Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I will introduce the Displaced Citizens Voter Protection Act. This bill is a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by my friend Representative Artur Davis of Alabama. He has been a real advocate for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and I greatly appreciate his leadership on this issue.

We are continuing to learn more about and to grapple with the myriad ways that the Hurricane Katrina disaster has affected the lives of residents of the Gulf Coast. Hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes, and are temporarily displaced. Most of these people hope to eventually return to the communities from which they were driven, and have every intention of rebuilding their lives there. As the communities in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi begin to rebuild, it is crucial that those who wish to return are able to take part in the government decisions that will have an impact on their communities and their lives. They must be able to elect the Federal leaders who will shape this recovery process.

The legislation that I will introduce today will make sure that victims of Hurricane Katrina who are temporarily displaced, and who intend to return to their home States, continue to be eligible to vote in their States, and that the government takes steps to inform them of their rights in this area. It would extend the same voting protections currently available to members of the military and overseas voters to those who are displaced temporarily by Katrina. Individuals who are qualified to vote in their original place of residence, and who intend to return to that place in the near future, will be able to vote by absentee ballot for Federal elections held through 2008. Voters who intend to return to their original place of residence would be able to use the forms available online that are currently used by members of the military and other citizens who are overseas to request absentee ballots from their home State. Voters requesting an absentee ballot would be required to include an affidavit certifying that they intend to return to their home State in the near future with their ballot. The bill also directs motor vehicle authorities and voter registration agencies to take steps to notify the public that this absentee ballot option is available for Katrina victims.

This legislation does not mandate where people should vote, nor does it place additional burdens on State election officials. It simply puts a mechanism in place to make sure that these voters do not lose their right to vote in elections simply because they are temporarily displaced.

The challenges that we face in the wake of Katrina are many, and unfortunately there is some disagreement in Congress about how best to help those affected by this tragedy. This is different. This bill is a straightforward, simple, and direct response that will help keep the electoral process accessible for victims of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I will introduce the Displaced Citizens Voter Protection Act. This bill is a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by my friend Representative Artur Davis of Alabama. He has been a real advocate for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and I greatly appreciate his leadership on this issue.

We are continuing to learn more about and to grapple with the myriad ways that the Hurricane Katrina disaster has affected the lives of residents of the Gulf Coast. Hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes, and are temporarily displaced. Most of these people hope to eventually return to the communities from which they were driven, and have every intention of rebuilding their lives there. As the communities in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi begin to rebuild, it is crucial that those who wish to return are able to take part in the government decisions that will have an impact on their communities and their lives. They must be able to elect the Federal leaders who will shape this recovery process.

The legislation that I will introduce today will make sure that victims of Hurricane Katrina who are temporarily displaced, and who intend to return to their home States, continue to be eligible to vote in their States, and that the government takes steps to inform them of their rights in this area. It would extend the same voting protections currently available to members of the military and overseas voters to those who are displaced temporarily by Katrina. Individuals who are qualified to vote in their original place of residence, and who intend to return to that place in the near future, will be able to vote by absentee ballot for Federal elections held through 2008. Voters who intend to return to their original place of residence would be able to use the forms available online that are currently used by members of the military and other citizens who are overseas to request absentee ballots from their home State. Voters requesting an absentee ballot would be required to include an affidavit certifying that they intend to return to their home State in the near future with their ballot. The bill also directs motor vehicle authorities and voter registration agencies to take steps to notify the public that this absentee ballot option is available for Katrina victims.

This legislation does not mandate where people should vote, nor does it place additional burdens on State election officials. It simply puts a mechanism in place to make sure that these voters do not lose their right to vote in elections simply because they are temporarily displaced.

The challenges that we face in the wake of Katrina are many, and unfortunately there is some disagreement in Congress about how best to help those affected by this tragedy. This is different. This bill is a straightforward, simple, and direct response that will help keep the electoral process accessible for victims of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts' impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.

I have often noted that the scrutiny that I will apply to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination and that the scrutiny to be applied to the position of Chief Justice must be the very highest. I have voted for executive branch appointments, and even for court of appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, because the Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of Government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens.

Judge Roberts came to his hearing with a record that few can top. His long record of excellence as a lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court, and his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer who has no ideological agenda, carry substantial weight. I wanted to see, however, how that record and reputation would stand up against a searching inquiry into his past statements and current views. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was proud to play a role in that inquiry. I believe the hearing was fair and thorough and I congratulate the chairman and ranking member, and all of the members of the committee, for the seriousness with which they undertook this task.

One important question I had was about Judge Roberts' views on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. A lot of the concern about this nomination stems from the fact that many important precedents seem to be hanging by a thread. In both our private meeting and in his hearing, Judge Roberts demonstrated a great respect for precedent and for the importance of stability and settled expectations. His themes of modesty and humility showed appropriate respect for the work of the Justices who have come before him. He convinced me that he will take these issues very seriously, with respect to both the constitutional right to privacy and many other issues of settled law.

As I am sure every Member of the Senate noticed and expected, Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold Roe. He certainly left some wiggle room, and he said he would approach the possibility of overturning a case differently if the underlying precedents themselves came into question. But it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that road.

I was also impressed that Judge Roberts does not seem inclined to try to rein in Congress's power under the commerce clause. He repeatedly called attention to the Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Raich as indicating that the Court is not headed inexorably in the direction it turned in the Lopez and Morrison cases limiting Congress's power. His approving references to Raich suggests to me that he will take a more moderate stance on these issues than his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. His attitude seems to be if Congress does its job right, he will not stand in the way as a judge. That is, of course, cold comfort if the Court creates new hoops for Congress to jump through and applies them retroactively. I hope that Judge Roberts will recognize that Congress can pay attention to what the Court says is

needed to justify legislation only if the Court gives clear advance notice of those requirements.

Judge Roberts also seemed to reject a return to the Lochner era, when a majority of the Court invoked the due process and contracts clauses of the Constitution to strike down child labor and other laws it disagreed with, and the courts openly acted as a superlegislature, rejecting congressional enactments based on their own political and economic judgments. Judge Roberts disparaged the Lochner decision, saying, ``[y]ou can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law.'' That is a marked contrast to many in the so-called ``Constitution in Exile'' movement, including recently confirmed DC Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Judge Roberts' determination to be a humble and modest judge should lead him to reject efforts to undermine Congress's power to address social and economic problems through national legislation. I view that as a significant commitment he has made to the Congress and to the country.

Another important issue involves not so much respect for settled precedent, but rather questions that will arise in the future with respect to the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. The Supreme Court has already dealt with a series of cases arising from the Bush administration's conduct of the fight against terrorism, and will undoubtedly face many more during the next Chief Justice's term. Indeed, how the new Justices address these issues may well define them and the Court in history.

For me, Judge Roberts' discussion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has been such an issue in the Patriot Act debate, was a defining moment in the hearing. His answers showed a gut- level understanding of the potential dangers of a court that operates entirely in secret, with no adversary process. His instincts as a lawyer, one who trusts our judicial system and its protections to yield the correct result under the rule of law, seemed to take over, and he seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of a court without the usual protections of an open, adversary process. Here is what he said about the FISA Court to Senator DeWine:

I'll be very candid. When I first learned about the FISA

Court, I was surprised. It's not what we usually think of

when we think of a court. We think of a place where we can

go, we can watch the lawyers argue and it's subject to the

glare of publicity and the judges explain their decision to

the public and they can examine them. That's what we think of

as a court.

This is a very different and unusual institution. That was

my first reaction. I appreciate the reasons that it operates

the way it does, but it does seem to me that the departures

from the normal judicial model that are involved there put a

premium on the individuals involved.

Judge Roberts' comments, and that he went out of his way to express surprise at the fact that this secret court even exists, suggests to me that he would address issues related to FISA, such as government secrecy and challenges to civil liberties, with an appropriately skeptical mindset.

I was troubled when Judge Roberts refused to give a fuller answer about his view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdi case, and I have concerns about his decision as an appeals court judge in the Hamdan case regarding military commissions. But Judge Roberts did tell me that he believes: ``The Bill of Rights doesn't change during times of war. The Bill of Rights doesn't change in times of crisis.'' I was pleased to hear him recognize this fundamental principle.

I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts' refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat- out wrong.

I do not understand why the one person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the Supreme Court has done is the person whom the American public most needs to hear from. No one on the committee asked him for a commitment on a given case or set of issues. We certainly recognize that it is possible his views might change once he is on the Court and hears the arguments and discusses the issues with his colleagues. All of those caveats would have been perfectly appropriate. But why shouldn't the committee and the public have some idea of where he stands, or at least what his instincts are, on recent controversial decisions?

Although in some areas he was more forthcoming than others, Judge Roberts did not answer questions that he could and should have-- unfortunately with the full support of committee members who want to smooth his confirmation--and I think that is disrespectful of the Senate's constitutional role. In addition, the administration's refusal to respond to a reasonable, limited request for documents from the time Judge Roberts served in the Solicitor General's office did a real disservice to the country and to the nominee. My voting in favor of Judge Roberts does not endorse this refusal. In fact, if not for Judge Roberts' singular qualifications, I may have felt compelled to oppose his nomination on these grounds alone. Future nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the administration--any administration--refuses to provide should not count on my approval.

Also troubling was Judge Roberts' approach to the memos he wrote as a young Reagan administration lawyer. His writings from his early service in government were those of a very smart man who was at times a little too sure of himself and too dismissive of other viewpoints. I wanted to see if the Judge Roberts of 2005 had grown from the John Roberts of 1985, whose strong views often suggested a rigid ideological agenda. I wanted to see the possibility of a seasoned, wise, and just John Roberts on the Supreme Court, not just a more polished, shrewder version of his younger self.

Unfortunately, he refused to disavow any of those memos, many of which laid out disturbing opinions on a variety of issues, from voting rights, to habeas corpus, to affirmative action. He refused to acknowledge that some of his tone and word choice in that era demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to minorities and women, and to the challenges they face. Instead, he took refuge in the argument that he was simply doing his job, so we are not now supposed to infer anything about his beliefs or motivations based on the memos he wrote in the 1980s.

I found these arguments unpersuasive, particularly since several of these memos indicate that those were, in fact, his own personal views. And I do not understand why he felt he had to defend these 20-year-old memos. Maybe it was pride. Maybe it was a political strategy dictated by a White House that so rarely admits error. But take voting rights-- it should have been easy for Judge Roberts to say that in retrospect he was wrong about the dangers of the effects test, and that the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act that he opposed have been good for the country. Instead, he said he wasn't an expert on the Voting Rights Act and insisted on the correctness of his position. That troubles me.

The John Roberts of 2005 did not have to embrace the John Roberts of 1985, but in some cases he did, all too readily. On the other hand, I am not sure that the John Roberts of 1985 would have told Senator Feinstein with respect to affirmative action that: ``A measured effort that can withstand strict scrutiny is . . . a very positive approach.'' His answers to questions on affirmative action, seemed to me, on balance, to be an encouraging sign that he will not undo the Court's current approach.

Finally, I was unhappy with Judge Roberts' failure to recuse himself in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, once he realized he was being seriously considered for a Supreme Court nomination. It is also hard to believe, as Judge Roberts testified, that he does not remember precisely when the possibility of an ethics violation first came to his attention. Judge Roberts sat on a court of appeals panel that heard the appeal of a district court ruling that, if upheld, would have been a huge setback for the administration's position on military commissions and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And he heard oral argument just 6 days after interviewing for a Supreme Court appointment with the Attorney General of the

United States, who also was a major participant in the underlying legal judgment of the administration that was challenged in the case. I am troubled that Judge Roberts apparently didn't recognize at the time that there was an ethical issue.

I give great weight to ethical considerations in judicial nominations. For example, when Judge Charles Pickering solicited letters of recommendation for his court of appeals nomination from lawyers practicing before him in the district court, I found that very significant, especially in combination with his actions in a cross burning case where improper ex parte contacts were alleged. But while the issue raised about Judge Roberts is serious, I do not see such a pattern with Judge Roberts, who has a long record and reputation for ethical behavior. Nor is there evidence of the egregious, almost aggressive unethical behavior that was present in the nomination of Judge Pickering.

I hope that Judge Roberts now understands the concerns that I and a number of respected legal ethicists have about his participation in the Hamdan case. It is not too late for him to recuse himself and allow a new panel to hear the case.

At the end of the day, I had to ask myself: What kind of Justice does this man aspire to be? An ideologue? A lawyer's lawyer? A great Supreme Court Justice like Justice Jackson, who moved comfortably from the top legal positions in the Department of Justice to a judicial position in which he was more than willing to challenge executive power? A Chief Justice who will go down in history as the leader of a sharp ideological turn to the right, or a consensus builder who is committed to the Court and its role as guarantor of basic freedoms?

I have talked to a number of people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts. Those I have heard from directly or indirectly have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme Court advocates in the Nation, whose skills and judgment are respected by lawyers from across the ideological spectrum. They don't see him as a champion of one cause, as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country. They see him as openminded, respectful, thoughtful, devoted to the law, and truly one of the great legal minds of his time. That carries a great deal of weight with me. And it helps to overcome my frustration with Judge Roberts for not distancing himself from what he wrote in his Reagan-era memos and with the White House for refusing to release relevant documents to the committee.

History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime. This is not a matter of deference to the President's choice. It is instead a recognition that the Supreme Court should be open to the very brightest of legal minds on either side of the political spectrum.

The position of Chief Justice demands the very highest scrutiny from the Senate, and the qualifications and abilities of the nominee for this position must shine through. Judge Roberts has the legal skills, the intellect, and the character to be a good Chief Justice, and I hope he fulfills that promise. I wish him well. May his service be a credit not only to the rule of law, but also to the principles of equality and freedom and justice that make this country so great.

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

Mr. President, I rise once again today to comment on the deeply disturbing consequences of the President's misguided policies in Iraq. I have spoken before about my grave concern that the administration's Iraq policies are actually strengthening the hand of our enemies, fueling the insurgency's recruitment of foreign fighters, and unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other.

But today I want to focus on a different and equally alarming issue, which is that the Bush administration's policies in Iraq are making America weaker. None of us should stand by and allow this to continue.

It is shocking to me this Senate has not found the time and the energy to take up the Defense authorization bill and give that bill the full debate and attention it deserves. Our men and women in uniform and our military families continue to make real sacrifices every day in service to this country. They perform their duties with skill and honor, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. But the Senate has not performed its duties, and the state of the U.S. military desperately needs our attention.

The administration's policies in Iraq are breaking the U.S. Army. As soldiers confront the prospect of a third tour in the extremely difficult theater of Iraq, it would be understandable if they began to wonder why all of the sacrifice undertaken by our country in wartime seems to be falling on their shoulders. It would be understandable if they and their brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps began to feel some skepticism about whether essential resources, such as adequately armored vehicles, will be there when they need them. It would be understandable if they came to greet information about deployment schedules with cynicism because reliable information has been hard to come by for our military families in recent years. And it would be understandable if they asked themselves whether their numbers will be great enough--great enough--to hold hard-won territory, and whether properly vetted translators will be available to help them distinguish friend from foe.

At some point, the sense of solidarity and commitment that helps maintain strong retention rates can give way to a sense of frustration with the status quo. I fear we may be very close to that tipping point today. It is possible we may not see the men and women of the Army continue to volunteer for more of the same. It is not reasonable to expect that current retention problems will improve rather than worsen. We should not bet our national security on that kind of wishful thinking.

Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering. According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending 1 of every 2 years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best.

We are not just wearing out the troops; we are also wearing out equipment much faster than it is being replaced or refurbished. Days ago, the chief of the National Guard, GEN H. Steven Blum, told a group of Senate staffers that the National Guard had approximately 75 percent of the equipment it needed on 9/11, 2001. Today, the National Guard has only 34 percent of the equipment it needs. The response to Hurricane Katrina exposed some of the dangerous gaps in the Guard's communications systems.

What we are asking of the Army is not sustainable, and the burden and the toll it is taking on our military families is unacceptable. This cannot go on.

Many of my colleagues, often led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, have taken stock of where we stand and have joined to support efforts to expand the size of our standing Army. But this effort, which I support, is a solution for the long term, because it depends on new recruits to address our problems. We cannot suddenly increase the numbers of experienced soldiers so essential to providing leadership in the field. It takes years to grow a new crop of such leaders. But the annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose last year to its highest rate since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are heading toward crisis right now.

Growing the all-volunteer Army can only happen if qualified new recruits sign up for duty. But all indications suggest that at the end of this month the Army will fall thousands short--thousands short--of its annual recruiting goal. Barring some sudden and dramatic change, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve too will miss their annual targets by about 20 percent, missing their targets this year by 20 percent in terms of recruitment. GEN Peter Schoomaker, the Army's Chief of Staff, told Congress recently that 2006 ``may be the toughest recruiting environment ever.''

Too often, too many of us are reluctant to criticize the administration's policies in Iraq for fear that anything other than staying the course set by the President will somehow appear weak. But the President's course is misguided, and it is doing grave damage to our extraordinarily professional and globally admired all-volunteer U.S. Army. To stand by--to stand by--while this damage is done is not patriotic. It is not supportive. It is not tough on terrorism, nor is it strong on national security. Because I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and because I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to make this country more secure, I am convinced we must change our course.

As some of my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission the United States military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq, and laying out a plan and a timeframe for accomplishing that mission and subsequently bringing our troops home. It is in our interest to provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. I have tried to jump-start this discussion by proposing a date for U.S. troop withdrawal: December 31, 2006.

We need to start working with a realistic set of plans and benchmarks if we are to gain control of our Iraq policy, instead of simply letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital resources for an unlimited amount of time.

So this brings me to another facet of this administration's misguided approach to Iraq, another front on which our great country is growing weaker rather than stronger as a result of the administration's policy choices, and that is the tremendously serious fiscal consequences of the President's decision to put the entire Iraq war on our national tab. How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over $1 billion a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy--funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help

address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this Government has already piled up.

Not only are we weakening our economy today, this costly war is undermining our Nation's economic future because none of that considerable expenditure has been offset in the budget by cuts in spending elsewhere or by revenue increases. All of it--every penny--has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans.

For years now, this administration has refused to budget for the cost of our ongoing operations in Iraq that can be predicted, and has refused to make the hard choices that would be required to cover those costs. Instead--instead--the President apparently prefers to leave those tough calls to our children.

Could I do that in 2 minutes?

I want to finish my statement.

Mr. President, in effect, we are asking future generations to pay for this war, and they will pay for it in the form of higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. They stand to inherit a weakened America, one so compromised by debt and economic crisis that the promise of opportunity for all has faded. And there is no end in sight.

In addition to that, the war will leave other costly legacies. Here again, it is the members of the military and their families who will endure the most severe costs. But even if the war ended tomorrow, the Nation will continue to pay the price for decades to come.

Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard estimates that over the next 45 years, the health care, disability, and other benefits due our Iraq war veterans will cost $315 billion. We owe our brave troops the services and benefits they are due. We owe it to them and to their children and to their grandchildren to guide the course of this country and this economy to ensure that we are in a position to deliver for our veterans and for all Americans.

I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set. If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of our military and with our economy--who knows?--might make sense, if that were the case. If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamic terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all the costs of this policy might well make sense.

But these things are not true. Iraq is not--is not--the ``silver bullet'' in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the administration's policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile, the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America's military and America's economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that makes sense.

I yield to the Senator from California for a question.

I thank the Senator from California. She accurately described the way in which we got in this situation. I called it on the Senate floor, in October 2002, shifting justifications. The one we began with, the one that sold the American people, was that somehow there was a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Most of the American people apparently believed it because the President told them so at the time of the invasion. That would have been the ultimate justification because everybody assumed the Iraq invasion had something to do with that.

Ever since that myth has been exploded, the administration has been trying any way, scampering any way they can to come up with other justifications--the obviously failed attempt to suggest the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein, and then 6 to 7 months later, a year later, the President suddenly announces what he was really trying to do was to start a domino effect. We were going to fight a war that was going to create a domino effect of democracy around the world, which is a lovely ideal and notion, but nobody thought that was the justification when we voted here. I am guessing that it wouldn't have gotten one single vote if Members thought we were buying into that kind of project.

The Senator is right, not only with regard to how we got into the war but also with regard to how this administration is conducting the war. It is a mixture of so many inconsistent justifications that it doesn't make sense.

I had 18 town meetings in northern and central Wisconsin, some of them at very conservative areas, during the August recess. These were places where most of the people supported the Iraq war. They came to my town meetings and said: Why is this happening? Why were we given false pretenses to get into the war, and why is it that there isn't a serious plan to finish the war? Because of the failure of the administration to handle this war in any sensible way, the very people who supported the war are starting to say: Let's just leave.

So the President presents us with a false choice. He says: We have to stay the course. And if you don't believe in staying the course, then you must be for cutting and running. He is causing the movement in America to simply leave Iraq because of his failure of leadership.

What our resolution does--and I thank the Senator from California for her cosponsorship--is modest. It just says: Mr. President, within 30 days, could you give us a written plan that lays out the best way you want, without being bound to it, what is the plan, what is the mission, what are the benchmarks we have to achieve, by what time do you think we can achieve those benchmarks, and at what point and through what stages do you think we can begin and then complete the withdrawal of our American troops.

I say to my friend through the Chair, I think her comments and her question are right on the point.

I yield for another question.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. The Senator has very nicely returned to the main point of what I was trying to illustrate today. We certainly agree on the problems of how we got into this war and our very troubled feelings about that and also the myriad of problems with the way the war is being conducted. But what the Senator from California has done is returned us to the main point I wanted to make today: This strategy is weakening America. I am not talking about some general sense. We are talking specifically about our military. We are talking specifically about our Army. We are talking specifically about our National Guard.

Yes, we know about this in Wisconsin. We have some 10,000 Guard and Reserve. The vast majority of them have been called up for action overseas. There are serious concerns that have been reported--which, by the way, were beginning prior to 9/11--about equipment. It is to the point where my National Guard people ask me to ask the Secretary of Defense, Are we going to replenish these things for our National Guard? What is the guarantee? I received a rather weak answer, as I recall. The equipment needs are only at 34 percent for the National Guard--a dramatic decline in the last 4 years. Since 9/11, we have allowed the situation to become much worse in terms of equipment for our National Guard, whether it be for use in a foreign conflict or whether it be used to handle a terrorist situation domestically or whether it be used to help deal with one of the natural disasters that obviously can and do occur.

I appreciate the Senator heightening this point. This isn't about opposing a war. This is about mistakes being made by an administration in terms of forgetting the main point of fighting terrorism and forgetting about the need for our military to be strong both internationally and to be able to help, as the National Guard must, domestically.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are currently observing National Hispanic Heritage Month, a time when many members of the Latino community and the country at large remember and celebrate the profound contributions of Hispanic culture that are woven into the great cultural fabric of America. National Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated between September 15 and October 15, to coincide with the Independence Day anniversaries of nations throughout Latin America. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson's proclamation of National Hispanic Heritage Month was authorized by Congress. In 1988, the recognition was expanded to a month-long celebration.

America is home to nearly 41 million Latinos, including a thriving population in my home state of Wisconsin. This month, we should take the time to embrace the many important contributions throughout American history of American Latinos that affect all of our everyday lives. This month we celebrate the historic efforts of Cesar Chavez, Jaime Escalante, Roberto Hernandez, Henry Cisneros, Ellen Ochoa and Roberto Clemente, to name just a few. We celebrate their work to break down barriers and create bridges for future generations.

But as we celebrate Hispanic heritage, it is also time to address the challenges that face the Hispanic community, such as access to education and health care, fair working conditions, racial profiling and, for many, an ability to keep their family together while working to become legal, permanent residents of this great country. I am a strong supporter of the SOLVE Act, introduced by Senators Kennedy and McCain, that would help keep many Latino families together while their petitions for permanent legal residency are processed. The legislation would help hard-working Hispanics and others become legalized citizens and would offer a new temporary worker program.

While we work to improve the immigration system, we must enhance the education of Latino students. Many Latino students face social, economic, and language barriers that can prevent them from receiving the top-quality education they, like all American students, deserve. We must increase funding for English proficiency programs, programs to help low-income students attend college, and programs to help parents involve themselves in their children's education. It must be a priority for Congress to ensure equal education for all so the Hispanic community can continue to flourish and contribute to American culture.

In closing, I express my hope that the 109th Congress begins to address these and other pressing priorities for Latinos across the country. We should not limit our celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month to saluting the achievements of Hispanics, we also need to make sure that we act on the educational, health, labor and other needs of all Americans of Hispanic heritage.

Mr. President, December 8, 2004, approximately 80 percent of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin was designated the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Although we did not formally celebrate the new wilderness area until August 8, 2005, we have been delighting in the designation ever since December of last year.

The designation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore on August 8, 2005 was a tremendous occasion for both Wisconsin and the country. I was deeply honored to participate in the ceremony marking the creation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. I knew Gaylord, and am proud to occupy his Senate seat. Like all of those in attendance at the dedication ceremony, including Tia Nelson, Governor Doyle, Congressman Obey, local officials, tribal chairs, and many others, I was deeply saddened that Gaylord wasn't able to be sitting among us, having passed away on July 3, 2005.

However, I do believe that, because the area, the magnificent Apostles, and the wilderness designation we were celebrating were such a part of Gaylord, he was in fact there with us that day, urging us to mark the achievement and to continue his life's work of building a national conservation ethic. As we all know, while his record of achievements is long and impressive, it is Senator Nelson's passion and commitment to protecting our environment that will remain the centerpiece of his legacy. For this reason, Senator Kohl and I have submitted a resolution to bring recognition to Gaylord's unwavering efforts on behalf of the environment and to celebrate the dedication of a wilderness area rightly named in his honor.

Gaylord so believed in his responsibility to the environment that he started a revolution that has inspired millions of people from across the globe. The day he created in 1970--Earth Day--has become a cause for celebration, education, and reflection for all. Simply stated, Gaylord Nelson changed the consciousness of a Nation, and quite possibly the world. He was a distinguished Governor and Senator, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a personal hero of mine. Most importantly, he was the embodiment of the principle that one person can change the world.

August 8, 2005 marked the beginning of a new period for the Apostle Islands and I could not be more proud of this. In 1998, Representative Obey and I asked for a wilderness survey. Seven years later, we finally gathered to salute the awe-inspiring resource as well as the man who dedicated himself to protecting our environment, particularly those places where we humans are but humble visitors--wilderness areas. Let us not forget, however, that before we could talk about having a wilderness area within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, we had to have a National Lakeshore. I am sure it will come as no surprise that Gaylord was essential in the effort to recognize the Apostle Islands as a national treasure.

The wild and primitive nature of the Apostles and now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness has always been an attraction, not only for Wisconsin residents but for people from across the globe. At the Apostles you can find pristine old growth forests; wetlands that are home to an astounding ecological diversity; birds that travel long distances and use the islands for respite; and amphibians, which can act as indicators of the Park's environmental health.

It is a truly amazing place.

And people know it. In fact, just recently, the Apostles was rated the #1 National Park in the U.S. by National Geographic Traveler. The rating was based on a variety of factors, most notably environmental and ecological quality, social and cultural integrity, and the outlook for the future.

We have it all in the Park--ecological and cultural resources intertwined with one another. The history of the islands is a history of people living off, and very much in balance with, the land and water surrounding them. A visit to the Apostles and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness can be, if we let go of the trappings of modern society, an enlightening voyage that challenges us to think about those who came before us, those who will follow us, and the connections between us and the natural resources we depend on for our survival.

The Ojibwae, who Wisconsinites know were the original inhabitants of the Apostles, had great respect for the resources. They believed in taking something only if they were giving something in return. The Ojibwae people understood their dependence on the environment long before many others began contemplating such a relationship. Unfortunately, as a society, we have not always heeded their example. We must be better stewards of our land, our air, and our water. Gaylord pushed us toward that goal every day of his life. And, what better way to mark the dedication of the Wilderness Area named in his honor than for each of us to dedicate ourselves to actively carrying his legacy forward. That is Gaylord's challenge for all of us.

So many people supported the creation of the Lakeshore and the Wilderness area. The support has taken many forms--all of which have added to the success of our Park and the wilderness designation. I am especially grateful for the families who have donated their properties, many of which are filled with childhood and other cherished family memories, for the betterment of

the whole Apostle Islands and now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Future generations whom none of us will ever know will benefit deeply from their commitment to one of Wisconsin's most treasured places.

Every time I visit the Apostles and pieces of what are now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, I depart with a sense of inner peace and clarity. A New York Times journalist wrote about the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in 1972, saying he encountered a ``silence so intense you can hear it.'' I believe that what all those who visit the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness are bound to hear through that ``intense silence'' is Gaylord himself calling them to action.

Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate has approved H.R. 2744, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill providing vital funding for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. While I may not support every provision, this bill provides important funding to support our Nation's farmers, rural communities, and conservation programs along with providing nutritious food for seniors, children and those in need.

I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected a number of administration proposals to reduce or eliminate important programs such as funds for research at our land-grant colleges and universities, conservation partnerships through resource conservation and development councils, and funds to combat Johne's disease in our dairy industry. All of these programs were funded at a minimum of last year's levels instead of receiving drastic cuts.

After years of delay, I was encouraged that the Senate bill included funds to implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling, COOL, for meat, vegetables and fruits. Country-of-origin labeling is vitally important to enable our farmers to show their pride in the quality of their products, from ginseng to cheese to cranberries. Wisconsin farmers are proud of their work, and many consumers want to support American products--with country-of-origin labeling, both farmers and consumers benefit. I urge the Senate conferees to insist on funding COOL when they meet with the House conferees to resolve differences between the two Chambers' bills.

The Senate bill included over $18 million for efforts to control and eradicate chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk. In addition to this much needed funding, I also worked with Senator Allard to include a provision that would require the Department of Agriculture to set minimum national standards for CWD control. Under the current system there are various State regulations but no set of basic procedures guiding the movement, handling, testing and permitting of captive- raised deer and elk. Our amendment, that was included as part of the bill, requires the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service to publish its uniform methods and rules concerning CWD within 90 days of enactment of the provision. With CWD being newly discovered in New York and West Virginia, it is clear that this disease requires a national response. This provision is an important step to prevent the further spread of CWD and help deer and elk farmers operate safely throughout the Nation.

High fuel costs are putting a squeeze on all Americans, but our farmers are in a particularly vulnerable position. While the high fuel costs are hitting them at many levels, they have little flexibility in whether to plant and harvest their fields, pay to move their products to market or procure fertilizer and feed. More than that, they receive what the market dictates for their products, so when fuel costs double or triple and they see fuel surcharges on every one of their bills, they can't pass these costs on and receive a higher price for their milk, grain or other products. In recognition of this difficult situation, I was proud to cosponsor an amendment offered by Senator Salazar that was included in the bill as a first step to addressing this problem. The amendment requires the Department of Agriculture to study the issue and issue a report on the impact to farmers.

I also submitted an amendment to the bill to require the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to conduct a study on the levels of pesticides in domestic and imported ginseng. With Wisconsin ginseng being highly prized worldwide for its quality and lack of unsafe residues, mislabeled imported ginseng, often with high levels of pesticide residues, remains a problem for our producers. This study would have investigated this issue and provided important information to focus FDA's enforcement activities on reducing the amount of unsafe ginseng being passed off as Wisconsin- or U.S.-grown and helping growers fight back against this unfair competition. I was disappointed that I was blocked from having this amendment included in the bill. Despite this setback, I will continue to fight for better enforcement to protect consumers and Wisconsin's ginseng growers.

Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today will help to ensure that our veterans have easy access to information about the benefits that they have earned through their service to our country.

Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs publishes an updated

version of a handbook entitled, ``Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents,'' which contains useful information about benefits that are available through the VA. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites who are concerned that this useful handbook is not readily available to our veterans and to County Veterans Service Officers, CVSOs, and others who assist our veterans.

It is my understanding that the Department purchases a limited number of copies of this handbook each year that some are distributed to VA regional offices, to VA health care facilities, and to State Departments of Veterans Affairs. Some of my constituents are concerned that some facilities appear to have large stockpiles of this handbook, while others only receive a very limited number. I am also told that distribution of the handbook is largely left up to regional and local VA officials.

A number of Wisconsin CVSOs have informed me that they are having trouble obtaining adequate supplies of this handbook, and that they often have to rely on VA health care facilities or other sources to obtain additional copies. While I recognize that the handbook is available for download on the Department's Web site and for purchase through the Government Printing Office, GPO, many CVSOs and veterans service organizations do not have the resources to copy or purchase this handbook in large quantities. In addition, many veterans, particularly older veterans, do not have access to--or are unable to use--the Internet and it seems unreasonable to charge them $7 to purchase the handbook from GPO.

Veterans who want a copy of this handbook should get one--it's that simple. This handbook serves as a tangible reminder of the benefits they earned, and it also serves as a helpful guide for CVSOs, veterans service organizations, and others who work every day to ensure that our veterans receive these benefits. One Wisconsin CVSO tells me that this handbook is very valuable in his work with veterans, some of whom have told him that they have difficulty navigating the VA Web site or easily finding information in the online copy of the handbook. Being able to point a veteran to a specific page in the handbook is an important step in helping veterans to learn about their benefits or to find the answers to many common questions that veterans may have about these benefits.

Last year, in response to the concerns raised by my constituents, I asked former Secretary Principi to review the Department's policy for distributing this important handbook, including ensuring that CVSOs have access to this document. I also asked that he look into how to reallocate the supply to avoid a situation in which certain parts of the VA have surpluses while others are scrambling to get these handbooks to veterans who are requesting them. I also asked that he provide an estimate of how much it would cost to ensure that all CVSOs in the country are provided at least one case of the handbook each year and whether the Department's current annual supply of handbooks could be reallocated to achieve this goal. Finally, I requested that the Secretary provide me with information on the distribution policies of the various VA administrations with respect to providing copies of this handbook to individual veterans, including a description of the VA's policy regarding making these handbooks visibly available to individual veterans at VA facilities.

In the former Secretary's response, he assured me that ``. . . due to the increased outreach efforts initiated this past year, as well as the requests for additional handbooks from external veterans service providers, I am directing my senior leadership to reevaluate their requirements for publication and distribution of the 2005 handbook. Please be assured that county veterans service officers across the nation are included in next year's distribution.'' While I was encouraged by the former Secretary's response, CVSOs around Wisconsin tell me that they received only one or two copies of the 2006 edition of the handbook. This meager supply is not sufficient to use the handbook as a reference and to provide copies to veterans who request them.

The amendment that I am offering today would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees a plan to provide an adequate supply of the 2006 edition of the ``Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents'' handbook and all subsequent editions of this handbook to all county veterans service officers in the country.

My amendment would also require the Secretary to work with the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, other veterans service organizations, and state departments of veterans affairs to determine what supply is adequate and to include a cost estimate for providing these handbooks to all county veterans service officers in his report. The report would be due not later than 60 days after the enactment of this bill.

Some at the VA have argued that this important handbook was developed as a desk reference for VA employees, CVSOs, veterans service organizations, and others who help veterans to learn about and obtain their benefits. Former Secretary Principi's letter to me states that in 2003 ``. . . more than 1.4 million copies of the handbook were printed and distributed through the VA system. VA facilities, in turn, distributed handbooks to local veterans support agencies and organizations, responded to requests for the handbooks and used them as special events such as homeless veterans stand downs, veterans conferences, health fairs, and job fairs.'' While this handbook is indeed a helpful reference for those who work on behalf of our Nation's veterans, it is also a comprehensive and handy guide to veterans benefits that many veterans around my State have requested from their CVSOs. And it is evident from the former Secretary's response that the VA itself has made this publication available to individual veterans at a variety of events. No CVSO should have to refuse a veteran a copy of this booklet because he or she has been given an inadequate supply. No CVSO should have to tell a veteran that he or she does not have the budget to make the veteran a photocopy of the handbook or that he or she can gain access to it on the Internet or by purchasing it from GPO.

I am pleased that this amendment has the support of the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers and the Wisconsin Department of the American Legion.

I understand that the managers have agreed to accept my amendment, and I want to thank them for their support on this issue. I look forward to reviewing the Secretary's report.

Mr. President, while I do not make it a practice to comment on every bill that has been introduced, I am moved to remark on what I consider to be a particularly misguided recent legislative initiative--a bill allowing the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the very agency charged with protecting the public's health, to waive all laws under its jurisdiction--public health and environmental laws-- during the cleanup of hurricane Katrina. The bill, S. 1711, would even allow these waivers over local and State opposition.

People returning to areas devastated by the hurricane deserve to know, among other things, that their water is safe to drink and that new construction won't put them or their families in harm's way by polluting their air or by destroying wetlands that can provide valuable ecological services. Although the legislation calls for up to 18 months of waivers, given the long-term nature of the types of activities involved, the effects of these waivers could be long lasting.

The broad approach being pushed is completely unnecessary and puts people and the environmental resources they depend upon at risk. While all of us want to help those affected by hurricane Katrina, there is simply no valid reason to think that we need to erode established environmental and public health protections in order to do so. We should be focused not on efforts that could harm the very people who have already faced the unthinkable but on efforts that will safeguard the health of the public and the health of the environment. Anything short of this should be off the table.

Mr. President, throughout the 4 years since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country, it has been clear to me that our first national security priority must be combating and defeating the terrorist networks that seek to do us harm. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke wrote a thought-provoking piece about the ideological battleground that is a vitally important part of our challenge, and about the importance of public diplomacy efforts in our overall campaign. It was published in the Washington Post on September 9, and I ask that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has approved H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill providing vital funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and related agencies. I am, however, disappointed about the fact that this bill underfunds some important priorities. I am also disappointed that the Senate rejected several worthy amendments that would have improved this bill and helped to meet our obligations to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Whether we call police officers ``law enforcement'' or ``first responders,'' I believe that Congress, in partnership with States and local communities, has an obligation to provide State and local law enforcement with the tools, technology, and training they need to protect our communities. I am deeply concerned about proposed cuts in Federal funding programs for our nation's law enforcement officers. I have consistently supported a number of Federal grant programs, including the Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving, COPS, Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to train new officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also support funding for the Byrne grant

program, which provides funding to help fight violent and drug-related crime, including support to multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, drug courts, drug education and prevention programs, and many other efforts to reduce drug abuse and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important these programs have been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, in particular with regard to fighting the spread of methamphetamines.

Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. Once again this year, the administration's budget proposal would have drastically cut the COPS Program, and would have eliminated all funding for the Byrne grant program. I have already supported efforts to restore this funding through the budget process, and am proud to continue to fight in the appropriations process to make sure that state and local law enforcement receive the Federal grants that they need and deserve. We should be doing more, not less, to support our local law enforcement. In particular, I was proud to support Senator Biden's amendment that provided additional COPS funds for the hiring of local police officers, an aspect of the COPS Program that has been dramatically cut back. The amendment also would have provided $19 million to help find children displaced by Katrina and reunite them with their families, and to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault affected by Katrina. I regret the Senate's decision to reject this amendment.

On the other hand, I am pleased that an amendment offered by Senators Dayton and Chambliss to increase Byrne/local law enforcement block grant funding by $275 million was accepted. This amendment, which I cosponsored, restores funding for these important programs to fiscal year 2003 levels, and I hope it will be retained in conference.

While I strongly support the efforts of Senator Stabenow to address the need for first responders to have interoperable communications capabilities, I could not support her amendment. My colleague from Michigan rightly notes that making sure that all of our first responders can communicate with each other must be a priority for our Nation, and I admire her efforts to advance this cause. However, 4 years after September 11 tragically highlighted this vitally important issue, we still do not have unified national interoperable communications standards. Without these standards, there is no guarantee that a new $5 billion grant program for equipment would create the interoperable communication system we need and that our first responders and communities deserve. When spending such massive amounts of money and such a large percentage of all first responder funding on this new program, we must make sure that we are spending the money wisely. Without standards we cannot meet this test and that is why I regretfully voted against this amendment.

I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the amendment I cosponsored offered by Senator Clinton that would have created a commission to investigate and identify the problems with the governmental response to Katrina. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath devastated the gulf region and exposed serious flaws in our Nation's response capabilities. While the crisis prompted untold acts of heroism and compassion that continue to this day, it also revealed gaping holes in the Government's reaction and ability to stop, reduce, or mitigate the effects of this terrible disaster.

We need answers. We need answers about what went right, what went wrong, and what we can do to make sure our response is better to future disasters. We need a serious inquiry unimpeded by political considerations or posturing, and I believe an independent commission is the right way to do that. Our Nation and this Senate have been willing to spend tens of billions of dollars in the last 4 years to address our disaster response capabilities. Hurricane Katrina showed that those capabilities still can't provide Americans with the protection and safety they deserve. We need the serious rethinking and reassessment a Katrina commission could provide so that we can effectively address our nation's critical response needs. That is why I hope the Senate will soon reconsider establishing such a commission.

In closing, I want to note my disappointment that the bill fails to address problems with media concentration. I have long been concerned about concentration and vertical integration in the radio industry, which was one of the reasons I opposed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that relaxed many ownership restrictions. I feel that consolidation has the strong potential for limiting creativity, localism and diversity on our airwaves. In 1998, twice in 2001 and again in September 2002, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, published reports on the changes in the radio industry as a result of the 1996 act. These reports showed significant consolidation nationally and in local markets. For example in 1996, the largest radio group owned less than 65 stations; by 2002 the largest radio group had more than 1,200 stations.

I proposed a modest amendment to require the FCC to update and provide Congress with a report on consolidation in the radio industry that the FCC last produced 3 years ago. I was disappointed that I was denied even the opportunity to get a vote on my amendment. As New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's recent payola settlement shows, there continue to be problems with the radio industry and therefore there is a need for updated information about the state of the industry so that Congress can decide how to address these problems.

Mr. President, students, teachers, and school personnel across Wisconsin and around the country are settling in for a new school year. Regrettably, thousands of students and teachers in the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast region have no schools to which they can return. According to the Louisiana Department of Education, schools in six parishes have been destroyed or are too damaged to reopen, and more than 240,000 students from that State alone have been displaced as a result. The Federal Department of Education estimates

that a total of more than 370,000 students across the region have been displaced, and many of them will have to spend the entire school year attending a different school.

I commend the school districts around the region and around the county, including in Wisconsin, that have opened their doors to students who have been displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing devastation left in her wake. While the start of the school year usually means getting new school supplies, renewing friendships that may have lapsed over the summer months, and embarking on new courses of study, for the students displaced by Katrina, starting school may be the first step in restoring a sense of routine and a small measure of normalcy. Many of these students are separated from family members and friends and from familiar teachers, counselors, coaches, and other school personnel as they begin classes in another district or in another State. We should make every effort to assist the schools that are welcoming them with open arms as they work to make this transition as smooth as possible.

For these reasons, last week I sent a letter to the Secretary of Education, which I am pleased was cosigned by the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, asking that the administration request dedicated education funding for schools in the affected areas and for the States and school districts that are enrolling these displaced students. Our letter also requested that the Secretary use her statutory authority to waive for 1 year the accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act for the schools in the affected areas and for the school districts that are enrolling the displaced students.

Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath also remind us of the importance of the availability of school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. These personnel work with teachers, administrators, and parents to ensure that students have the resources and tools they need to meet the challenges of the classroom and of everyday life. In times of great stress or disaster, such as a hurricane, these professionals are even more important as they help students cope with the tragedy that they and their loved ones and friends--or family members or friends who lived in the affected area--are experiencing.

This natural disaster underscores the need to provide adequate resources to ensure that schools have the ability to recruit and retain school counselors, psychologists, and social workers in numbers that are appropriate to meet the needs of their students. I share the concern expressed by so many around my State that tight budget constraints and new Federal mandates are forcing school districts to make the difficult decision to cut some of these important positions. And many of those districts that are able to maintain these positions are unable to hire enough counselors, psychologists, and social workers to meet the recommended student to professional ratios for those positions. I will talk more about the importance of providing promised Federal funding for education programs later in my statement, but I just wanted to touch on this issue here.

As we witness the concerted effort by so many local school districts and States to provide education for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina, we are reminded that throughout our Nation's history, the education of our children has been viewed as a largely local and state responsibility, and the Federal Government has wisely left decisions affecting our children's day-to-day classroom experiences up to the schools, districts, school boards, and State education agencies that bear the responsibility for--and most of the cost of--educating our children. Historically, when the Federal Government has stepped in, it has been to ensure that children receive an equal opportunity for a good education by protecting the rights of all children and by providing additional resources for schools and for such related activities as teacher training.

The Federal Government has a long history of supporting local and State governments in their effort to provide a high quality public education for each child. And we have such an opportunity now to support local efforts by providing funding to the states and school districts that have been affected by Hurricane Katrina. I support such efforts, which rightly respect the importance of maintaining local control of education. For that reason, I opposed the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, which the President touts as one of his top domestic achievements, going so far as to call it ``the most important Federal education reform in history.'' I respectfully disagree with the President's assessment of this law, the effects of which are beginning to reverberate throughout Wisconsin and throughout the country.

As I travel around Wisconsin each year to host listening sessions in each of our 72 counties, I hear time and again from frustrated teachers, administrators, parents, and others about the negative effect that NCLB is having on education in Wisconsin. And the people of Wisconsin are not alone in their concern about the consequences of this law. A recent article in the St. Petersburg Times notes that ``[i]t's not unusual for states to chafe at federal rules. But the state revolt against the federal law that filled America's classrooms with standardized tests is unprecedented. Forty-seven states are questioning, opposing, or rebelling against the most sweeping education reform in a generation.''

In Utah, for example, the State legislature passed and the Governor signed into law a bill that clarifies that State education policy has precedence over Federal education laws. Colorado is allowing individual school districts to ``opt out'' of NCLB. And the State of Connecticut recently filed a lawsuit in Federal court that argues that the law is illegal because it constitutes an unfunded Federal mandate on States and school districts. The National Education Association had previously joined with a number of local affiliates and school districts from around the country in filing a similar lawsuit.

It is important to note that the Department of Education has made some effort to provide flexibility on some areas of this law in response to a flood of requests from States and school districts around the country. But this flexibility has been narrow in scope and has largely ignored the central concerns of States and school districts, including insufficient Federal resources to help schools comply with the law and the likelihood that no State or district--now matter how great their efforts or their educational progress--will be able to keep up with the law's ambitious accountability provisions, including the well-intentioned yet almost wholly unachievable requirement that all students be proficient in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school year.

While I think we all agree that schools should be held accountable for results, I and many Wisconsinites oppose the testing-centered mandates in the NCLB. I support some aspects of this law, such as increased funding for title I and for afterschool programs. I opposed this legislation, however, because it takes decisions regarding the frequency of testing out of the hands of local school districts. As educators, students, and parents across the country know all too well, this law mandates that students be tested in reading and math in grades 3-8 beginning during this, the 2005-2006 school year. Further, the law mandates that students be tested in science at least once in grades 3- 5, 6-9, and 10-12 beginning in the 2007-2008 school year.

This top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to testing is not good for Wisconsin students or schools. Washington does not know best when it comes to making decisions such as this, and states and school districts are rightly concerned about the effect that this additional layer of testing will have on classroom education.

Connecticut, for example, has requested and has been repeatedly denied permission from the Department of Education to continue to test its students every other year instead of every year as is mandated by

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 25th anniversary of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail, which will be observed later this week but officially occurs on October 3, 2005. This anniversary is an appropriate time to celebrate not just the breathtaking beauty of our natural surroundings or the accomplishments of and opportunities provided by a cherished unit of the National Park Service over the past 25 years. It also gives us the chance to mark the achievements that are possible when a dedicated group of volunteers commit themselves to a long-term vision of improving their environment, their communities, their State, and their country.

Much of North America's landscape was formed by retreating ice sheets some 15,000 years ago and the beauty this retreat exposed surrounds each of us. However, it is the two-thirds of Wisconsin that were shaped during this glacial movement whose majestic beauty is, quite simply, unmatched. I know that all Wisconsinites appreciate the special places that owe their existence to these glacial changes--from our thousands of inland lakes and streams to our meandering eskers and rolling moraines, and from the top of Timm's Hill down to the gravelly shores of Lake Michigan.

Wisconsin's geological history communicates a fascinating story and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail helps to both preserve that story, by protecting the scenic beauty, and to tell that story, by allowing people the opportunity to explore it. The trail, which starts in Green Bay, follows the path of the Wisconsin Glaciation, stretches for more than 1,000 miles across the State, and finally ends at the Interstate State Park Ice Age Reserve Unit at the Dalles of the St. Croix River. Throughout its meanderings, the trail takes you on a journey like no other.

In addition to learning about the geological history of Wisconsin, a visitor to the trail will find a multitude of recreational opportunities. These activities can be equally enjoyed by individuals seeking solitude and by groups and families who want to increase their togetherness. All areas on the Ice Age Trail encourage hiking and backpacking, and some portions permit non-motorized sports such as bicycling, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and jogging. I cannot think of a better place to engage in these activities than along the Ice Age Trail.

The stories associated with the trail aren't only about the geological history of our State. The trail also tells the story of individuals working to fulfill a dream. In the 1950s, the late Ray Zillmer, of Milwaukee, envisioned a trail spanning across Wisconsin's glacial landscape. In 1958, the Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation was formed by a grassroots movement of Wisconsin citizens interested in promoting the creation of a national park that would recognize the glacial footprint in Wisconsin. These citizens' efforts were finally recognized when, in 1971, the State of Wisconsin cooperated with the National Park Service to create the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve. Finally, in 1980--over 20 years after Mr. Zillmer's work began--Congress recognized the national significance of our landscape and the importance of sharing it with the country and designated the Ice Age Trail as a National Scenic Trail.

Our trail is administered jointly by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation, and the National Park Service, but it is the efforts of volunteers that truly make the trail shine. From those as young as 11 to those in their 70s, I salute the volunteers who are committed to improving our Ice Age National Scenic Trail. Their actions carry on the vision of past Wisconsinites to leave their surroundings a bit better off than they found them.

Over the past 25 years, the trail has flourished. It has grown tremendously and today there are many segments proposed for inclusion. I can't wait to watch as the next 25 years go by. In fact, I look forward to participating in the 50th anniversary celebration!

In closing, I congratulate the Ice Age National Scenic Trail on its 25th anniversary and commend all those associated with it for their efforts to make it one of the most outstanding parts of the National Trails System.

Mr. President, this past Sunday, Americans from all parts of the country and all walks of life joined together in solemnly marking the painful anniversary of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001.

Of course, Americans remember 9/11 every day. It has become a part of how we understand the world around us; it has been seared into our national consciousness. But we do not remember only the terrorist attacks themselves. We remember the lives, contributions, and aspirations of nearly three thousand innocent men, women and children who were killed that day. We remember the courage and heroism of our first responders. And we remember the outpouring of support and assistance and solidarity that came from every community in this great country and from so many around the world in the days following the attacks.

All of these memories unite us as Americans. Every day, those memories strengthen our unshakable resolve to defeat the terrorist networks that wish

to do us harm, and to preserve the freedoms that generations of Americans have fought to protect.

As our country confronts the devastation left in the wake of hurricane Katrina, we can see some of that same national strength, that same American solidarity and resolve, emerging again. It is by nurturing and reinforcing that national strength and compassion that we pay tribute to those we lost on September 11, 2001.