Lincoln Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Peace Corps on its 45th anniversary. This week has been designated as National Peace Corps Week, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to salute the men and women of our Nation who have contributed their time and energy to serve as Peace Corps volunteers. Thanks to the selflessness of these Americans, the Peace Corps has reached a 30-year high in membership, serving in 75 countries across the globe. The mission of the Peace Corps today has changed dramatically since it was established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Today, volunteers are providing assistance to developing nations around the world, working to find ways to address huge global challenges such as the need for HIV/AIDS prevention, and are embarking on other missions to further our diplomatic goals across the globe. I also applaud the domestic efforts of the Crisis Corps Volunteers, in their assistance with relief in regions damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Members of this special unit of Peace Corp volunteers were also deployed to Sri Lanka and Thailand to assist with rebuilding tsunami-devastated areas. Today, I am proud to honor 27 Rhode Islanders currently serving in the Peace Corps. I wish them the very best in all their endeavors and I thank them for their service to our country in this important time in history. Their names are as follows: Catherine M. Alexander, Courtney E. Briar, Anthony J. Cabral, Mayerlin Caridad Mejia, Rebecca L. Champlin, Caroline C. Cutting, Jennifer S. Doo, Shayne E. Doyle, Catherine Farrell, Amanda H. Fogle-Donmoyer, Heron E. Greenesmith, Geoffrey L. Jones, Jesse B. Joseph, Anna D. Karolyshyn, Maria K. Kasparian, Christopher A. Kelley, Caroline N. Klein, Marie A. Kobayashi, Mark A. Lange, Andrew J. Moulton, Leana A. Nordstrom, David M. Reynolds, Ralph W. Riccio, Christi M. Turner, Evan R. Usler, Deborah L. Vittner, and Erica K. Zaiser.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, President Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Justice O'Connor has had a remarkable career of public service. Her strong and moderate voice on the Supreme Court will be missed. I was lucky to get to socialize with her and her husband through mutual acquaintances and recommend her book about growing up on a ranch in arid Arizona--The Lazy B. She is an exceptional person. As is the custom, Judge Alito sought a meeting with any Senator so interested. For our meeting, I suggested the Capitol steps and he agreed since it was a warm sunny day. I thought it was appropriate to be visually connected to two of the three branches of government as we talked about constitutional issues. If confirmed, the decisions he will make on the Supreme Court will affect the lives of Americans profoundly. Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story. However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues. In particular, I carefully examined his record on executive power, women's reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause of article 1, section VIII of the Constitution. On executive power, it is likely that cases dealing with the fourth amendment will be heard by the Supreme Court. The fourth amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. To me this language is very clear that a warrant is required for a search. That premise is now being questioned regarding warrantless wiretaps. At the Judiciary Committee hearings, Judge Alito was asked a question on executive powers and warrantless wiretapping. He said he would have to determine ``whether the President's power, inherent powers, the powers given to the President under article 2 are sufficient, even taking away congressional authorization, the area where the President is asserting a power to do something in the face of explicit congressional determination to the contrary''. The only power in article 2 that Judge Alito could be referring to would be: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. . . . Judge Alito was also asked ``. . . is it possible under your construct that an inherent Constitutional power of the President could, under some analysis or some case, override what people believe to be a Constitutional criminal statue?'' Judge Alito responded that this was possible, noting a ``possibility that that might be justified''. How far do we want Commander in Chief stretched? As Justice O'Connor wrote in a recent case, ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens''. On the issue of Roe v. Wade as with other issues, I am less interested in what Judge Alito wrote or said as a lawyer for his client the Reagan Administration, than how he has ruled as a judge and how he testified at his nomination hearing. As an appellate court judge, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court case reviewing the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. The Supreme Court wrote on this landmark affirmation of Roe v. Wade: These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state. The five majority Justices, who wrote that, were all Republican appointees: two Reagan appointees, one each of Bush ``41'', Ford and Nixon. An important standard of law is the concept of stare decisis--it stands decided. At the hearing Chairman Specter asked Judge Alito to discuss his view of stare decisis. He responded: It's not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents''. In the Supreme Court dissent on Casey, the justices who arguably wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade wrote ``stare decisis is not . . . a universal inexorable command. Not only did Judge Alito rule in favor of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as a lower court judge, he used the same language as the high court dissenters at his Supreme Court nomination hearing. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Additionally, at his nomination hearing Judge Roberts was willing to call Roe v. Wade ``settled law'' but Judge Alito refused to make a similar statement. The last point I would like to make concerning constitutional law is on the commerce clause. As you know the Constitution creates a Government of limited power--Congress can only enact legislation in areas that are specifically set out under the Constitution. Congress is expressly prohibited from enacting legislation in other areas, leaving this authority to the States per the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution gave Congress broad power to regulate immigration, national security and economic activity between the states, and left most other power with the States. However, section VIII of article 1 states that ``the Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states''. This is the commerce clause and it is the most powerful provision in the Constitution providing Congress the authority to enact legislation in a host of areas--including environmental protection. A key Supreme Court case regarding the commerce clause was in 1942 when the Supreme Court upheld legislation that allowed USDA to set quotas on local wheat growing. The Court noted that while crops regulated may never actually enter into interstate commerce, such local activity, coupled with similar activity in other States as an aggregate has a direct impact on interstate commerce. Since then using the ``aggregate effects test'' or ``substantial effects test'' Congress has passed broad ranging environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which were signed into law by Republican President Nixon. While I agree there should be constitutional limits on legislative power, Judge Alito seems to have agreed with Justice Thomas who wrote: I believe we must further reconsider our substantial effects test with an eye toward constructing a stand that reflects the text and history of the Commerce Clause. Indeed in a dissent to a gun case heard before his court Judge Alito wrote: In sum, we are left with no appreciable empirical support for the proposition that the purely intrastate possessions of machine guns, by facilitating the commission of certain crimes, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and without such support I do not see how the statutory provision at issue here can be sustained. What is noteworthy in this dissent is that Judge Alito was alone with all members of his appeals court ruling the other way. If ``the aggregate or substantial effects tests'' are overruled as Justice Thomas has advocated, federal environmental laws could be ruled unconstitutional. Indeed on February 21, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments on two cases, Carabell v. United States and United States v. Rapanos. In both cases the lower court upheld protection of wetlands, which are currently protected under the Clean Water Act. Environmentalists argue that these wetlands are critical to the health of our nation's water supply and wildlife habitat. Industry groups argue that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate ``isolated wetlands'' that have no connection with ``navigable waters.'' This would be a major setback to the Clean Water Act. The critical issue is whether under the commerce clause, Congress has the authority to regulate non-navigable bodies of water within a single State. Based on the writing of Judge Alito, he would appear to side with the faction what would greatly limit the ability of Congress to protect such ``intrastate'' issues. These constitutional issues, the scope of executive power, women's reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause are likely to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming months. I care deeply about these issues. Believe me, having been an executive in government, I want to support President Bush's choice to the Supreme Court. The President did win the election. He has made his promises and I have made mine. I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican and I will be voting against this nomination.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that today I reflect upon the life of Joseph O'Donnell. Mr. O'Donnell dedicated his life to his family and to public service. He served alongside my father as Lieutenant Governor in the 1960s, and is, in fact, the last Republican elected to the position. He remained active in politics until his passing. In addition to his tenure as Lieutenant Governor, Joe O'Donnell has served his community and the State of Rhode Island for over 55 years, including as State Director of Administration, as Chairman of the North Smithfield Water Authority, and in a number of other capacities. In addition, Mr. O'Donnell served the business community as a founding partner and chairman of the board of Keough Kirby Associates, Inc., as a trustee of Landmark Health Systems, and in other board positions for numerous business and civic organizations. As a panelist on the `Coffee-An' radio program in his later years, Joe O'Donnell contributed his knowledge of politics, his great sense of humor, and his penchant for gourmet cooking to a larger audience. His name is on the Wall of Honor at the Marine Maritime Academy for outstanding lifetime achievement, and he was a recipient of the Admiral Joel R.P. Pringle Society Award from the Naval War College Foundation in Newport. It is with heavy hearts that Stephanie and I send our deepest sympathies to Mrs. Yolande O'Donnell and their six children. Of all his accomplishments, I know he is most proud of the closeness of his family.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of MG John W. Kiely. Major General Kiely was a man of exemplary service to our State and country. A veteran of three wars, he ascended to the rank of colonel, Regular Army as well as serving as brigadier general, National Guard of Rhode Island, adjutant general of Rhode Island, and also was promoted to the grade of major general and commanding general. General Kiely was a model soldier, receiving a Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars, Valor, and 3 Legions of Merit, along with 22 other Federal Government awards and decorations, as well as the Rhode Island Cross and the Rhode Island Star. His military knowledge and service to our Nation will be dearly missed, and my deepest condolences go to Mrs. Marilyn L. Kiely and the Kiely family in their time of mourning.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution with Senator Stabenow to commemorate the National Audubon Society's Centennial Anniversary. Senators Snowe, Boxer, Carper, Nelson (FL), Martinez, Jeffords, Kerry, Feingold, Durbin, Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Collins, Cantwell, Lieberman, DeWine, Crapo, Bond, Landrieu and Vitter have joined us as original cosponsors. The National Audubon Society was first incorporated in 1905 by a dedicated group of conservationists with the goal of protecting birds such as the Great Egret from the plumage trade. Feathered hats were at the height of fashion in those days, and plume-traders would hunt egrets and other birds as part of a highly profitable business. By raising the awareness of the problem, the men and women who founded the National Audubon Society saved egrets and many other bird species from extinction. Since that time, Audubon has worked to preserve and protect species and the habitat upon which they depend throughout the United States. The organization has been instrumental in setting aside natural areas as wildlife sanctuaries, and supporting major habitat restoration efforts including ongoing conservation work in the Florida Everglades, San Francisco Bay, and along the Mississippi River. As the U.S. partner in BirdLife International's Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program, Audubon has fostered the stewardship and protection of essential wildlife habitat from coast to coast. Through a science-based process of site identification, monitoring, education and outreach, Audubon's IBA program has laid the groundwork for community-based conservation with over 1,600 sites recognized as ecologically important for bird species. In recent months, Audubon has worked with partners to raise awareness of the plight of the Red Knot, a long-distance migratory bird species in steep decline as the result of the over-harvesting of its food source, habitat destruction and invasive species concerns. The Senate Resolution we are submitting today recognizes the National Audubon Society's dedication and commitment to protecting wildlife and the Nation's ecological heritage. We commemorate the National Audubon Society on it's 100th anniversary, and wish the organization many more years of success.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this month we observe National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and reflect on a disease that has touched countless American lives. There are more than 3 million women living with breast cancer in the United States and tens of thousands of women die from breast cancer each year. Breast cancer is now the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. While important advances have been made, the causes of this disease and the means to prevent it are still unknown. Scientific evidence about what aspects of the environment play a role in the initiation and development of breast cancer also remains scarce. Although it is generally believed that there is a correlation between environmental factors and the prevalence of breast cancer, the extent of the environment's role is not well understood. Given the clear need to explore the potential relationship between the environment and breast cancer, I have introduced S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. This bill would authorize $30 million per year for 5 years for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants to study the relationship between environmental factors and breast cancer. Under a competitive, peer- reviewed grant making process, the Director of NIEHS would award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting multidisciplinary research. The bill would seek to foster community collaboration between the research centers, patients, and the patient advocacy organizations. The targeted research proposed in S. 757 holds the promise for a better understanding of the causes of breast cancer, breakthroughs in prevention and treatment, and ultimately a cure. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. 757 so that we may work together toward Senate passage this year.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, after careful consideration, I will support the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. When he was nominated by President Bush in July, it was clear that Judge Roberts had the necessary professional qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. He graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, in 1976, and received his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1979 from the Harvard Law School where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Roberts clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist. John Roberts has served his country twice, working for the President. First, he served as Special Assistant to United States Attorney General William French Smith. He returned to government service in the first Bush administration, serving as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. As a lawyer, Roberts has presented 39 oral arguments before the Supreme Court covering the full range of the Court's jurisdiction, including admiralty, antitrust, arbitration, environmental law, first amendment, health care law, Indian law, bankruptcy, tax, regulation of financial institutions, administrative law, labor law, federal jurisdiction and procedure, interstate commerce, civil rights, and criminal law. During the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators extensively probed the judicial philosophy of Judge Roberts. I think our colleagues Senator Specter and Senator Leahy did an excellent job and conducted a fair and thorough hearing. We do not know how Judge Roberts will rule in many cases. What we do know is that he was nominated by a President who, in the glare of the lights of a campaign, clearly indicated the type of Supreme Court nominee that he would favor. We also know that Judge Roberts is an extraordinarily accomplished man with the right temperament. I have long noted that I believe we must retain an appropriate balance on the Supreme Court. I was pleased that during the hearings, Judge Roberts unequivocally acknowledged that the Constitution contains a right to privacy. He further testified that the right to privacy is not a narrow right. He explained his belief that the right to privacy was sufficiently broad to allow the courts to apply it to changing circumstances. It was important to hear Judge Roberts state that as a Supreme Court justice, he would strive to follow precedent in order to ensure stability in the law. I wish Judge Roberts well as he takes his seat as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, Congress must make an immediate, thorough review of the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. As a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I am committed to working with Chairwoman Susan Collins and Ranking Member Joe Lieberman to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a bipartisan fashion. We have already begun this investigation. On Wednesday, September 14, our committee held its first hearing on the effects of Hurricane Katrina and heard from former California Gov. Pete Wilson, former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial, and former Grand Forks, ND, Mayor Patricia Owens. Each of these respected public officials have led their citizens through past natural disasters and shared their experiences with us in the hearings. In the coming weeks, we will call in leaders from the administration and other relevant parties to determine what was done right and what was done wrong in responding to Hurricane Katrina. We intend to make whatever changes in structure, funding and personnel that are necessary to ensure that we are prepared to handle disasters--either natural or manmade--in the future. During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, Senator Hillary Clinton offered an amendment to create a new committee to investigate Hurricane Katrina. I did not support this amendment for two reasons. First, it violated Senate rules by adding legislation to an appropriations bill. I have strongly opposed such legislative ``riders'' in the past since many of the ``riders'' have been used to undermine environmental laws. I believe that legislation should move through the appropriate authorization committees for consideration. Second, I believe that our Homeland Security Committee is doing the necessary work to conduct a full investigation. The work has already begun. A new committee could take months to be organized and set up. The American people should not have to wait to have accountability. Amendment No. 1670

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

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

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to register my opposition to the Kyl amendment No. 1050 to H.R. 2361, the Senate Interior Appropriations bill. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program is essential for protecting public health, watersheds, and the natural environment by providing critical federal seed money for the maintenance and improvement of water infrastructure. Despite important progress in protecting and enhancing water quality since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, serious water pollution problems persist throughout the Nation. The need for continued Federal investment in the Nation's water infrastructure is undeniable. The Environmental Protection Agency's September 30, 2002 Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis found that there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. In November 2002, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the annual investment in clean water infrastructure needs to be at least $13 billion for capital construction and $20.3 billion for operation and maintenance. The Kyl amendment would restructure the current formula for distributing federal funding to the states under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SRF, Program. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, with authorizing jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and the SRF Program, I thank Senator Kyl for his interest in the clean water formula. However, I believe the Interior appropriations bill is the wrong forum for discussion of any statutory changes to the Clean Water SRF formula. Members of the subcommittee and the Environment and Public Works Committee are working closely to craft water infrastructure legislation that would authorize new funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, as well as address the antiquated Clean Water SRF formula. Senator Kyl is correct, the Clean Water SRF formula is in need of revision. Arizona is one of many States that have seen their needs grow since the last time the formula was updated in 1987. The Environment and Public Works Committee is working on the necessary changes to the SRF, and hope to move water infrastructure legislation by the end of the summer. I encourage my fellow colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment and support the ongoing process of updating the Clean Water formula by the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr President, I recently spoke on the floor about the Ninth Annual World Congress on Civic Education in Amman, Jordan sponsored by the Center for Civic Education. The purpose of that conference was to share information about successful education programs under the Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange Program, an authorized program of the No Child Left Behind Act and one which is helping to strengthen democratization efforts throughout the world. A recent news editorial in The Jordan Times supporting the goals of the conference and the outstanding work the Center for Civic Education and their international colleagues are doing in this strategic part of the world was welcome support. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from The Jordan Times on Sunday, June 5, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Mary Barden, as she is recognized for her scholastic achievements on National History Day. Mary, a student at Coventry High School in Coventry, RI, was one of 17 students chosen out of a half million across America, to display and present her history project at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Mary's project is titled ``Cesar Chavez: Understanding the Chicano Farmworkers Need for Justice.'' The National History Day program allows students to create exhibits, documentaries, and performances, by using their critical thinking and research skills in the subject of history. I strongly support the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy, and this national observance promotes history education in Rhode Island and throughout the Nation. This year, National History Day celebrates its 25th anniversary as a national organization. I congratulate Mary as she is honored for her presentation, and commend her for her dedication and commitment. I join with the citizens of Rhode Island in wishing Mary well in all her future endeavors.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, next week, from June 2-6, 2005, the Center for Civic Education will host the Ninth Annual World Congress on Civic Education in Amman, Jordan. Nearly 200 civic education leaders will attend this event, representing 58 countries and 28 U.S. States. The purpose of the World Congress is to share information about the best practices and materials developed through Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange Program, an authorized program of the No Child Left Behind Act. The program addresses the full range of civic education activities. These include the development of educational policy, standards, curricular frameworks, and materials, as well as teacher education, classroom implementation, and research and evaluation. One program developed through Civitas is Project Citizen, a middle school level program on public policy in the United States. Project Citizen is now being used in more than fifty countries, and is one of the most effective programs in promoting the development of a political culture supportive of democratic values, principles, institutions, and participation. Another important component of Civitas is the series of exchanges among leaders in civic education in the United States and those in emerging and established democracies worldwide. The purpose of the exchanges is for civic education leaders to learn from and assist each other in improving education for democracy in their home nations. Therefore, I think it is an important step that for the first time the World Congress on Civic Education will be hosted in the Middle East. Joining the Center for Civic Education in hosting this year's World Congress is Arab Civitas--a regional network of nine Arab countries in the Middle East--and the Jordanian Center for Civic Education Studies. Arab Civitas, which is funded through the Middle East Partnership Initiative at the State Department, administers a program of citizenship education in elementary and secondary schools in the Middle East. Civic educators in Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain, and recently Saudi Arabia, work with the Center for Civic Education through Arab Civitas. The goal of the program is to help students understand and respect the core concepts of freedom and democracy such as free expression, pluralism and the rule of law, and human rights. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, it is my strong belief that many of the conflicts and problems in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, could be lessened by strong investments in education. I am particularly supportive of education programs which seek to improve tolerance and understanding of others. Thus, the theme of this year's congress is of particular interest to me: Advancing Peace and Stability through Active Citizenship. Mr. President, I think we can all agree that this is exciting work that the Center for Civic Education is accomplishing. Its work in strengthening democracy, and promoting tolerance and moderation, in the United States and throughout the world, is admirable. I hope and expect the attendees will have a successful Ninth Annual World Congress on Civic Education.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to George Redman of East Providence, RI. The Greenways Alliance of Rhode Island, the Ocean State Bike Path Association, and the Narragansett Bay Wheelman are honoring George tonight for his ``Spirit, Dedication and Commitment to Rhode Island Greenways.'' George is an active neighborhood volunteer, an avid bicyclist, an amateur genealogist, historian, and sailor. His extraordinary service during World War II aboard the USS Mississippi began a career of service to his community and country. He has dedicated much of his life to the revitalization of the East Providence waterfront, beginning with a shoreline cleanup that he organized as an Assistant Master of a Boy Scout troop. His efforts continued with his work as chairman of the Fort Hill Waterfront Park Committee, the East Providence Beautification Committee, the East Providence Shoreline Committee, and the Narragansett Bay Commission Advisory Council. I would especially like to commend George for his vital role advocating for the East Bay Bike Path. This 14-mile trail, built on an abandoned railway connecting East Providence to the coastal towns of Barrington, Warren, and Bristol, has been hailed as a national example of the benefits of recreational trails. In the early 1980s, George headed a petition effort that received more than 4,200 signatures and spurred the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to complete the path in 1992. His bike path advocacy has earned him recognition in the Christian Science Monitor, the Providence Journal, Rails to Trails Magazine, and other local media outlets covering bike path and waterfront-related issues. Active for many years in local politics, George was elected a delegate to the 1986 Rhode Island Constitutional Convention. He has received numerous letters of appreciation and recognition from past Governors and Federal, State, and local officials. It was my privilege to take a bike ride with George last August on the newly constructed Washington Secondary Bike Path that runs from Cranston to Coventry, RI. As I said at the time, if the East Bay Bike Path had not been built, there would not have been the momentum to go forward with other trails. George has been married for 53 years to his wife, Adeline, and they have two children, Paul and Mary, and three grandchildren. George Redman's success in pushing for the East Bay Bike Path affirms the notion that members of grassroots organizations can partner with state and federal agencies to improve the quality of life in their communities. I am delighted to join in recognizing his achievements, and his passion for the environment and public recreation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing appropriations for the Water Resources Research Act. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, respectively, as well as Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Baucus, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi and Corzine have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation to address our nation's water resource concerns. Originally enacted in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act authorizes the establishment of a nationwide, State-based network of Water Resources Research Institutes. These Institutes represent a partnership among State universities; Federal, State, and local governments; and stakeholders aimed at solving problems of water supply and water quality. They are located at the land-grant universities in each of the 50 States, the territories and the District of Columbia. The 54 Water Resources Research Institutes are charged with conducting competent research to develop new technologies and more efficient methods for resolving local, State and national water- resources problems; fostering new research scientists into water resources fields; and facilitating water research coordination and the application of research results through information dissemination and technology transfer. The Institutes provide important support to the States in their long- term water planning, policy development, and management. A significant portion of the Institutes' work is intended to help State and local water managers implement Federal regulations in ways that are tailored to local and State institutions and natural conditions. Water quality regulations, drinking water standards, wastewater treatment, and water reuse programs are examples of areas in which the Institutes provide research and information transfer. In my own State, the Rhode Island Water Resources Center is located at the University of Rhode Island. The Center's recent activities have included working with the Rhode Island Airport Corporation to develop a plan for mitigating runoff contamination due to deicing and anti-icing operations at T.F.Green Airport. Other work conducted by the Center has encompassed evaluating the scour potential of streams and river banks in the State to study how they may be affected by land use and other changes; developing a statewide public water-supply GIS coverage program; and working with communities to evaluate MTBE drinking water contamination. In addition to research, the outreach and information transfer activities of the Institutes are highly valued by multi-level stakeholders at the local, State and regional levels. The Institutes are the training grounds for the next generation of the Nation's water scientists, economists and engineers. This nationwide network of water institutes provides an efficient and effective method to meet the diverse water resource needs in different parts of our country. Another key component of the program is the importance of its small Federal grants for leveraging funding from non-federal sources to identify and address local and State needs for water research. Without this Federal seed money, many institutes would lose a valuable resource and the visibility within their universities and among Federal, State and local water agencies for working on challenging water resource problems. The Federal grants allow immense leverage capacity for conducting water research activities and are the key to maintaining a valuable national network. The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes $62 million in funding through fiscal year 2010 for the Nation's Water Resources Research Institutes and $32 million for the Act's Interstate Research Program. I look forward to working with the bill's original cosponsors as well as my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure this national network of university-based research institutes continues to support the water resources needs of the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing appropriations for the Water Resources Research Act. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, respectively, as well as Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Baucus, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi and Corzine have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation to address our nation's water resource concerns. Originally enacted in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act authorizes the establishment of a nationwide, State-based network of Water Resources Research Institutes. These Institutes represent a partnership among State universities; Federal, State, and local governments; and stakeholders aimed at solving problems of water supply and water quality. They are located at the land-grant universities in each of the 50 States, the territories and the District of Columbia. The 54 Water Resources Research Institutes are charged with conducting competent research to develop new technologies and more efficient methods for resolving local, State and national water- resources problems; fostering new research scientists into water resources fields; and facilitating water research coordination and the application of research results through information dissemination and technology transfer. The Institutes provide important support to the States in their long- term water planning, policy development, and management. A significant portion of the Institutes' work is intended to help State and local water managers implement Federal regulations in ways that are tailored to local and State institutions and natural conditions. Water quality regulations, drinking water standards, wastewater treatment, and water reuse programs are examples of areas in which the Institutes provide research and information transfer. In my own State, the Rhode Island Water Resources Center is located at the University of Rhode Island. The Center's recent activities have included working with the Rhode Island Airport Corporation to develop a plan for mitigating runoff contamination due to deicing and anti-icing operations at T.F.Green Airport. Other work conducted by the Center has encompassed evaluating the scour potential of streams and river banks in the State to study how they may be affected by land use and other changes; developing a statewide public water-supply GIS coverage program; and working with communities to evaluate MTBE drinking water contamination. In addition to research, the outreach and information transfer activities of the Institutes are highly valued by multi-level stakeholders at the local, State and regional levels. The Institutes are the training grounds for the next generation of the Nation's water scientists, economists and engineers. This nationwide network of water institutes provides an efficient and effective method to meet the diverse water resource needs in different parts of our country. Another key component of the program is the importance of its small Federal grants for leveraging funding from non-federal sources to identify and address local and State needs for water research. Without this Federal seed money, many institutes would lose a valuable resource and the visibility within their universities and among Federal, State and local water agencies for working on challenging water resource problems. The Federal grants allow immense leverage capacity for conducting water research activities and are the key to maintaining a valuable national network. The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes $62 million in funding through fiscal year 2010 for the Nation's Water Resources Research Institutes and $32 million for the Act's Interstate Research Program. I look forward to working with the bill's original cosponsors as well as my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure this national network of university-based research institutes continues to support the water resources needs of the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the conference report on the President's emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the REAL ID Act which had been attached in the House bill was included in the final measure. The REAL ID Act should have been debated as a part of comprehensive immigration reform. By attaching REAL ID to a must pass spending measure, the critical process of vetting the bill in committee was circumvented and an opportunity for discussion and debate, which is essential for effective legislation, was denied. There are many concerns I have with REAL ID in addition to the process used to bring it to the floor. First, the measure is an unfunded mandate to the States. Furthermore, unless every State complies, the Federal Government will have to mandate the creation of a national ID. Between the creation of a new database and approval system, training for DMV workers, and struggling State budgets, REAL ID will impose real costs. More importantly, a database of this type will open up many privacy concerns and there must be security safeguards in place to prevent the gathered information from being obtained inappropriately. Many States, including Rhode Island, have already passed legislation setting their own requirements for driver's license recipients. The Federal Government should not impinge upon the States' ability to decide who can and cannot drive on their roads, especially without the funding to support the idea. REAL ID will put more drivers on the road without licenses and without insurance. I am also concerned about another provision of the REAL ID Act that would allow for the waiver of all laws--Federal, State, and local--to build barriers and roads at our borders. As a strong advocate of environmental protection, I am troubled about blanket waivers from environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The REAL ID Act, at its best, should be a catalyst for discussion of comprehensive immigration reform. That discussion cannot take place in a forum primarily devoted to quickly releasing funds for our troops around the world and veterans returning home.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. A date of great significance for many Rhode Islanders, and growing in significance for all Americans, this day not only commemorates the atrocities of the past, but also reminds us that it must not happen again. Remembering the victims is our duty to the past and to the future. The term ``genocide'' did not even exist when these atrocities occurred from 1915 to 1923, yet the numbers are staggering. Over 1.5 million people perished. Over 500,000 people were forcibly removed from their homes and their homeland. Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were killed. Men were removed from their families and women and children were left vulnerable to deportation, kidnapping, and starvation, and 132,000 Armenian orphans became foster children in American families. It is vital for the distinct identity of every culture to be honored and celebrated. Over one and a half million Americans are of Armenian heritage, and on this day we are grateful for their many contributions to our country. Rhode Island and this entire Nation continue to benefit from a strong and vibrant Armenian community.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, from April 30 to May 2, 2005, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution,'' an educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People'' program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by an act of Congress. I am proud to announce that, because of their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, the following students from West Warwick High School from the city of West Warwick will represent the State of Rhode Island in this national event: Mikaela Condon, Ahmahd Elshanawany, Michela Fleury, Katelyn Grandchamp, Jaclyn Henry, Katelyn Kelly, Shaina Lamchick, Adam Larocque, Lyndsey Miller, Johnathon Myers, Cheryl Nary, Amanda Simas, William Stranahan, Larissa Swenson, and David Yates. Led by their teacher Mr. Marc Leblanc, these outstanding students won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to Washington and compete at the national level. The three-day ``We the People'' National Finals Competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. I wish the students of West Warwick High School the best of luck at the ``We the People'' national finals and applaud their achievement. I am sure this valuable experience will encourage these young Rhode Islanders to remain engaged with government and public policy issues in the future.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. I support this amendment because of my grave concern about our budget deficit. We in Congress have an obligation to put and keep this Nation's fiscal house in order. By passing this tough pay-go amendment, we can send a signal that we do not intend to shirk this duty. I think all of the Members of the Senate know what this amendment does. It simply imposes a budget rule that requires any new tax cuts or entitlement spending to be offset. If no offset exists for new tax cuts or entitlement spending, then 60 Senators will need to vote to override the rule. In short, this amendment forces Congress to make the tough budget choices. There is no doubt that we would all like to provide the American people with more tax cuts. Many would also like to provide better and more efficient entitlement programs. Under the current budget rules, we are not forced to make many, if any, difficult decisions about our priorities. If we want more entitlement spending or tax cuts, we simply provide for them in the budget. That is no way to ensure fiscal discipline. I wonder what effect a true pay-go rule would have had on our debate regarding the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Would Congress have thought the new benefit was so important that we were willing to re-prioritize and actually pay for it? I have listened to distinguished Senators argue against this amendment because the economy is showing improvement. But, the fact that aspects of the economy are improving does not mean that our Federal budget is in good shape. Forsaking measures that require budget discipline is the wrong policy. With all due respect, it is the type of thinking that got us into the current problem in the first place. In 1990, Congress, which at that time included many of the same Senators here today, realized that Federal spending was out of control. Congressional will to control spending was not enough to put us on the path to fiscal responsibility. So, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 Congress enacted some tough budget measures--including pay-go. Pay-go was extended in 1993 and again in 1997. Senators realized then that pay-go was a good idea and it was actually working. We went from deficits and red ink ``as far as the eye can see'' in 1990 to an actual $236 billion budget surplus in 2000. It is at this point that Congress thought the need for budget discipline had ended. So, when pay-go expired in 2002, it was not extended. This has led us to the point where we find ourselves today. In 2004, the Federal deficit was $412 billion. In 5 short years, we have gone from a $236 billion surplus to a $412 billion deficit. Pay-go is not perfect. Congress has found, and will continue to find if it is included in this budget, ways to get around it. But, despite its flaws, it does have a proven track record. It tests policies of both parties in the same way--pay for your priorities, or find 60 Senators willing to override the rule. This is the way it should be. At a time when our budget is awash in red ink it only makes sense to bring discipline and accountability back to the budget process. If new tax cuts or entitlement spending is so important, shouldn't we be able to find a way to address the costs? Including pay-go in the budget made sense in the 1990's, when the stock market was at historic highs and unemployment at historic lows, and, it makes sense today.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I honor Michael Creasey for his work as the Executive Director of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. For the last 10 years, Michael has been a driving force in the Blackstone Valley, completing projects, building advocacy and partnerships, and instilling pride in the people who live beside this historic river. Michael has devoted his career to public service and national park stewardship since 1986. After honing his skills in Utah and New Mexico, he was assigned to the Blackstone Corridor in 1995 as Deputy Director and became the Executive Director in 1999. What a gift he has been! His boundless energy and devotion to the Blackstone Corridor, and his skill in working with the Corridor Commission and its large group of stakeholders, have spawned a revitalization that includes the creation of new jobs, the preservation and enhancement of historic sites, and the restoration of valuable wildlife habitat. In April 2000, shortly after I came to the Senate, Michael took me on a tour of the Valley to point out some of the Federal and private sector investments that had been made in the Heritage Corridor. I could not help but be impressed with his energy and passion as we viewed the Blackstone River Bikeway--or Riverway, as he has dubbed it--along with renovated mills, a canoe and boat landing, and parks that have been developed since the authorization of the Blackstone Heritage Corridor in 1986. The progress I observed that day was a result of collaboration among the residents of the Valley, State agencies and the Federal Government, and is proof that industrial rivers like the Blackstone can be saved if we all work together. Above all else, Michael is a ``river guy'' who understands the significance of the ``power of place'' and the potential of people to shape their communities. In a recent news article announcing his appointment as superintendent of the Lowell National Historical Park, he states, ``It's been a great honor to serve the Corridor Commission for nearly a decade. I have always been impressed with the passion, creative ideas and commitment that the people have had for achieving the Heritage Corridor vision.'' The Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor is a unique institution that has brought together many divergent groups and raised the national profile of this very special region. I thank Michael for his years of service to this historic slice of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and I also wish him luck in his new endeavors in Lowell.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today marks the 15th anniversary of National Sportsmanship Day, which is celebrated on the first Tuesday of each March. National Sportsmanship Day was the creation of the Institute of International Sport at the University of Rhode Island, and it is now the largest initiative of its kind in the world. On March 6, 1990, the Institute celebrated the first National Sportsmanship Day in approximately 3,000 schools. By promoting sportsmanship through this ceremonial day over the ensuing 15 years, the institute has made a positive impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of young student-athletes. The institute has received thousands of letters and e-mails commending its leadership in this area. National Sportsmanship Day also has spawned many local sportsmanship initiatives, led to the creation of an annual essay contest on sportsmanship in USA Today, and inspired the celebration of sportsmanship days in foreign countries such as Australia and Bermuda. This year, through the institute's Team Sportsmanship initiative, groups of college athletes will visit their local elementary, middle, and high schools to further a dialogue among youth about sportsmanship and fair play. As evidenced by media reports on drug scandals and on- field fights, the promotion of sportsmanship among youngsters remains a useful and beneficial endeavor. I applaud this year's participants in National Sportsmanship Day, and congratulate the institute for its ongoing work to instill the best of values in America's youth.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the retirement of an extraordinary Rhode Islander, Dr. Walter Thayer. Walter Thayer was born in East Providence in 1929--back when there were farms in what is now an urban area. He graduated from Providence College and left for Tufts University Medical School in 1950. He returned to Rhode Island in 1965 to become the first Director of the Gastroentorology Division of Brown Medical School and Rhode Island Hospital after having worked at the National Institutes of Health, Georgetown, and Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Thayer's professional qualifications are outstanding. He served for 30 years as the Chief of Gastroenterology at Brown University and affiliated hospitals, and has been a professor at Brown since 1972; he was the Head of Gastroenterology at Rhode Island Hospital from 1965 to 1994 and continued as a practicing physician until this year. He has been presented with the Distinguished Clinician Award by the American Gastroenterology Association, the Humanitarian of the Year Award by both the Rhode Island and New England Chapters of the Crohns Colitis Foundation of America, and the W.W. Keene Award for Contribution to Brown Medical School. Walter has presented at the Quadrennial Lecture on Crohns Disease at the Third World Congress in Copenhagen, and served as the chairman of the NIH-NFIC Sponsored Symposium on Infectious Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and as the Governor for Rhode Island to the American College of Gastroenterology. One of the great ironies is that Walter, who became such a fixture at Brown Medical School and trained and mentored so many fine physicians there, so desired to attend Brown University and was not admitted. Indeed, his experience in the world outside of Brown and the Ivy League was one of the factors that made him such a valuable bridge between town and gown between patient care and academic research. This bridging between patient care and academic research is a key facet of Dr. Thayer's career. His true caring and empathy for his patients informed his extensive research. That research, where Walter sought to understand the causes of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, and find effective treatments to these and other debilitating gastrointenstinal illnesses, has been remarkable and extensive, and has garnered Walter national and international renown. To honor Dr. Thayer's service to the health and academic communities in Rhode Island, many of those whom Walter has affected, including mentors, colleagues, students and patients, gathered on October 7 to wish him well in his life in retirement, and to thank him for his service, dedication, caring, and friendship. At that time, one colleague said that Walter had earned the highest respect a doctor could earn--his colleagues would refer their family members to him. He was described as the father of gastroenterology in Rhode Island, someone who is a masterful teacher and had great love for his patients. Dr. Jose Behar said that Walter's patients trusted him so completely that when Dr. Behar would treat one of them, perhaps when Walter was on vacation, they would invariably ask him ``Do you think Dr. Thayer would agree with you?'' Dr. Behar said that as an accomplished doctor having his treatments questioned so bluntly was a little off-putting, but he came to realize that it did not stem from a lack of confidence in him as much as the patients remarkable level of trust, respect and belief in Walter. To only speak of his professional life, however, is to miss a great deal about Walter. He is someone who is constantly curious, as is demonstrated by the fact that even now, well beyond the age of 70, he finds himself back in school pursuing an associate's degree in wildflower ecology. He has a great love of books, and is often found in his favorite chair, his glasses perched on his nose, a great book open in his hands. He is extremely active--he has run triathlons, marathons, and he spends many winter hours cross-country skiing. And he is a loving husband, father, and friend. He sincerely cares about issues far from the realm of medicine, important social issues, and tries to address them in a real and admirable fashion. For example, as his children were growing up, he did not want them to only have knowledge of the city, so one summer he took his kids to an Amish farm and they all worked on that farm. He did not want his children to grow up isolated from questions of race, and made many efforts to bring them into close contact with families and children of different races and ethnicities. Now, even though Dr. Thayer is officially retired, he continues his long volunteer service at the Veterans Affairs hospital and in his teaching at Brown University. He is looking forward to the opening of the new infectious bowel disease research laboratory that will open at Rhode Island Hospital--which will be named ``The Walter R. Thayer Inflammatory Bowel Disease Laboratory.'' What a fitting honor that this new, state-of-the-art research laboratory will be named for him. Walter leaves behind a remarkable legacy. I know my colleagues join me in saluting him on his well-deserved retirement.