Floor Statements

Mr. President, we will resume the Roberts nomination tomorrow for a short period of debate. The debate from 10:30 to 11:30 has previously been allocated to the two managers and the two leaders. At 11:30 tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I remind all Senators that the majority leader has asked all Senators to be in the Chamber by 11:20 and seated at their desks for this historic vote.

Following that vote, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the Defense appropriations bill. Additional votes will occur on Thursday and Friday this week.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the time controlled by the minority.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Max Baucus in introducing the ``Medicare Cost-Sharing and Welfare Extension Act of 2005.''

This legislation extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, for 3 months and provides funding for 6 months of Transitional Medical Assistance, TMA, for families

making the transition from welfare to work. As my colleagues know, H.R. 3672, which has been signed into law, would extend TANF until December 31, 2005, so this legislation represents a total extension of TANF until the end of March, 2006.

This is the twelfth extension of TANF and related programs. Welfare reform reauthorization should have been passed years ago. Too many families are languishing on the welfare rolls and we are seeing a backsliding of the improvements that we saw in the early years, after welfare reform. Child care funding has remained stagnant. States have been operating their welfare programs under a cloud of uncertainty regarding what a final Federal welfare reauthorization bill would require of them. We need to make some critical reforms to build on the success of the 1996 bill and give States the ability to manage and plan for their welfare programs. I am hopeful that this represents the final short-term extension of TANF and that the Congress will act quickly to pass a comprehensive welfare bill.

Additionally, this legislation includes a provision to extend cost- sharing assistance to qualifying individuals, QIs, for the Medicare Part B premium through September, 2006. This program has been helping vulnerable individuals with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level since 1997. It is estimated that the Part B premiums will cost a beneficiary $88.50 a month, an increase of $10.30 from the current $78.20 premium. For these low-income individuals, that represents a significant percentage of their monthly income. The President's budget includes a one year extension of the QI program.

Both the QI and TANF programs provide critical support to individuals and families with children who are in need--folks who otherwise might not be able to get healthcare services or make ends meet.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Max Baucus in introducing the ``Medicare Cost-Sharing and Welfare Extension Act of 2005.''

This legislation extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, for 3 months and provides funding for 6 months of Transitional Medical Assistance, TMA, for families

making the transition from welfare to work. As my colleagues know, H.R. 3672, which has been signed into law, would extend TANF until December 31, 2005, so this legislation represents a total extension of TANF until the end of March, 2006.

This is the twelfth extension of TANF and related programs. Welfare reform reauthorization should have been passed years ago. Too many families are languishing on the welfare rolls and we are seeing a backsliding of the improvements that we saw in the early years, after welfare reform. Child care funding has remained stagnant. States have been operating their welfare programs under a cloud of uncertainty regarding what a final Federal welfare reauthorization bill would require of them. We need to make some critical reforms to build on the success of the 1996 bill and give States the ability to manage and plan for their welfare programs. I am hopeful that this represents the final short-term extension of TANF and that the Congress will act quickly to pass a comprehensive welfare bill.

Additionally, this legislation includes a provision to extend cost- sharing assistance to qualifying individuals, QIs, for the Medicare Part B premium through September, 2006. This program has been helping vulnerable individuals with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level since 1997. It is estimated that the Part B premiums will cost a beneficiary $88.50 a month, an increase of $10.30 from the current $78.20 premium. For these low-income individuals, that represents a significant percentage of their monthly income. The President's budget includes a one year extension of the QI program.

Both the QI and TANF programs provide critical support to individuals and families with children who are in need--folks who otherwise might not be able to get healthcare services or make ends meet.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Baucus, ranking Democrat of the committee that has jurisdiction over this issue of Medicaid, to urge passage of the Emergency Health Care Relief Act of 2005. He explained very well how we have worked out in a bipartisan way the contents of this legislation, not only between Senator Baucus and me but by involving the staff of everybody on the committee, as well as consulting, particularly, the Senators from Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

We are all very deeply moved by the pictures and by the stories of those from the States who have been hurt by Katrina--and now, of course, Rita--their homes, their jobs and, worst of all, their loved ones who have given up everything. My heart, of course, goes out, as well, to the others who have suffered as much as a result of this terrible disaster.

I think the need to act is very obvious. About 250,000 people have been evacuated as a result of this disaster.

According to a survey by the Washington Post, fully half of the evacuees have no health insurance. Four in ten of the evacuees are physically disabled or have chronic illness. According to a survey done by the same paper, 6 in 10 evacuees have incomes of less than $20,000.

It is a function of our Government and our responsibility as legislators to provide assistance to these vulnerable families.

I would like to briefly outline this legislation. The Katrina health care relief package is very targeted and, most importantly, temporary. It is both a targeted and temporary benefit for the neediest individuals and families.

It provides assistance with private health insurance premiums for people in businesses affected by hurricanes so they won't lose their coverage; an uncompensated care funding pool to cover evacuation costs and emergency health care costs related to the hurricane; most importantly, temporary Medicaid coverage limited to 5 months, unless the President would extend it for another 5 months, limited to only those residents and evacuees from the hardest hit counties of the State; and 100 percent Federal funding for the disaster-related Medicaid costs until December 31, 2006.

The compromise package bill limits Medicaid to those most in need: To those below the poverty level; pregnant women and children below 200 percent of poverty, which is current law in Texas already, as one example; and those eligible under the host State's Medicaid coverage under existing law.

It is very limited. The bottom line is that this is a responsible compromise. It is time limited. It is targeted only to those who have the most need.

The legislation includes a simplified enrollment procedure. One important part of our bill that I want to highlight would help those with private insurance pay premiums on their policy. Many of the folks affected by Katrina have private health insurance which they would like to keep.

Many of the evacuees also have chronic conditions. For these folks, losing health insurance can mean the loss of important provider relationships. This legislation will help these folks avoid that situation.

The legislation also offers help to certain employers who, prior to Katrina, offered their employees health insurance.

We all know that many businesses face a difficult time in maintaining coverage. Now these businesses will be able to get back up and contribute to a revitalization of the economy in that area.

Our bill would also waive the Medicaid Part B late enrollment penalty for those who miss the initial enrollment period. We don't want people to have opportunities to get into Part B enrollment only to have to pay a penalty when they wouldn't otherwise do that if we had not had the hurricane.

I am pleased that Senator Baucus and I have been able to take action on behalf of those whose lives have been disrupted by the hurricane.

As Senator Baucus said, the bill is supported by the Governors Association, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Health Care Leadership Council, the American Red Cross, the March of Dimes, and many others.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and I urge swift Senate consideration of S. 1716.

I would also like to point out some things more procedural than just the contents of the bill. As a reminder to all of my friends on this side of the aisle, the Wednesday after Labor Day we had a news conference assuring the people of this country--that news conference involved leadership, as well as those who are chairmen of the committee--promising appropriate as well as immediate relief for the States that are hurt. That hurting is extended beyond the States that were hit by the hurricane to States that have taken evacuees.

I also point out that it is quite obvious from television the hurt that people have. Also, we tried to pretty much do a total paralleling of what we did for New York City after 9/11. Along that line, I remind my colleagues of something that President Bush said as he was speaking in a news conference about the hurricane not discriminating. We were not going to discriminate.

It seems to me that doing for the people in this area hurt by this Katrina catastrophe ought to be done in the same way that we did to help people who were hurt by the New York City 9/11 catastrophe.

Then, as a practical matter--and I don't say this just because Senator Lincoln is in the Chamber--I use her as an example of a lot of people who are trying to accomplish the goals that Senator Baucus and I want to accomplish, as she did on an appropriations bill by offering an amendment.

That amendment went much further than what we do in this legislation. She withdrew that amendment. But I think there are people who are going to want to push those issues if we don't move in this comprehensive, bipartisan way that Senator Baucus and I have done. I remind colleagues that we might end up actually adopting a proposal much more expensive than S. 1716, if Senator Lincoln offers her amendment, than we do through this approach that we are taking here in the case of Senator Baucus and my working out this bipartisan agreement.

I urge that we move forward with this legislation for the reasons that I have given, as well as the substance being a responsible approach.

I would like to ask, if I could, unanimous consent that we move forward with this legislation. Then, if somebody wants to speak afterwards, speak afterwards on the subject.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move immediately to the consideration of S. 1716.

Mr. President, so far, the Finance Committee has put forth two Hurricane Katrina relief bills. One is the emergency tax relief bill passed today.

The second is the health and welfare bill introduced last Thursday.

And we're working on a third bill to help rebuild and rejuvenate the Gulf region.

Today I met with Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to hear about the needs of people in the Katrina area, both now and in the future.

In addition to Senator Baucus, I've been working with my colleagues from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, including the cosponsors of this tax bill--Senators Lott, Landrieu, Vitter, Cochran and Shelby.

For the next package, we're taking ideas from these senators.

I've talked with Senator Vitter, Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu about tax incentives and expect to talk with the rest of the group in the coming days.

We've had the biggest natural disaster in history. People are hurting, and we're getting them help.

We know that tax incentives helped to revitalize New York after 9/11. They can do the same for New Orleans, Gulfport and the other hurricane- hit areas.

The immediate relief package will help get short-term aid to hurricane victims by encouraging food donations and the employment of displaced individuals, for example.

For those who've suffered casualty losses, we've liberalized the tax rules to permit affected taxpayers to deduct losses from damaged property.

We also want to help protect Katrina victims from undeserved IRS harassment.

It's good that the House and Senate quickly worked out minor differences in our respective versions of the bill.

We need to get these tax incentives on the books and help Katrina victims make a fresh start.

The President is working to restore a high quality of life to the people of the gulf region, and today we're contributing a solid piece of legislation to his effort.

After this package is completed, our focus will be on longer-term tax incentives to help rebuild homes and businesses.

We're looking at depreciation changes, tax-exempt bond authority, tax-exempt bond refunding, and enterprise-zone initiatives.

In the coming days and weeks, the Finance Committee will be examining these ideas with an eye toward the most effective and efficient use of the taxpayer's dollar.

The more thoughtful we are, and the more expeditiously we act, the sooner the people of the gulf region can return home, earn a living, and rebuild their communities.

Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1665.

Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Madam President, what I have tried to do in this second-degree amendment is correct some flaws in the Dorgan amendment. My amendment is also meant to ensure that we maintain the strength of our trade remedy laws.

My amendment makes it clear that no funds may be used to negotiate trade agreements that do not enable the United States to preserve our ability to enforce rigorously our trade laws, including antidumping and safeguard laws.

Quite obviously, if we have laws on our books to protect our economy from unfair competition, every Senator wants to make sure those laws are rigorously enforced, including antidumping and safeguard laws.

In addition, under my amendment, our trade negotiators must avoid agreements that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair trade, especially for dumping and subsidies. This pertains to a situation if they would lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international safeguard provisions.

My amendment is a good amendment which will ensure our trade remedy laws remain strong and that U.S. workers have effective protection against unfair import competition.

The underlying amendment I am amending, the Dorgan amendment No. 1665, purports to do the same thing. And it might. But it also has some very serious--and perhaps, hopefully, unintended--consequences. The Dorgan amendment says no funds may be used ``to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that modifies or amends any law of the United States that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. . . .''

Now, that sounds pretty good. But if you look at this amendment a little deeper, you can see that it has serious problems. Such a sweeping amendment would prohibit our negotiators from entering into trade agreements even if the trade agreement resulted in stronger trade remedy laws.

For example, if we could not negotiate bilateral agricultural safeguards similar to those we have recently negotiated in our bilateral agreements with Chile and Australia--and these are only two examples--or maybe even in the plurilateral agreement, such as passed by the Senate, CAFTA--we could not negotiate multilateral agreements such as the OECD steel negotiations that could strengthen our trade remedy laws.

At the same time, the Dorgan amendment would severely hamper our ability to negotiate trade agreements that benefit U.S. exporters.

Now, that may be a well-intended position of my friend from the agricultural State of North Dakota--and I work with him on a lot of agricultural legislation--but it is a slippery path where we cannot even discuss trade remedies even if those discussions end up strengthening some of these remedies, such as in the case of CAFTA and Australia and Chile.

It will happen that our trade partners will respond by demanding other items

be taken off the table. In other words, once we go to the table in good faith to negotiate, and we start saying, ``This is not negotiable, that is not negotiable,'' then you could understand that trading partners are all going to have their pet projects off the table. If we want to negotiate strengthening some remedies, as we did in the case of Australia, Chile, we could not do that. So I am trying to correct some of the inadequacies within this amendment.

Of course, when you start getting things taken off the table--the United States takes something off; the European Union takes something off; India takes something off--it has to have all items on the table in order to protect the economic interests of the United States. Particularly I found that going back to the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, you had to have everything on the table to win any benefit for American agriculture.

The amendment by my friend from North Dakota would only serve to hamstring our negotiators, particularly if those negotiators want to strengthen our positions, as we did in Australia and Chile. And this amendment would be doing it at a time just as we are pushing the Europeans, we are pushing the Brazilians, we are pushing the G20 group, the G10 group--and for that matter I think we are pushing every other G-numbered group you can think of--to get some help for the American economy, which comes from negotiations to get down trade barriers, to get all of these groups, Europeans, Brazilians, G20, G10, G-everybody, serious and start making meaningful concessions in these negotiations, especially for the benefit of American agriculture.

Today, foreign agricultural markets are among the most protected sectors in world trade. Global tariffs on agriculture average about 62 percent. The United States, I believe, is about 11 percent. Thus, America's farmers and ranchers have much to gain if we can deliver a comprehensive, multilateral trade agreement that lowers tariffs across the board and forces subsidizing nations to harmonize and reduce their tariffs.

Let me quantify that: 62-percent worldwide average of tariffs up here of other countries; the United States at 11 percent down here. We bring these other countries down to ours, or down part way to ours; or if we bring ours down lower, as they bring theirs down lower. Common sense dictates a win-win situation for our farmers.

Because of some of these concerns as to the Dorgan amendment that I have raised about maybe the inability to even strengthen some of our trade remedies, as we did in Australia and Chile, many groups have been concerned. This amendment by my distinguished friend from North Dakota has been before the Senate now for about 4 days, so a lot of other groups have written to me about their opposition because they are concerned about it: the American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable, Coalition of Service Industries, the Comprehensive Market Access Coalition, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for International Business, and, lastly--and one that is very important to the upper Midwest--the Corn Refiners Association.

All of these groups I have listed have expressed their strong opposition to the Dorgan amendment and I would hope would be satisfied with the amendment I have put before the Senate.

Even more important than those who want this bill to become law, the administration has weighed in strongly against the Dorgan amendment. I would like to quote from a letter I received from our Commerce Secretary, Mr. Gutierrez, and our U.S. Trade Representative, former Congressman and now Ambassador Rob Portman:

. . . Senator Dorgan's amendment would undermine our efforts

to protect our workers and firms from unfair trade practices

and to open foreign markets to America's goods and services.

. . . the amendment would prevent us from negotiating

agreements to improve protections against unfair trade

practices where the current rules may not be fully effective.

Then they go on to say:

The amendment could also prevent us from negotiating

stronger disciplines on foreign subsidies and protections for

U.S. exporters against abuses by foreign users of trade

remedy laws.

In fact, the Secretary and the Ambassador feel so strongly about the damages this amendment could do, they sent a letter saying they would recommend that the President veto the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill if the Dorgan amendment is included.

So the bottom line: the choice is pretty simple. If Senators want to take away an opportunity to strengthen trade remedy laws, in effect, hamper our negotiators, and at the same time ensure a veto of this bill, a veto of a bill that is very important, then support the Dorgan amendment. But if Senators want to preserve strong trade remedy laws, and even opportunities to make them stronger, and avoid a veto, then please support my second-degree amendment.

I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the stakes in this vote. I think the stakes are high. There is a way to both preserve and improve our trade remedy laws, also a way of avoiding a Presidential veto, and that would be voting for my amendment No. 1713, which is a second- degree amendment to the Dorgan amendment No. 1665.

I do not know whether the Senator from North Dakota intended to not give our negotiators an opportunity to strengthen our trade remedy laws, as we did in Australia and Chile, but my amendment will take care of that oversight.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, No. 1, because Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and Mr. Portman, our Trade Representative, have said they are going to recommend a veto of the bill if the Dorgan amendment is adopted.

Also, I have these organizations that have sent a letter in opposition to the amendment. The organizations include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Peanut Product Manufacturers, Inc., the American Soybean Association, the Corn Refiners Association, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, the Food Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, et cetera, et cetera--with about eight more I could read.

We have adopted my amendment now. We have a policy that is broad to make sure things are not weakened, but if they want to be strengthened, they can be strengthened, as well, as we don't take a lot of things off the negotiating table. If we are going to be successful in agriculture, we have to have a broad number of issues on the table to get any success for agriculture.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1719 through 1721, En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request for a piece of legislation that is within my jurisdiction, and then, also, as a favor to another person, to make a unanimous consent request. Before I make that unanimous consent request, I would like to make a short statement, and then have Senator Baucus make a short statement before I proceed to the unanimous consent request. May I go ahead?

Mr. President, on Tuesday night, Senator Baucus and I introduced a package of tax relief measures designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina both in the short and long term.

We know that tax incentives helped to revitalize New York after 9/11. They can do the same for New Orleans, Gulfport, and other hurricane-hit areas. We are pleased that the Members of the affected region join us in this effort, including Senators Lott, Landrieu, Vitter, Cochran, and Shelby.

The immediate relief package will help get short-term aid to the hurricane victims by encouraging food donations and the employment of displaced persons, as two examples.

For those who have suffered casualty losses, we have liberalized the tax rules to permit affected taxpayers to deduct losses from damaged property.

We also want to help protect Katrina victims from undeserved IRS harassment.

We expect to see prompt action by Congress on this tax relief package. We need to get these tax incentives on the books and help Katrina victims make a fresh start.

After this package is completed, our focus in the committee will be on longer term tax incentives to help rebuild homes and businesses. We are looking at depreciation changes, tax-exempt bond authority, and enterprise zone initiatives.

Life will never be the same for our fellow citizens in the gulf region, and what we have all seen over the last 2 weeks will stay in the hearts and minds of all of us for years to come.

With this first initiative from the Finance Committee, a bipartisan initiative--and I thank Senator Baucus for his extreme cooperation, in fact, even leadership in getting this to where it is now--this first initiative--and there are going to be more in other areas where we have jurisdiction--we want the victims in all the affected areas to know they can count on us to create a set of measures that will help return vitality and vigor to the gulf region.

Mr. President, I defer now to Senator Baucus.

Mr. President, obviously, I thank Senator Baucus for the personal comment he made about my upcoming birthday. More importantly, once again, we have had such smooth working relationships on these two very important bills. Our staffs have cooperated very closely. There has been some compromise but not a lot because I think we are all going in the same direction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to the remarks I made and the remarks Senator Baucus has made, that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1696 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the bill be held at the desk.

Mr. President, as I said, I have another request I want to do for other Members.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3649, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I want to offer a few observations with respect to Stabenow amendment No. 1688 to H.R. 2862, which was accepted by the Senate yesterday, as modified, and elaborate on why I supported this amendment.

As my colleagues well know, I have long supported the legalization of prescription drug importation in this country. In fact, I have sponsored a bill to legalize the importation of prescription drugs. That bill is S. 334, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2005. I want to thank Senators Dorgan, Snowe, Kennedy, and McCain for working with me to carefully develop legislation that I could fully support. I worked very closely with my colleagues to draft S.334 in way that does not create any litigation risk with respect to any of our trade agreements. We achieved that in S. 334. I believe S. 334 is fully consistent with the terms of our trade agreements, including our agreements with Singapore, Morocco, and Australia.

The Stabenow amendment is not limited to pharmaceutical patents. That concerns me. I believe the international trade obligations of the United States allow us to apply a special rule of patent exhaustion to pharmaceutical patents as long as we respect the principles of national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment. I hope that the Stabenow amendment will be further refined in conference so that its scope is limited to pharmaceutical patents.

By legalizing the importation of prescription drugs we will increase competition and keep the domestic pharmaceutical industry more responsive to consumers. Drug companies will be forced to reevaluate their pricing strategies, and American consumers will no longer be forced to pay more than their fair share of the high cost of research and development for new innovative pharmaceuticals. Prescription drug importation legislation has been stalled in Congress for far too long. My support for the Stabenow amendment is intended to help kickstart the legislative process, so we can pass prescription drug importation legislation without any more delay. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 15, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Keith E. Gottfried, of California, to be General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. Israel Hernandez, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service; Mr. Darryl W. Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce; Ms. Kim Kendrick, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. Franklin L. Lavin, of Ohio, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade; Mr. David H. McCormick, of Pennsylvania, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration; Mr. Keith A. Nelson, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and Ms. Darlene F. Williams, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.- Indonesia Relations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. to consider the nominations of Stewart A. Baker to be Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, and Julie L. Myers to be Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States on Thursday, September 15, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216.

Witness List

Panel I: Stephen L. Tober, Esq., Chairman, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Portsmouth, NH; Tom Hayward, Esq., Past-Chairman, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Chicago, IL; Pamela A. Bresnahan, Esq., DC Circuit Representative, American Bar Association, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 15, 2005, to mark up the following bills: Committee Print of S. 1182, Chairman Larry E. Craig, the ``Veterans Health Care Improvements Act of 2005,'' incorporating original provisions and provisions derived from S. 1182, as introduced; S. 1177; S. 1189; and S. 1190; and

S. 716, Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka, the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005. The markup will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

I understand that the Senator would like assurances that her State would not be penalized for failure to reimburse the Federal Government for funds to the State from the Federal Loans for State Welfare Program. I would point out that the House bill includes a provision that provides that no penalty may be imposed against the States of Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama for failure to repay a loan made to a State before October 1, 2007. This provision provides that there will be no penalty for loans made during that time.

Furthermore, I appreciate the other comments from the Senator from Louisiana. While I think that the House passed bill represents a good faith effort on behalf of the House, I agree that it does not go far enough and that the delegations of the affected States should have been consulted as this bill was assembled. The collaborative process that we relied on with Senators from States directly affected by Hurricane Katrina has been invaluable as we have worked to assemble the disaster relief package that Senator Baucus and I announced yesterday.

I also recognize that my colleagues are concerned that the Senate's position on this issue be appropriately represented in a conference with the House.

I want to assure my colleagues these welfare provisions will be addressed during a conference with the House and that the Senate's position on these welfare provisions will be vigorously represented.

Mr. President, last night, Senator Baucus and I introduced a package of tax relief measures designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina both in the short and long term. We know that tax incentives helped to revitalize New York after 9/11. They can do the same for New Orleans, Gulfport, and the other hurricane-hit areas. We're pleased that members of the affected region join us in this effort including Senators Lott, Landrieu, Vitter, Cochran, and Shelby.

The immediate relief package that we are announcing today will help get short-term aid to hurricane victims by encouraging food donations and the employment of displaced individuals, for example. For those who have suffered casualty losses, we have liberalized the tax rules to permit affected taxpayers to deduct losses from damaged property. We also want to help protect Katrina victims from undeserved IRS harassment.

We expect to see prompt action by Congress on this tax relief package. We need to get these tax incentives on the books and help Katrina victims make a fresh start.

After this package is completed, our focus will be on longer term tax incentives to help rebuild homes and businesses. We are looking at depreciation changes, tax-exempt bond authority--arbitrage rebate--and enterprise-zone initiatives.

Life will never be the same for our fellow citizens in gulf region. And what we have all seen over the last 2 weeks will stay in the hearts and minds of all of us for years to come.

With this first initiative from the Finance Committee--and there will be more in other areas where we have jurisdiction--we want the victims in all of the affected areas to know that they can count on us to create a set of measures that wit1 help return vitality and vigor to the gulf region.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on Senator Biden's amendment to add over $1 billion to the COPS Program. I am troubled by this amendment because it would declare these funds an emergency, siphoning away much needed funds that should go directly to the hurricane effort. The definition of an emergency includes situations that are necessary, or vital, sudden, urgent, and unforeseen. This amendment does not fit those characteristics.

I must also oppose this amendment because it lacks an offset. As a senior member of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Finance Committee, I believe that we owe it to the taxpayers to be fiscally responsible with their tax dollars. Congress passed a budget, and we should stick by it.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize some of the most brilliant and hardest working young adults in our Nation and in the world today. These seventeen outstanding scholars have recently been named 2005 Davidson Fellows and are being rewarded for their cutting-edge and distinguished work. The Davidson Institute Fellowships promote and reward under-18 year olds who have undertaken invaluable projects and studies for the greater good of our country and the world. The Davidson Institute awards scholarships to each of the Fellows to assist them in furthering their education. I don't believe the Davidson Institute could have found a more distinguished or more deserving group of young scholars. I would like to detail their accomplishments for a moment.

Karsten Gimre was just 11 years old when he became a Davidson Fellow based on his project entitled ``Conversation Without Words.'' This young pianist from Banks, Oregon has performed with several professional orchestras and has been winning awards for his exceptional abilities since the age of 6 when he earned first place at the International Young Artists Concert here in Washington, D.C. At the age of 12 he is now studying math and physics at the Pacific University while continuing his musical instruction.

As a young writer from Canton, MI, Heidi Kaloustian's unique talent and creative genius allowed her to explore complex relationships and personal identity in her portfolio entitled ``The Roots of All Things'' while still allowing the reader to emotionally connect with the work and characters. Heidi plans to continue creative writing at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and I have no doubt that she will be very successful as a professor and as a writer.

Tiffany Ko, a 16 year old from Terre Haute, IN, put herself on the cutting edge of technology and science when she used electric field sensing to design a new type of computerized security system. Her project is a significant advancement from current security systems and could be used to make people and businesses safer than ever before.

At the age of 17 years old, Milana Zaurova from Fresh Meadows, NY has begun developing a new way to treat the most deadly form of brain cancer, malignant glioma. She combined chemotherapy and gene-therapy to develop a creative new method that has the potential to save many lives.

As a 12-year old from Chapel Hill, NC, Maia Cabeza has already developed an extensive resume as a violinist. She has earned praise in the United States and abroad for her technical proficiency and musicality. Maia has the noble goal of using her music to breach cultural and language barriers, and I wish her the best of luck and success.

When Brett Harrison was just 16 years old he was able to develop a mathematical proof that actually improved upon a conjecture developed by a Princeton University professor. This Dix Hills, NY native's work is applicable to numerous fields such as communications, structural design, and computer networking systems.

Tudor Dominik Maican is a gifted and talented 16-year-old composer from Bethesda, MD. He has already been commissioned by the Dumbarton Musical Society for a piano solo and has been the recipient of numerous awards for his imaginative and wide-ranging compositions.

Justin Solomon, from Oakton, VA, designed an algorithm to recognize an object based on its three dimensional features. Most recognition programs only use two dimensions, so Justin's new algorithm increases a program's accuracy and can potentially be used in the fields of security, robotics, and artificial intelligence.

John Zhou of Northville, MI took an interest in biomedicine because of its scientific and humanitarian aspects, and has now studied the DNA replication process with the goal of understanding and ultimately halting mutations and cancer development. John is also accomplished in many other fields including mathematics, physics, and Spanish.

Kadir Annamalai's project focused around building nanowires, or wires only about two molecules thick that could be used in devices like power generators and circuit boards. In addition to this extremely technical work, Kadir, who is from Saratoga, CA, is also an Eagle Scout and is the recipient of numerous Future Business Leaders of America awards.

Motivated by a strong desire to help those affected with Alzheimer's disease, Stephanie Hon, from Fort Myers, FL, investigated a creative method that her study suggests could possibly reverse some of the effects of Alzheimer's. Stephanie is considering continuing her Alzheimer's research at Harvard University this fall and we all wish her continued success.

Benedict Shan Yuan Huang's project, Changed Particle Production in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, is as technical and advanced as it sounds. He has created a new technique that promises to achieve quicker and more accurate results when studying the structure of matter. Benedict, who is from Coram, NY, will attend Harvard University in the fall and will most likely study science as well as the piano.

At the age of 16 Lucas Moller from Moscow, ID has already worked with NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. His study on Martian dust and its effect on Martian lander missions has been incorporated on the Mars Surveyor lander and the Mars Express/ Beagle 2 mission.

Nimish Ramanlal from Winter Springs, FL was able to advance the field of quantum computing by creating a new framework for quantum computing that overcomes the limitations on the effectiveness of quantum computers. His work could help a new form of computing to emerge with profound implications in nanotechnology, medical research, and advanced physics.

With the internet growing every day, Tony Wu of Irvine, CA created a new internet search method that could be highly useful in the information society of the 21st century. He has competed successfully in numerous science competitions and plans to study computer science or electronics engineering in college.

Fan Yang, a 17-year-old young woman from Davis, CA, developed a method of preventing eye infections by

using three compounds that prevent bacteria from forming and growing on the contact or intraocular lenses. This is a promising line of research that demonstrates the combination of Fan Yang's love of science and desire to help people.

At the age of 6 years old, Marc Yu, who is from Monterey Park, CA, has already won numerous awards and competitions for both his piano and cello performances including both first place for the cello and second place for the piano at the Southwest Youth Music Festival.

Mr. President, despite their relatively young age, these seventeen outstanding young men and women have all achieved remarkable things and fully deserve the awards that they have earned. Their past is overshadowed, however, by their even brighter futures and careers made easier by becoming 2005 Davidson Fellows. I would like to thank these young scientists, mathematicians, writers, and musicians for their accomplishments, past, present, and future, that will no doubt improve the lives of a great many people in this country and abroad.