needs is more accountability and more oversight rather than less.

In Homeland Security, we have seen massive outlays for ineffective programs to hire the TSA screeners. At FEMA, it is hard to know where to start there, but folks may have heard on public radio yesterday that a Government Accountability Office audit more than a year ago said that only one in several dozen FEMA employees could prove that they had done the proper paperwork for procurement authority.

When it comes to Iraq, all one needs to do there is talk about Iraqi contracts. Senator Dorgan and I have tried to put in place some oversight and some accountability there, and we will continue on that as well. So this is not the only avenue for abuse of taxpayer dollars. If one wants to come to the floor and talk about no-bid contracts and the like, there is plenty to dig into in terms of more oversight and more accountability for our taxpayers. This is a commonsense step that the Senate can take.

I have listened to Senator Collins on this issue, as well as Senator Grassley. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about this in effect blank check to use credit cards, and use them on some pretty high ticket items.

I am going to yield the floor back to Senator Dorgan, but given the fact that there is a catalog of abuses--this happened outside the hurricane zone before anybody knew about Katrina--let us now deal with an emergency, let us recognize that there are different spending needs given that emergency, but let us also make sure that there are some safeguards in place to make sure the taxpayers' interests at a critical time when costs in Government are exploding, let us make sure there are some safeguards in place to protect the public.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 5 years have passed since the Presidential election of 2000, and legitimate questions

about the outcome of that campaign have left too much of America too divided. Legitimate questions about the outcome of that election have given rise to an ever-growing polarization between so-called red and blue States, between liberals and conservatives, and between Republicans and Democrats in the Congress.

Despite a somewhat more convincing outcome in the 2004 Presidential election, the divisions caused by the events of 2000 show little sign of abating. Having closely observed this widening divide, I now wonder whether Judge Roberts' confirmation will add to the bitterness and distrust of the Federal Government or whether it may serve to remind the people and the lawmakers they elect that we cannot move forward as a nation if we remain dedicated to tearing each other down.

This is my first vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, and my obligation as articulated in the Constitution is to either consent or not consent to a choice specifically entrusted to the elected President of the United States. Some of the policy watchdogs that I respect the most and agree with on so many issues have asked whether I oppose Judge Roberts because he is not one of us, because he is too conservative, because he is too young, because he may prove effective. He is not whom we would choose, they say. And on that point, I am in full agreement.

Should the test to confirm a Chief Justice be, he is not one we would choose? I ask my friends to imagine the mess we will have left for our country if the Senate uses this test and votes solely on the basis of a nominee's political beliefs. Friends who a year ago said, We don't want ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court, now want John Roberts and the next nominee to show up at the witness table to submit to an ideological litmus test.

Here is my message to those friends: A sword forged in ideology in 2005 can be used against a progressive nominee in 2009 with an equal disregard for the Constitution and the individual.

In 2008, I fully intend to work harder than ever before to elect a President who rejects the dangerous priorities that have led us to war in Iraq and an energy policy that is folly, that assures our continued dependence on foreign oil. Should this new Democratic President have to contend with a Republican Senate majority, he or she better hope that the judicial nominations in 2005 did not become purely ideology- driven contests. If these debates are purely partisan, our future will include constitutional bedlam whenever a Supreme Court opening occurs while the Senate is controlled by the opposition party.

I reject the suggestion that a Republican nominee is, per se, objectionable. A number of certainly moderate justices nominated by Republican Presidents certainly belie this claim. The decision each Senator must make should be based on the judicial nominee that is before the Senate, not the one that we wish was before the Senate.

To put this into historial perspective under the advice and consent responsibility assigned to the President, the President's judicial nominees to the Court have traditionally been given a large degree of deference. For example, in spite of the divisive national debate surrounding gays in the military, universal health care, Travelgate, Filegate, and the Whitewater investigation, this deference translated into 96 votes for Justice Ginsburg and 87 votes for Justice Breyer when their nominations came to a vote before the Senate. Yet these are two of the most progressive voices in the over 200-year history of the Court.

When I had the opportunity to meet with John Roberts in my office this past August, I pressed him to tell me how he viewed some of the issues that have most divided our country. The answers Judge Roberts gave me during the hour we spent together left me with the impression that he will be his own man on the Court.

Here are my judgments about the individual before the Senate now: One, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a man who will walk into the white pillard building across the street and set about tearing apart the fabric of our society; two, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead of the need for thoughtful reason; three, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a divisive, confrontational extremist who would try to further exploit the divisions in our country.

What I saw in his public testimony and in our private meeting is an intelligent, thoughtful man, certainly a deeply conservative man with a tempered view of the role of Government.

At his Judiciary Committee hearings, nothing he said in public conflicted with what he had told me in private.

In addition to meeting with him, I have scrutinized Judge Roberts and his record closely, considering his Reagan-era documents, reading the news analysis printed in papers across our country and listened to the hearings and reviewed the transcripts of them as well. No one disputes that Judge Roberts has a brilliant legal mind. My analysis of his record leads me to conclude that he is not cut from the same originalist cloth as Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. He does not seem to believe that the words of the Constitution are fossilized, leaving only a one-size-fits-all, 18th century remedy for every problem that our society confronts. It is hard not to get the sense that he believes in limited government.

Back in March, I led the effort in the Senate to block attempts to dictate a specific medical treatment in Terri Schiavo's tragic case because I believed the Constitution affords families the right to decide these matters privately. This is an area, in my view, in which the Federal Government has no business intruding. Involving itself in the Schiavo case, Congress was inappropriately meddling and blatantly ignoring the limits of its constitutional authority.

I believe that the Terri Schiavo case is the first of many such end- of-life cases that will arrive at the Supreme Court's doorstep. In my view, most of these cases will involve one individual and passionately held views. Demographic trends and improvements in medical technology assure that there will be many of these cases.

Given what is ahead, I felt I had an obligation to examine how Judge Roberts saw end-of-life issues in the context of the Constitution and whether he would be willing to manipulate its meaning to authorize Government intrusion in private family matters. When I met with Judge Roberts in August, we discussed end-of-life issues at length, not because this was a litmus test for me, and I certainly don't believe in litmus tests, but because I thought it was important to carefully consider Judge Roberts' judicial temperament on this critical issue.

Judge Roberts did not say how he would have handled the Schiavo case or any case before the Court. However, Judge Roberts did say quite a bit that made a lot of sense to me and I think would make sense to the vast majority of Americans. Judge Roberts agreed that there is a constitutionally based privacy right and that while the scope of the privacy right is still being defined in the context of end-of-life care, he said that when he approached the issue, he starts with the proposition that each person has the right to be left alone and that their liberty interests should be factored in as well.

At his hearing, Judge Roberts reiterated his position, stating that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. He stated that privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, and he stated this liberty interest is protected substantively as well as procedurally.

While discussing the Schiavo tragedy during our August meeting, I also asked him about Congress's authority to legislate a particular remedy in a particular case, and Judge Roberts expressed his concern about judicial independence. It was apparent to me Judge Roberts understands there are constitutional limits to the recent enthusiasm of Congress to prescribe particular remedies in a particular end-of-life case.

Concerning States rights to regulate medical practice and the scope of the 10th amendment, Judge Roberts stated he believed the Framers expected States to do most of the regulating and that they expected most regulation to

be State-based. In his view, the basic genius of the Federal system is that it affords different States the ability to approach problems in a way that is best suited to meet their different needs, and that imposing uniformity across the country would stifle the genius of our Founding Fathers.

Judge Roberts also told me he attaches great importance to legislative history in interpreting law. He repeated this point several times during his public hearings. Those who have closely studied former Attorney General Ashcroft's challenge to the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law know there is not one word in the Controlled Substances Act, the law used to launch the case, indicating the Controlled Substances Act is aimed at or should be used to overturn or undermine the right of States to regulate medical practices within their borders.

On the extremely important matter of a woman's right to choose, I asked Judge Roberts about Roe. He did not offer specific comments, but his response indicated he would not enter the Court with an ``agenda'' and he would respect the Court's precedents. In the public hearings, he also said he personally agreed with the conclusion of the Griswold and Eisenstat decisions, which held that the privacy right protects the right of individuals to use birth control.

His opinions on the issues that matter indicate he is intelligent, thoughtful, and that he has a tempered view of the role of the Federal Government.

Judge Roberts' combination of temperament and intelligence give him the potential to be a conciliatory voice at a divisive time in American history. He has the skills to reach across the divisions in America to show that justice can be a healing force for the wounds that cut our society so deeply. He can help to unify the country by building a record of well-reasoned opinions grounded in the rule of law, not ideology.

He will receive my vote tomorrow to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.

I want to make one final point, Mr. President, a point that is important to me. There is another vacancy on the Court, and the President is expected to send forth his nominee soon. My intention to vote for Judge Roberts tomorrow should in no way be construed as a ``weathervane'' for how I might vote on the next nominee. In the past, I have not hesitated to vote against several of the President's nominees to the courts of appeals when they carried the ideological and activist baggage I believed would be disruptive to our society. If the President puts forward a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor who is unlikely to ably and respectfully fill her shoes, I will vigorously oppose that nomination.

I began by voicing my question about the impact of this nomination on the body politic of our country. Among the many awesome duties of the Chief Justice, no duty is of greater importance than the duty to unify our Nation when Americans find themselves in disagreement. Different Chief Justices have shouldered this burden with varying degrees of success. This ability to unify is what is most sorely needed at this moment in our Nation's history, and I am of the opinion that Judge Roberts possesses the nature and the desire to unify the Court and, with it, our Nation. I wish him wisdom, diplomacy, and moderation as he prepares to assume this critical role.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment introduced by my colleague, Senator Harkin, from Iowa, which would increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $38.2 million to $363 million.

If there was ever a time to provide adequate funding for legal services for the poor, that time is now.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there will be thousands and thousands of Americans in desperate need of legal advice who lack the resources to hire their own attorneys or the skills necessary to meet the legal challenges they must confront.

These are the same folks that didn't have the means to get out of harm's way when the hurricane struck.

These are the same folks that waited for days on their rooftops, at the New Orleans Convention Center, the Superdome, and so many other places down on the Gulf Coast to be rescued.

These are the same folks that now must rebuild their lives--often times from scratch.

They will need legal assistance. Congress needs to step in and help make this a reality. And Congress needs to step and increase funding so that the thousands of other Americans--in addition to the victims of Katrina--who are unable to afford legal advice get the access to justice that they deserve.

How can it be, in a country where we teach our children from an early age the Pledge of Allegiance and its closing words--``with liberty and justice for all''--so many children and their families cannot obtain equal access to justice?

How can it be, in a country that saw an historic economic boom in the last decade, that 80 percent of low-income Americans still lack access to a lawyer when they're in serious legal situations?

How can it be, in a country as strong and rich as this one, that tens of thousands of Americans who need legal representation are turned away every year because their Government won't support the very program designed to help them?

This year, the House has appropriated only $324.5 million in funding for Legal Services. The current version of the Senate CJS Appropriations bill funds the program at about the same level.

This is less than Legal Services received in FY 2005. It's almost $40 million less than the FY 2006 budget request made by the bipartisan Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors. In fact, the current level of funding is not much more than it was in 1981--in real dollars.

The issues that Legal Aid works to address are not esoteric legal questions. They are issues of life and death and food and shelter.

When folks who are already hurting can't get the legal representation they need, all too often it gets harder to put food on the table and harder to pay the rent and harder to get the medicine for the kids or for Grandma.

In the State of Oregon, the need for legal aid is clear, and the choice to fund it should be obvious. Oregon's Legal Aid programs are the primary source of representation available to more than 500,000 low-income folks in my State, and they assist 20,000 of those low- income Oregonians every year.

But because of Legal Aid funding shortfalls in recent years, the Oregon programs have had to layoff staff, cut salaries for remaining staff, slash their medical benefits, freeze vacancies, and close the Klamath Falls office. Less than 20 percent of low income Oregonians have access to an attorney who could make a critical difference in helping them deal with a legal issue--from a getting restraining order from an abusive boyfriend to helping a predatory lending victim.

The idea that Legal Aid is the practice of political law is preposterous.

It's simply making sure that legal services are available for the very people who need them most.

Make no mistake--State, local and private resources are providing the vast majority of Legal Aid funding in Oregon and elsewhere. In 1980, Federal funding accounted for 80 percent of the total legal aid money in Oregon. In 2005, Federal funding accounts for 28 percent. Everyone else is doing their part to provide these folks with equal access to justice--it's time that the Federal Government did its part too.

I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina and poor Americans throughout the United States, who, as children, stood in their classrooms with their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance and the words ``with liberty and justice for all'' will not find out those words were a lie.

I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina living in the Houston Astrodome will have legal help they need when applying for food

stamps and other forms of assistance available to them.

I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina relocated to San Antonio will get legal help they need to deal with their insurance companies.

I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina spread all across the country will get the legal assistance they need to rebuild their homes--and their lives.

With Federal, State and local partners working together, we can ensure equal access to the law for all Americans, including the thousands and thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. President, today I want to draw attention to the 11th annual National Assisted Living Week, which begins on September 11 and continues through September 17. Created in 1995 by the National Center for Assisted Living, and being celebrated for the second time in conjunction with the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging and Assisted Living Federation of America, National Assisted Living Week emphasizes the importance of assisted living services to the more than 1 million seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on them every day.

The theme for this week is ``A Fair to Remember.'' The theme encourages assisted living facilities to create their own ``Fair'' environment for the residents, families, staff, volunteers and local community and to celebrate their time together and share the fun with family and friends.

Assisted living continues to grow in importance as our society's demographics change and as we live longer. Seniors and their families want a homelike setting and are seeking alternatives to nursing homes. Because assisted living has been able to develop to meet community needs, it can be very different in different States. However, the goal is the same: to provide quality care for those who need some help in caring for themselves but are not in need of the care provided by a nursing home.

My home State of Oregon pioneered the concept of assisted living, and I am proud of my State's ability to continue to evolve the concept so that it meets the changing needs of seniors. All of us want to be in a safe environment and as independent as possible for as long as possible. Assisted living provides care while maintaining the dignity of the individuals they serve. Our Nation must continue to support those long-term care options that allow consumers the care setting that is appropriate for their needs.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will safeguard and promote specialty crops and value-added agriculture in Oregon and in the United States. The great farmers and ranchers of Oregon produce over 200 commodities. This bill intends to improve their marketing opportunities, help Oregon farmers and processors get better prices for their products, and help Oregon farmers and processors compete in an increasingly global market. As it will help Oregon farmers so it will help specialty crop farmers from New York to Florida, Wisconsin to California.

I introduce this bill as my colleague from Oregon, Congresswoman Hooley, introduces the same bill in the House of Representatives.

In the increasingly technological world of microchips, products like potato chips and other agricultural commodities still remain a large part of Oregon's economy. In fact, agriculture is Oregon's second largest traded sector and Oregon's second largest export, behind the electronics industry. Oregon agriculture creates more than $8 billion of direct and indirect economic activity, in both urban and rural areas in the state.

At the center of this bill is the expansion of a specialty crop grant program, authorized by Congress in 2001, of which Oregon producers have already made use. Oregon received about $3.2 million that was used for over 50 projects involving product development, marketing, research, and export promotion. The Oregon Department of Agriculture estimates that over 3000 producers benefited from these projects. They also estimate that enhanced sales resulting from these projects reached $20 million--about six times what was invested.

The problem with this pilot program was the grants were only available once. Last year Congress passed legislation that reinstated these specialty crop grants but at funding level that would provide only around $500,000 to Oregon. This legislation raises the authorized level to $500 million and makes the grant program permanent. Under this expansion Oregon has the potential to receive $5 million a year in specialty crop grants.

The bill I am introducing today also improves USDA's value added grant program. Right now this program is run by bureaucrats in Washington, DC who have probably never been to Oregon and probably couldn't name the top Oregon specialty crops. My office has heard numerous complaints that this program is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and difficult to navigate. Last year every applicant from Oregon was disqualified on a technicality. This bill would make one simple but very important change: instead of having the Federal Government distribute the money, each State would get a share of the money to hand out to their chosen priorities.

Between these two grant programs each State in the union should have plenty of money to implement agricultural promotion strategies that match the needs of its individual growers, processors, and citizens.

This bill also authorizes funds for farmers and processors to become ``certified.'' Certification comes in many forms like ``Good Agricultural Practices,'' ``Good Handling Practices,'' or ``Organic.'' Often getting certified is necessary before farmers or processors can effectively market products whether in local grocery stores or to foreign countries. Certified products often fetch premium prices. To encourage farmers to get these certifications and increase their market share this legislation would have the USDA reimburse half the cost of the certifications.

Last, this legislation improves opportunities for specialty crop farmers to get crop insurance, increase loan availability, provide additional funding for export promotion, and make sure that American trade policy takes specialty crops into account.

I know that Oregonians doing a great job growing some of the best quality crops in the world. There are a lot of challenges facing agriculture: cheap imports, low commodity prices, taxation, labor, and dozens of others. This bill won't solve everything, but I think it will make an important contribution to improving Oregon agriculture by making it more competitive on a global level and helping farmers get a decent price for what they produce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure the enactment of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will safeguard and promote specialty crops and value-added agriculture in Oregon and in the United States. The great farmers and ranchers of Oregon produce over 200 commodities. This bill intends to improve their marketing opportunities, help Oregon farmers and processors get better prices for their products, and help Oregon farmers and processors compete in an increasingly global market. As it will help Oregon farmers so it will help specialty crop farmers from New York to Florida, Wisconsin to California.

I introduce this bill as my colleague from Oregon, Congresswoman Hooley, introduces the same bill in the House of Representatives.

In the increasingly technological world of microchips, products like potato chips and other agricultural commodities still remain a large part of Oregon's economy. In fact, agriculture is Oregon's second largest traded sector and Oregon's second largest export, behind the electronics industry. Oregon agriculture creates more than $8 billion of direct and indirect economic activity, in both urban and rural areas in the state.

At the center of this bill is the expansion of a specialty crop grant program, authorized by Congress in 2001, of which Oregon producers have already made use. Oregon received about $3.2 million that was used for over 50 projects involving product development, marketing, research, and export promotion. The Oregon Department of Agriculture estimates that over 3000 producers benefited from these projects. They also estimate that enhanced sales resulting from these projects reached $20 million--about six times what was invested.

The problem with this pilot program was the grants were only available once. Last year Congress passed legislation that reinstated these specialty crop grants but at funding level that would provide only around $500,000 to Oregon. This legislation raises the authorized level to $500 million and makes the grant program permanent. Under this expansion Oregon has the potential to receive $5 million a year in specialty crop grants.

The bill I am introducing today also improves USDA's value added grant program. Right now this program is run by bureaucrats in Washington, DC who have probably never been to Oregon and probably couldn't name the top Oregon specialty crops. My office has heard numerous complaints that this program is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and difficult to navigate. Last year every applicant from Oregon was disqualified on a technicality. This bill would make one simple but very important change: instead of having the Federal Government distribute the money, each State would get a share of the money to hand out to their chosen priorities.

Between these two grant programs each State in the union should have plenty of money to implement agricultural promotion strategies that match the needs of its individual growers, processors, and citizens.

This bill also authorizes funds for farmers and processors to become ``certified.'' Certification comes in many forms like ``Good Agricultural Practices,'' ``Good Handling Practices,'' or ``Organic.'' Often getting certified is necessary before farmers or processors can effectively market products whether in local grocery stores or to foreign countries. Certified products often fetch premium prices. To encourage farmers to get these certifications and increase their market share this legislation would have the USDA reimburse half the cost of the certifications.

Last, this legislation improves opportunities for specialty crop farmers to get crop insurance, increase loan availability, provide additional funding for export promotion, and make sure that American trade policy takes specialty crops into account.

I know that Oregonians doing a great job growing some of the best quality crops in the world. There are a lot of challenges facing agriculture: cheap imports, low commodity prices, taxation, labor, and dozens of others. This bill won't solve everything, but I think it will make an important contribution to improving Oregon agriculture by making it more competitive on a global level and helping farmers get a decent price for what they produce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure the enactment of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, legislation was signed into law that created two fundamental programs: Medicare and Medicaid. The creation of those programs was a landmark for this country. When signing the Medicare legislation 40 years ago, President Johnson remarked, ``We marvel not simply at the passage of this bill, what we marvel at is that it took so many years to pass it.''

At that time, senior citizens were identified as the group most likely to be living in poverty in the U.S. Many had no type of health insurance. Since 1965, and largely thanks to Medicare and the access it has afforded seniors, the poverty rate has dropped significantly and older Americans are enjoying longer and healthier lives.

As John Gardner, Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary during President Johnson's administration, once stated, ``Medicare was a great turning point, but it has to be continually revised.'' And Medicare has changed. Since 1972, Medicare has also included Americans with disabilities and those with end stage renal disease bringing access and coverage to millions of

Americans in need of it. In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act to add a prescription drug benefit. Medicare began with about 19 million seniors, but faces an estimated 77 million Americans, almost double the number of Americans enrolled in the program now in 2030. These Medicare beneficiaries will live longer, and face very different needs than the first 19 million.

With the creation of Medicaid, our Nation affirmed that we wanted those who were poor to be able to have health care. Like Medicare, Medicaid has faced changes. Other categories of people in need have been added; States like my home State of Oregon have been able to experiment in creative ways to provide care to more people; and as more seniors need long-term care and do not have the funds to pay for it, Medicaid plays an important role in providing long-term care. Medicaid has uniquely borne the brunt of the failings of the health care system. For many, this program is a lifesaver and it must be maintained.

Both Medicare and Medicaid are facing financial crises. Those who fought hard for the creation of these fundamental programs could not have foreseen the technology and scientific breakthroughs that would change health care delivery. Nor could they have foreseen the costs. We need to continually revise these programs to find better ways to provide affordable care and to assure that these programs are up to date with the best science and medicine but--that they keep their original purpose--to provide care to those who are aged, disabled, or poor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I intend to be very brief. Tonight the Senate is passing the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act by unanimous consent. It is certainly not often that such a procedure would be used for a statute of such extraordinary importance. I believe that it is possible to fight terrorism ferociously without sacrificing civil liberties. Tonight I remain concerned that there will be an effort in the conference between the House and the Senate to authorize what are known as administrative subpoenas for the FBI under the law. These administrative subpoenas are warrants that FBI field offices can write themselves without having to make an application to a judge.

Under an administrative subpoena, an FBI field office could get records secretly for just about anything from just about anybody. Here is an example of how intrusive these administrative subpoenas could be. There are 56 field offices, one in almost every major city. The head of a field office could issue an administrative subpoena to a hospital director and ask for all of the hospital's medical records simply by claiming they were relevant to an investigation, the hospital director was busy or didn't have the resources to make a challenge. No judge would ever see the subpoena. The patients would not know their records had been seized. They would be totally in the dark. Your mother's, your husband's, your own medical records could move into the Government's hands, and you would be none the wiser.

Despite the very aggressive efforts in the Senate to include this power to conduct these what I believe are fishing expeditions, it is not in the version of the PATRIOT Act that is being passed tonight, since it is not in the House bill either. My view is that under rule XXVIII, it would be outside the scope of the conference to include these administrative subpoenas in any form in the PATRIOT Act. If I am informed later that it is in the conference report in some form, I will make a point of order at that time and the conference report would fall.

Finally, I want to state that I commend our leader, Senator Reid and Senator Leahy, for their handling of this. I know Senator Durbin has been very involved in these issues for years as well. I also want to commend Chairman Specter who has talked with me about the PATRIOT Act on a number of occasions. We can strike a balance. We can ensure that we pull out all the stops to fight the terrorists without throwing our civil liberties into the ash can. If these administrative subpoenas show up in that conference report, that will skew the balance that is so important to make sure we can win the war on terrorism but also to protect the rights that we have brave men and women fighting for.

I yield the floor.

I have 15 under the agreement.

That will be very adequate. I thank the Senator.

Yes.

Mr. President, sometimes the test of legislation in the Senate is did we do less harm than good. Some might say, by that test, this Energy bill is worth voting for. I will tell you that test is not good enough when America is at war and our dependence upon foreign oil is putting our citizens at risk each and every day.

The test in the Senate that, well, maybe this legislation has some good is unacceptable when there is a rare opportunity and a rare obligation to avoid the terrifying human costs of future wars. In those rare instances, the test in the Senate should be did Congress meet its obligations. I have concluded that in this energy bill we have not.

Our dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced as a result of this legislation. As a result, we have not reduced the prospect of going to war once again in the Persian Gulf in the next decade. I do not understand how we will explain to every man and woman who fights so courageously in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how to explain to every veteran who fought in the Persian Gulf in the last decade, how we failed to meet our obligation to avoid future wars.

For this reason, I want to express a deep regret to those soldiers and veterans because your children are now no less likely to be asked to fight a very similar war. I want to express a deep regret to the families of those soldiers and veterans because their children may someday face the very same burdens. I want to express a deep regret to the American public, which is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to prosecute the war in Iraq and may someday be asked to spend far more on the next war because the Senate is about to pass a pre-9/11 energy policy. After 9/11, it became clear that energy policy was a national security issue and that reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to be a national security priority. That hasn't been done.

So today Americans continue to pay what I call a terror tax--the price we pay in insecurity for our dependence on foreign oil. I call it a terror tax because when each of us pulls up to the corner gasoline station and pays $2.40 a gallon, or so, for gasoline, a portion of that money goes to foreign governments that in turn send it out the back door to Islamist extremists who use the money to perpetuate hate and terrorist acts. But in this bill Congress has squandered a golden opportunity to dam that river of terrorist funding.

It is not good enough to accept business as usual when our citizens pay record prices at the gas pump, only to see foreign governments wink and nod while terrorists make off with substantial amounts of the money and use the funds to target America. The recent bombings we have seen have been a sober reminder of just how vulnerable America, our allies, and our strategic partners remain to terrorism. In my view, there is an indisputable link, not only between the American dependence on foreign oil and the price our citizens pay at the pump but between our oil addiction and our vulnerability to attack here at home.

What I have come to learn as a member of the Energy Committee, and as the one member of the conference who was unwilling to sign the report, is

that any energy policy proposed in the future should have to contain a statement of how that bill will reduce the terror attacks. There ought to be a statement in the future with respect to energy legislation on how that legislation would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the short term and in the long term.

If that had been required for this legislation, there is no way this bill would get a passing grade. This legislation does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You look at what was said in 2003, not by partisans on one side or the other but by the Bush administration's Energy Information Agency. They said that bill would have increased our imports of foreign oil by 2025 by about 85 percent. This legislation, with respect to oil imports, would produce virtually the same result.

Now, to give the country a sense of just what we were up against-- those of us who wanted to break our dependence on foreign oil--I would like to discuss an amendment I tried to offer in the conference. In the conference, I proposed that the automobile industry be required to increase auto efficiency by 1 mile per gallon for each of the next 5 years. The reason I did that is a basic fact of energy policy. You cannot transform this country's energy sector if you give the automobile industry a free pass. So when I made that proposal, I said to myself, what a modest step, just 1 mile per gallon for just 5 years. Yet it would have had a huge impact in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Unlike this legislation, which doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that would have made a difference.

In the 2001 report, the national academy found that the technology exists today to raise the average fuel economy nearly 40 miles per gallon by 2012 without sacrificing safety. My proposal was much more modest than what the leading scientific experts in this country found was both technologically feasible and affordable to consumers. Yet the conference rejected even this modest proposal out of hand.

I particularly thank Senator Bingaman, who supported it and said we ought to at least, at the very minimum, not go to the American people and say, gosh, 5 miles a gallon over 5 years is too much. But even that modest advance could not make it into this legislation. So, as a result, Americans will get no relief from this terror tax brought about by our addiction to foreign oil. And at the same time, their hard- earned dollars will flow out the back door straight to the entrenched energy interests.

Now, even the President has said that when oil is trading at upwards of $55 a barrel, the oil companies are not in need of any more incentives. When the President says the oil companies don't need a deal from the Government, that ought to tell you something--you are going too far. But even so--even with the remarks of the President, who was dead right--this bill is now stuffed with a smorgasbord of subsidies for a whole host of energy special interests. The buffet of subsidies is so generously larded that, in many cases, it will allow second and even third helpings from the energy subsidy buffet table. Loan guarantees are letting these special interests double dip and even triple dip on some energy projects. Projects that would already be subsidized in other provisions of the Energy bill will also receive loan guarantees under the incentives title.

They are also going to get tax credits in the finance title. That is dip 1. Then they are going to get loans under the incentives title. That is dip 2. Then there will be loan guarantees on top of that. That is dip 3. These guarantees are some of the largest subsidies in the Senate Energy bill, and they are risky ones.

Mr. President, the subsidy title of this legislation, in my view, is a blank check for boondoggles that simply doesn't decrease our foreign oil dependence.

In closing, the most patriotic thing this Congress could have done in the summer of 2005 was to write an energy bill that did three specific things: reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gasoline prices for working families and businesses, and end the energy subsidy smorgasbord that has offered these heaping helpings of taxpayer dollars to the energy industry for decades.

I am sad to say, as one who was involved in this from the outset as a member of the committee and the conference committee, that the final product does not accomplish any of those three things. It doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nobody has to take my word for it. That has been on the front pages of the papers all this week. It doesn't lower gasoline prices. And, again, you don't have to take my word for it. The President has already stated that. It doesn't end the subsidy buffet for the big energy interests, and you won't have to take my word for that either. You are going to hear those special interests breaking out the champagne bottles all over town in the next few days.

My constituents have been hit especially hard by high energy costs, and they and millions of Americans had hoped that the Congress would step up and take bold action, truly bold action, to shake us free of our dependence on foreign oil and these other concerns that I have addressed tonight.

What I hope is that, as the country sees how little is actually accomplished here, there will be an opportunity--and an opportunity soon--to come back and address some of the shortcomings that have been discussed on the floor of the Senate tonight.

I hope there will be a transformational policy put in place with respect to the automobile sector. That is the ball game in terms of energy conservation and reducing oil consumption. This legislation took a pass on it.

With respect to reducing carbons, again, there was a marketplace approach--a bipartisan marketplace approach--that the Congress could have moved ahead on.

The bottom line, the Congress could have done much better. I think our colleagues in the Senate know this bill is literally a series of missed opportunities. It is right to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there has been a significant development in private pension law this week, and I have come to the floor to discuss it briefly because I think it is something that will be of enormous interest to working families across the country who, of course, have been reading for months now about their pension plans going belly up. These are workers who work hard, play by the rules, hope to have a dignified retirement and have understood that Social Security was never going to cover all of their retirement security needs. So they have sought to have a private pension, and companies across this country have given them the impression--falsely, in a number of instances--that their private pension would be secure and there for them when they retire.

One of the aspects of this whole challenge, with respect to pension security, has been to eliminate what I believe is a double standard today in private pension laws. There is in fact a double standard in private pension law because so often the executive retirement benefits get hidden in a lockbox while the worker ends up getting creamed in the process.

What we have done, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate Finance Committee, is to say that that double standard, the standard that protects the executives while it clobbers the workers, will no longer be tolerated under our private pension statutes.

As a result of a change that a number of our colleagues worked on, which was backed by Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, if this provision that we have developed becomes law, if a company pension plan is funded at less than 80 percent, then the executive pensions cannot be hidden under the ruse of being ``deferred compensation.'' That is what we have seen come to light in the last few months, that somehow the executives walk away with millions of dollars worth of pension benefits under the guise of it somehow being something called deferred compensation while the workers end up seeing their pensions disappear by 40, 50, 60 percent.

This provision, in my view, is extremely important because it will prevent companies whose pension plans are at risk of going under from protecting the executive pension while allowing the employees' pensions to sink like a stone.

An example of this would be a flight attendant from Tigard, OR, who gave United Airlines 16 years of service, saw her pension fall recently to a net of $138 a month, while the CEO of United is going to continue to receive $4.5 million. Now, of course, the CEO claims it is not really a pension, that this was compensation worked out before the executive came to United. But I can tell you that elderly woman in Tigard, OR, would sure like to have what the United executive has, regardless of what it is technically referred to under pension law.

A lot more needs to be done to ensure that the executives are not going to reap these huge gains at the expense of their workers. Captain Duane Woerth of the Airline Pilots Association said it well, in my view, when he said, ``While thousands of pilots will retire with only a fraction of the pension benefits they earned and expected, airline executives can look forward to retirements knowing that their nest eggs are solid gold.'' This was reported in Fortune magazine. And there are numerous other examples where generous executive pensions have been protected at the expense of the workers' retirement.

In March of 2002, for example, US Air CEO Stephen Wolf took a lump- sum pension payout of $15 million, including benefits, for 24 years of service that he never actually performed. Six months later, the company filed for bankruptcy and terminated its pilot pension plan, leaving the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation with $2.2 billion in liabilities. Where is the fairness in all of that? The executive takes this huge golden parachute away while the workers try to figure out how to make ends meet when the company files for bankruptcy and terminates the pension plan.

Three months before United filed for bankruptcy in 2002, the company

placed $4.5 million in a special bankruptcy protected trust for their CEO, Mr. Glenn Tilton. United then terminated all of its pension plans in 2005, leaving the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation with $6.6 billion in liability.

In 2002, the Motorola Company chose to not make any contributions to its pension plan for 70,000 employees and retirees, a plan that was underfunded by $1.4 billion. At the same time, Motorola found another $38 million to give its top executives a variety of pension perks.

In 1999, IBM's cash balance conversion resulted in dramatic pension cuts for the older workers. It is still being litigated in the courts, but in 2002, IBM CEO Lou Gerstner, who oversaw the cash conversion, retired with a pension of $1.1 million per year.

In November of 2002, Delta began phasing out its traditional defined benefit plan for 56,000 employees and replaced it with a cash balance pension plan. As Delta was shorting its workers, their former CEO got a generous guaranteed pension plan of $1 million per year that will be available to him when he turns 65.

These are a few examples, Mr. President, of excessive executive generosity, and they have been particularly egregious in the airline sector, where there have been numerous threats of bankruptcy and actual problems with respect to keeping the workers' pensions intact or even a portion of them secure.

I am pleased the Finance Committee took a significant first step yesterday toward cutting off this corporate spigot that has been gushing millions of dollars for executive pensions but produces less than a trickle of funds for tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. There is more to do.

Certainly the first step that began yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee at ending this double standard came about because Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus worked in a bipartisan fashion, and Senator Bingaman, Senator Kerry, Senator Schumer, and others joined me in pressing for this change. But suffice it to say there is more to do in this area. Certainly the question of what companies are required to do in terms of making their premium payments is important. In the days ahead the Finance Committee and eventually the Senate as a body will have to take up these issues.

What I wanted to bring to the Senate's attention today is that this is an important start. It is a start that keeps faith with American workers who have come to my townhall meetings. The Presiding Officer is from Georgia and represents a number of workers affected by the financial problems of Delta Airlines. People come to our town meetings and ask, how is it that the executives get off scot-free with respect to these pension issues while we are getting clobbered? I am tired of reading about how the executives have somehow been able, under the guise of deferred compensation or special retirement benefits that are protected from bankruptcy proceedings, and I am tired of seeing how the executives always come out hunky-dory while the workers end up trying to figure how to make ends meet when their pensions have been slashed by 40, 50, or 60 percent.

There is more to do in terms of reforming private pension law, but this effort to eliminate the double standard where executives get protected and workers get hurt, eliminating that double standard is at the center of what good bipartisan pension reform ought to be all about. Fortunately, the Senate Committee on Finance took a big step in the right direction by saying yesterday that if a company's pension plan is not actually funded, then the executives cannot find their way to yet another lockbox and protect themselves with these deferred compensation arrangements.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had approached the chairman to ask if I could speak for a few minutes as in morning business and if it would be possible at this time for me to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

If the chairman could allow that, I would be appreciative.

If that is at all possible. Perhaps I will ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes after the vote; would that be acceptable?

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, in this Congress, no issue has riveted the attention of the American people like the heart-wrenching circumstances of the late Terri Schiavo. No issue has generated more public debate, more heated controversy, or more passion than that tragedy. On the eve of the Easter recess, I blocked the effort in this Senate to dictate from the Senate a specific medical treatment in that end-of-life tragedy.

I did that for two major reasons. First, I believe that under the Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended for our citizens and their families to have the privacy to decide these types of matters. Second, under the Constitution, to the extent government has a defined role in medical practice, it is a matter for the States and certainly not a subject that should prompt Federal intrusion and meddling.

In my opinion, the events that unfolded in the Senate over Terri Schiavo need to be remembered as the Senate begins the consideration of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

It is important for the Senate to reflect on those events because while the Court ultimately did not take up the Schiavo case, it was not for lack of effort on the part of those who read the Constitution very differently than the intent of the Founding Fathers and longstanding legal precedent prescribe.

I have come to the Senate today because I believe there will be many more end-of-life cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. Current demographic trends, the advancement of medical technologies, and certainly the

passions this issue has generated ensure that the Court will be confronted again and again with end-of-life issues.

Therefore, in my opinion, the Senate--under the advice and consent clause--has an obligation to inquire into how Judge Roberts sees end- of-life issues in the context of the Constitution.

I don't believe in litmus tests for Federal judges, but I intend to weigh carefully Judge Roberts' judicial temperament in this regard.

Moreover, I have a longstanding policy, begun first with our legendary Senator, Mark Hatfield, and continued with my good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, that I will work in a bipartisan way to select Federal judges from our State for the President's consideration. Repeatedly, Oregon judges have been confirmed with whom I have disagreed on a number of issues and with whom Senator Gordon Smith has disagreed on a number of issues. I have put the ``no litmus test'' policy to work often here in the Senate. I want to make clear that I hold to that principle today, but I will follow Judge Roberts' views on end-of-life issues carefully as his nomination is considered.

My statement today is also not an attempt to tease out a preview of how Judge Roberts might rule on end-of-life cases that come before the Court. I do believe, however, that the Senate would be derelict, given the importance of this issue, not to ask the nominee questions that will shed light on how he interprets the Constitution as it relates to end-of-life medical care.

End-of-life health care presents American families with immensely difficult choices. In a country of 290 million people, our citizens approach these choices in dramatically different ways. Their judgments about end-of-life care often blend religion, ethics, quality-of-life concerns, and moral principles together and as the Senate found out this spring, these judgments are considered extraordinarily personal and are passionately held.

What the Senate learned last spring in the Schiavo case is that the American people want what the Constitution envisioned as their right-- just to be left alone. Privacy law is complicated, and surely Senators have differing interpretations about the meaning of legal precedent in this area but the American people spoke loudly last spring that they considered the congressional action to mandate a specific medical treatment for Terri Schiavo to be a gross overreach. I said at the time that I agreed. I do not believe the Constitution should be stretched so as to crowd the steps of the Congress with families seeking settlement of their differences about end-of-life medical care. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is another matter. That body will most definitely see more such end-of-life appeals. That is why the views of Judge Roberts on this issue are so important.

Even as the Constitution envisioned a wide berth for individuals to decide these private matters, it also provides parameters if there is to be any government involvement at all. Those parameters are guided by the 10th amendment to our Constitution. The 10th amendment stipulates that the powers not delegated to the United States--the Federal Government--by the Constitution are reserved for the States. Historically and correctly, that includes the determination of medical practice within a State's own borders. There are few medical practice decisions more wrenching than those at the end of life.

Once again, in the Schiavo case, the Congress sought to overstep its constitutional bounds. What I want to know is whether Judge Roberts is similarly inclined to stretch our Constitution or whether he will consider end-of-life issues with respect for our hallowed Constitution and the doctrine of stare decisis.

Finally, as we approach these issues, I make clear that I do not intend to prejudge the outcome of the confirmation process, but ask only that the Senate weigh carefully these important issues and that questions about end-of-life care be posed to the nominee.

I look forward to learning about the nominee's views, not just on end-of-life care, but on a variety of other critical matters and look forward to the Judiciary Committee beginning its thorough and careful evaluation in the days ahead. I have tried to make bipartisanship a hallmark of my service in the Senate. I certainly intend to use that approach as the Senate goes forward and considers the nomination of Judge Roberts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, to draw attention to the meth crisis facing Oregon and a growing number of States around the country, I stand once again on the floor of the Senate introducing two more newspaper articles into the Record. Both articles highlight the plight of the most vulnerable victims of the meth crisis: America's children.

As the first piece, ``The Little Round Faces of Meth,'' from The Oregonian points out, ``The drug lurks behind nearly all of Oregon's most shocking and horrifying cases of child abuse and neglect.''

The second article, ``A Drug Scourge Creates Its Own Form of Orphan'' was printed in the New York Times a little over a week ago. As the article explains, ``In Oregon, 5,515 children entered the [foster care] system in 2004, up from 4,946 the year before, and officials there say the caseload would be half what it is now if the methamphetamine problem suddenly went away.''

The burden that meth is placing on Oregon communities is enormous. And we have to do something about it. Because even if we get the epidemic under control right now, we are going to be dealing with the consequences for years to come. And one of these consequences will be taking care of the child victims of meth. As Jay Wurscher, director of alcohol and drug services for the children and families division of the Oregon Department of Human Services explains in the New York Times article, ``In every way, shape and form, this is the worst drug ever for child welfare.''

We cannot afford to wait any longer. Each day we fail to act, another child is neglected, abused or even worse--dead--as a result of meth. I urge Congress to pass and the President to sign the Combat Meth bill, a solid step that will help us fight this terrible drug in Oregon and around the country. Among other things, the bill provides $5 million in grants to help kids affected by meth.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the full text of The Oregonian article and the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, when Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act, Medicare cost contracts

were kept as a health plan option for seniors. However, Congress also limited the ability of cost contracts to operate in areas if a Medicare Advantage plan decided to offer service in that area and stayed for a year.

Medicare cost contracts are plans that offer more benefits than basic Medicare and are often available in areas in which Medicare Advantage plans are not offered. Many of the thousands of Oregonians who have cost contract plans are in rural Oregon, where there are few options for care. The legislation I am introducing today, ``The Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2005'', would allow seniors to keep their cost contracts longer even if a Medicare Advantage plan is offered. The bill also adds more consumer protection provisions that are similar to those already in law for Medicare Advantage plans. I believe that it is not only important to ensure seniors have choices, but that they can keep the choice that works best for them as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.