Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy CDR Shawn Grenier, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, which I hope will be brought up by the leadership shortly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Feinberg, a military Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 1042.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Snowe, that Mr. Christopher Krafft, a State Department Fellow, have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to the staff members of the Armed Services Committee during consideration of S. 1042, as follows:

Judith A. Ansley, Richard D. DeBobes, Charles W. Alsup,

June M. Borawski, Leah C. Brewer, Alison E. Brill, Jennifer

D. Cave, Christine E. Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn R.

Creedon, Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Regina A. Dubey, Gabriella

Eisen, Evelyn N. Farkas, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Creighton

Greene, William C. Greenwalt, Bridget W. Higgins, Ambrose R.

Hock, Gary J. Howard, Jennifer Key, Gregory T. Kiley, Jessica

Kingston, Michael J. Kuiken, Gerald J. Leeling, Peter K.

Levine, Sandra E. Luff, Thomas L. MacKenzie, Michael J.

McCord, Elaine A. McCusker, William G.P. Monahan, David M.

Morriss, Lucian L. Niemeyer, Stan O'Connor, Cindy Pearson,

Paula J. Philbin, Benjamin L. Rubin, Lynn F. Rusten,

Catherine E. Sendak, Arun A. Seraphin, Joseph T. Sixeas,

Robert M. Soofer, Scott W. Stucky, Kristine L. Svinicki,

Diana G. Tabler, Mary Louise Wagner, Richard F. Walsh,

Nicholas W. West, Pendred K. Wilson.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Captain James C. Stein, United States Navy, as he retires from the Naval Service. Captain Stein is a Naval Officer of the finest caliber who has established an impeccable reputation in the Navy and with the Senate through his distinguished tour as deputy director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office.

He is a 1982 graduate of the University of Notre Dame. As the midshipman achieving the highest 4-year academic average in the NROTC curriculum, he received the Notre Dame Reverend Hugh J. O'Donnell Award.

A Captain's List flight student, he was designated a Naval Aviator in 1984. His initial squadron tours were with Patrol Squadron 26, Patrol Squadron 30 as a Fleet Replacement Squadron Instructor Pilot, and as a department head with Patrol Squadron 10. He served as the Assistant Navigator in USS Ranger, CV-61, during Operation Desert Storm, was selected as the 1991 Pacific Fleet Shiphandler of the Year, and ultimately earned designation as a Surface Warfare Officer.

While ashore, Captain Stein earned a master of arts degree in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College. He served on the chief of Naval Operations' staff as the

assistant Maritime Patrol Aviation Requirements Officer, and deputy executive assistant to the director, Air Warfare. Selected for the Navy Federal Executive Fellowship program, he attended the Harvard University Center for International Affairs John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies.

Captain Stein commanded Patrol Squadron 8, leading the Fighting Tigers on a highly successful Sigonella, Sicily deployment, earning the Naval Air Forces Atlantic Fleet Battle Efficiency Award, Meritorious Unit Citation, and Atlantic Fleet Retention Excellence Award. As commanding officer, Captain Stein was one of four finalists for the prestigious Vice Admiral J. B. Stockdale Leadership Award.

Following command, Captain Stein reported to the Office of Legislative Affairs, where he has served as a valued advisor to the very top echelons of the Navy and Congress. His insight into the legislative process is respected and sought out by all levels of the chain of command. The Department of the Navy, the Congress, and the American people have been served well by this dedicated naval officer. Members of this Congress will not soon forget the leadership, service, and dedication of Captain Jim Stein. He will be missed.

I have had the privilege of working with this outstanding Naval officer and commend him for his dedicated service to our country. We wish Jim, his lovely wife Melissa, and their sons Alexander and William, our very best as they move on to a bright future.

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

Mr. President, today our President, President Bush, spoke so eloquently upon learning of Justice O'Connor's desire to step down and spend more time with her husband. I think that is such a beautiful and warm way to send a message all across America.

I say, with a deep sense of humility, I consider her a friend. I am privileged to know her. I know her husband. He loves the outdoors. He loves the golf game. They are a wonderful couple who have inspired America.

It is interesting, I also heard, this morning, another broadcast in which a retired Federal circuit court judge--an individual well known to the Senate, well known to America--in commenting upon this retirement, did so in a way that left me troubled. That is what brings me to the floor. I am not sure he paid the respect this great Justice is owed. I will let people who desire to look at his remarks.

But then he said, in so many words--and used the word--that the Senate advice and consent process today is ``corrupt.'' That moved me to the point where I felt compelled to speak out today.

What a privilege it has been for me, on behalf of Virginia, to stand on this floor for 27 years and to participate in debates and vote for the best interests of our Nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As I look at Justice O'Connor's record, it exemplifies to me a quotation from Shakespeare that I have always tried to follow: Unto thine own self always be true.

The record will show and history will record the magnificent way in which she discharged public office not only in the Supreme Court but, indeed, back in the legislative body of her beloved State of Arizona.

I will participate with my colleagues in this debate, this careful and fair and objective consideration of that individual selected by our President. As sure as I am standing here, I am confident that when it reaches the vote--and I think we will have an up-or-down vote; I will certainly do what I can to ensure that takes place--the American public will look back upon the duty of the Senate, under the Constitution, as having been fulfilled with dignity and in a manner to reflect confidence within this great Nation and our citizens.

As you know, Mr. President, the executive branch, with the President, has a role in this nomination coequal to that of the Senate. In studying history, the role of the President is set out so carefully. I did this research when I worked with the ``Gang of 14,'' which I will mention here momentarily.

But Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 66, said:

It will be the office of the President to nominate, and,

with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There

will, of course, be no----

I repeat: ``no''----

exertion of choice on the part of the Senate.

They may defeat one choice of the Executive----

I hope that does not happen in this case----

and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves

choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice of the

President.

How clear that is. And working with Senator Byrd and the other members of the 14 Senators who got together--and, by the way, I think the work of that group reflects credit on this institution--some six Federal judges are now serving our Nation as a consequence of their work, work which I always felt was in support of the Senate leadership and their valiant efforts to see that the consideration by Senators of nominees be fair and expeditious.

But in the context of our sort of agreement--and I quote from it----

We [the 14] believe that, under article II, Section 2, of

the United States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to

consultation between the Senate and the President with regard

to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We

encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with

members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior

to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for

consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may

well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately

accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

As it has in contemporary times.

The Founding Fathers put the word ``advice'' in there, drawn from our English language, clearly defined in dictionaries and by precedent. It simply speaks to the role of the Senate and its ability to counsel with the President. I am confident that will take place.

This is a magnificent opportunity for the President, this nomination, in so many respects. Clearly, he is fully entitled, under the Constitution, to select an individual whose philosophy is basically consistent with the core values of our President and his goals that he wishes to achieve, not only during the course of his Presidency but with confirmation, judicial nominees remain on for some 10, 15, 20, 25 years--long after the President has stepped down from office. So that shows you the value of this nomination.

But in this instance, our President has an opportunity, against a background of troubled times in our country. We are engaged in a very difficult war on terrorism.

Great sacrifices are being made by our country. He can step forward and be a uniter, not a divider, in this nomination by selecting someone who will gain the confidence of the majority of Americans, someone who will enable the two aisles here to remove the center aisle, and we can join in a bipartisan way and give strong ratification to the President's choice.

It is interesting. I went back to General Eisenhower. I reached back 50 years to examine the manner in which the President and the Senate worked together under this advice and consent clause. In that 50-year period, there have been 27 total nominees. Fifteen, better than half, were passed by the Senate either with voice vote--and as the Presiding Officer knows full well, that means total unanimity in the Senate--or with more than 80 votes, so 3 by voice and over half of those by 80 votes. Only 1 of the 27 passed by fewer than 60 votes, that threshold that describes the filibuster. Three were rejected by the Senate and one withdrew. To me, that shows action in history for a half a century, consistent with what the Founding Fathers devised in this magnificent Constitution of ours.

That individual selected by the President--I suppose he or she, as the case may be--will be labeled a conservative. That is fine. That doesn't trouble me at all. That doesn't divide. That is consistent with the President's basic philosophy. But if we can put on the bench of the highest Court in the land, a Court that decides literally decisions which affect every one of us--every single American is affected by their decisions--an individual who will begin with the confidence of the American public as reflected in a strong bipartisan vote in this Chamber, that will be a great legacy for the President as a uniter and not a divider.

I wish to reflect on the consultation. I am confident it will take place. There is no way of trying to describe it. It is up to the President. It is within his discretion. But I have confidence it will take place in a manner that history will document that will be more than adequate for the purpose.

I also listened to a report this morning where one group has been gathering

funds. They said they had $20 million ready to throw behind the President's nominee. Another group had an equal amount of money to throw behind such opposition as to mount against the nominee. They have a perfect right under freedom of speech, the magnificence of this country, but it would be my hope that they will play a constructive role and not look at this great moment in history of the selection of a Justice to the Court as something likened to a Super Bowl where the sides get in and start the clash. Rather, they should view themselves as being in consultation with the Senate--Senators individually and collectively--and do it in a constructive way.

I remember so well the role of the outside groups in that extraordinary chapter of Senate history with regard to the Schiavo case. History will record the viewpoints of many as to how it was done. I myself will forever be concerned about the role, in particular, of the Congress and, most specifically, the Senate. I remember Palm Sunday when only three Senators, myself and two others, were on this floor, at which time we didn't have time to speak. We could only include a written statement which is in the Congressional Record. And I did so, expressing my disagreement with having the Senate go on record as supporting a greater role of the Federal judiciary.

I felt the tenth amendment clearly established the prerogatives of the several States to handle matters of this type. I was the sole ``no'' vote that day. But only three Senators acted. The news broadcast said the Senate of the United States has decided. I will often reflect on that moment as to whether it did. Although accurate, three Senators can act on behalf of the body, but that was an example of where the outside interested parties became quite overbearing and in some ways distorted the important issue. I don't disagree with those who felt different than I. But they obfuscated and overdramatized the issue.

There is nothing more important than trying to save a life. I understand that. I respect that. But I use that as an example to say, we cannot, in my judgment, in these troubled times in our history experience another chapter such as that.

This nominee, I am confident, will be one who, first, with the selection by the President and then, in the course of review by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate must be viewed as one committed to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States. The term ``activist'' jurist is one that troubles me and, indeed, many people, because it is the Congress of the United States with regard to Federal legislation and the respective 50 State legislatures. They are the bodies to write the law, not the State/Federal judiciary.

We have seen a tendency recently for opinions to reflect a decision that doesn't necessarily rest on the core values of the Constitution but, rather, the core values of the writers of the opinion.

I hope we see that this process moves forward and reflects great credit on our President and credit on this institution. As I say, the gang of 14 played a constructive role in the history of this body. The question was the use or nonuse of what was termed ``the nuclear option'' to set aside the 60-vote rule of the Senate. It is my fervent hope we don't reach that option--that option is still on the table; the record is clear--that we don't have any tendency or recourse to go to that because in these troubled times, when this country needs to be united, we would not want to send to the Supreme Court, by virtue of a vote under the doctrine of the nuclear option, that individual who would be tattooed for life. That is not what we need.

We want that individual to go up there with the full confidence and trust of the American people, the widest margin of people that could possibly be drawn together, and to represent them and to make decisions which they will perceive were done by that individual and the other members of the Justices of the Court that are in the best interest of the country and each individual American.

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

On Feinstein.

Yes.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

My distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee is fully aware that we have worked on this matter for several years. There is an existing law that we passed on our bill. But the simple, basic, elementary thing here is we are talking about a study. And our distinguished colleagues from California, Massachusetts, and yourself make allegations of a lot of facts. What is the harm in getting the study? The study may confirm the very facts, and then the Senate is well informed. And the Congress must pass on any dollars before this thing proceeds to a full test situation.

Mr. President, I am sorry, I did not hear the ruling of the Chair.

The Presiding Officer is most correct. I extend my apologies to the Presiding Officer of the Senate.

Mr. President, I asked if the Senator would yield for a question. I thought I said that.

Why not have the study so the Senate and the Congress can all be well informed? And it will either verify or there will be a denial of the assertions made by our three colleagues who are in opposition, and possibly a fourth.

It is interesting. We modified one of the weapons during the Clinton administration, and it was approved by that administration. But it was later determined that that weapon could not effectively deal with a hardened silo. I ask my good friend the question.

In reply to my colleague, I refer to a letter from the Secretary of State a year ago: Dear Mr. Chairman--addressed to me--I am writing to express support for the President's 2004 budget request to fund the feasibility and cost study for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and to repeal the legislation that prohibits the United States from conducting research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons. I do not believe that these legislative steps will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea. And he goes on to explain the North Koreans will not be in any way deterred by this action of the United States to have a study.

Mr. President, I could only say to my distinguished colleague, the Secretary of Defense Colin Powell, a man who has been held in high esteem by this body, disagrees respectfully with my good colleague from Michigan. But the effect of denying a study on this is simply saying to the world, where there are countries proceeding with nuclear programs, you can go deep. There is no deterrence on the horizon. It is off limits, and you can do as you wish and go deep, and you can then conceal your programs from the eyes of the world and there is no deterrence for them to go deep.

I think there may well be----

Mr. President, before the Senator yields, it is somewhat difficult for those who are just trying to grasp a short debate here tonight, which is really a repetition of 2 previous years of debates. Let us assure our colleagues that nothing in this entire test scenario will involve any fissionable material whatsoever. As the distinguished Senator said, it would not involve a bomb. It didn't involve the use of any fissionable material whatsoever. It is simply a study.

It is important that the Congress be informed, and it is interesting that the money for this was struck last year. But guess what. North Korea went out and proudly announced--once the money was knocked out of the bill--we have a nuclear weapon. So I think it is very wise for this Nation to have this. It does not involve the use of any fissionable material.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ecosystem Restoration

I respectfully request if the chairman, Senator Domenici,

would engage in a colloquy regarding the Jefferson Lab in Virginia with the Senators from Virginia?

First, I would like to compliment the chairman of the Energy & Water Subcommittee, and the ranking member, Senator Reid, for an excellent job in preparing a good and balanced appropriations bill for consideration by the Senate. I particularly want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for providing increases for the Office of Science and for the several important programs within the Office of Science, including Nuclear Physics. I know the chairman is well acquainted with Jefferson Lab in Newport News, VA, which is one of our world-class basic research laboratories. My colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, and I are both proud of the excellent scientific programs at Jefferson Lab, which is a credit to the commonwea1th of Virginia and to the Nation. The increase in funding provided by the subcommittee for nuclear physics will permit Jefferson Lab to increase its operational time so the Nation's return on this investment will be enhanced.

In the 10 years since commissioning, Jefferson Lab has made groundbreaking discoveries on several scientific fronts. An important next step to insure we maintain the pace of scientific discovery, as recommended by the Department's November 2003 report, is to upgrade the energy of the Jefferson Lab electron beam. This will enormously expand the scientific discovery potential of the lab, as well as leverage future technological advances.

Senator Allen and I wrote to the subcommittee suggesting that language be included in the committee report urging that the Department proceed with the project engineering and design for this energy upgrade.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, may I commend my distinguished colleague from Maryland and Senator Mikulski and others. The two Virginians and the two Marylanders have joined together, and it is a very important step to be taken in connection with a national commitment to the recognition of the Jamestown period.

I wish we could in some way reduce this for the record, but we simply can't do it. There is an excellent review in the National Geographic of June of this year, on the whole area. It is something that I think an inordinate number of Americans will be interested in reading about because it goes to the very roots of the foundation of this great Nation.

I thank the distinguished managers of the bill.

Come 2007, we will celebrate the 400th Anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World, as well as the heroics of its first leader, Captain John Smith.

Lasting from 1607-1609, John Smith's historic 3,000-mile exploration of the Chesapeake's main stem and tributaries made him the first ambassador to the native peoples of the Chesapeake, allowing for the exchange of cultural customs and material goods.

Along his journey, Smith noted the incredible bounty of the Bay, writing that ``oysters lay thick as stones'' and fish were so prevalent you could catch them ``with frying pans.''

What would this trail accomplish? It would allow Americans to retrace the paddle strokes and footsteps of Captain Smith, to gain a better understanding of the perils he and his fellow settlers faced during the voyages they took to better understand the New World.

Ultimately, this proposed trail seeks to celebrate Captain Smith's foresight, the founding steps of America, and the bounty of the Chesapeake Bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this feasibility study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on the facility needs at Wolf Trap National

Park for the Performing Arts. The President's budget request includes $4,285,000 to replace the main gate facility at the Filene Center. This project also includes the replacement of three temporary trailers. The purpose of this project is to vastly improve visitor services and security at the main gate entrance. These facility improvements are seriously needed to replace outdated and inadequate space for park employees, volunteers, park police and visitors. The current facilities, which have been considered ``temporary'' for over 20 years are functionally obsolete leaving visitors to wait in long lines for restrooms, and ticketing services.

I recognize that the Park Service's construction budget is under significant financial constraints, but I must emphasize the financial contributions made by the Wolf Trap Foundation to begin the conception design work of this long-awaited project. I respectfully request that the chairman keep these facts in mind, and ask if he could share with the Senate his views on this important project.

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

It is my understanding of the parliamentary situation that an amendment by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, is the pending matter. Is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor with them. I spoke to the sponsors earlier this morning.

Mr. President, I commend these two Senators for taking the initiative to add an incremental part of the cost of the Martin Luther King Memorial, and I would like to take a minute to go back and recite the history of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. During the 104th Congress, while Chairman of the Rules Committee, I joined my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, to authorize a project for construction on the national mall. Our bill, as I read from the Committee Report for S. 426 from December 19, 1995, authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, the oldest Black fraternity in the United States, to establish without cost to the Federal Government, a memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to the late Dr. Martin Luther King. Similar bills were introduced in the 100th, 101st, 102d, and 103d Congresses, reported favorably by the Committee on Rules and Administration in the 100th Congress, and in the 102d Congress the bill passed the Senate. Again,

that reference, for those who want to go back and read this report, is Calendar No. 284, December 19, 1995.

I was privileged to work with Senator Sarbanes on this legislation, and we did secure the authorization for this group and others to proceed with this memorial.

If I might say, Mr. President--and I say this with a great sense of humility--I have always had a deep admiration for Dr. King. It started at the time that he went to the Lincoln Memorial and addressed, indeed, the world, much less the United States, the Nation. I came down not as a participant but as a spectator, as a young man. I was drawn to the location, as were many others, and simply stood quietly on the side of the street as the marchers went by and then was able to get close enough to hear in some way some parts of the speech as it was so eloquently delivered that day.

Then in later years I was privileged to be a member of the Chapter of the Washington National Cathedral, the Chapter being the governing body of the Cathedral at that time, and the subject of his addressing the Nation from the pulpit came up. I always expressed support for that, and actually my term expired before the historic day when he was invited to take the pulpit at the Washington Cathedral and give his last sermon. He met his tragic and untimely death shortly after that.

So it is against that background that I joined with my dear and valued friend, Senator Sarbanes, to introduce the original authorizing legislation. Construction was required to begin by November 2003. However, because of the difficulty in choosing a site, finalizing a design, and raising the $100 million that would be necessary, the project was still in need of funds. In 2003 I again joined my colleague from Maryland to extend the authorization so the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation would have additional time to raise the funds necessary to erect a fitting tribute to Dr. King. We were able to pass another piece of legislation, S. 470, to extend the deadline to November of 2006.

Since that time, I am pleased to say that the Foundation has raised approximately $40 million toward the total cost of the Memorial. Today I join my dear friends Senators Byrd, Cochran, and Sarbanes to provide an additional $10 million for the construction.

I simply add that, as noted in the December 1995 Committee Report, the first paragraph I read, about the public funding, at that time it was the hope and expectation that private funds could achieve the goals in their entirety. Although arduous and wonderful efforts have been put together by many people to raise the funding, I think it is appropriate that this increment of public funding be added. And I say that because I was--many of us--a part of the effort to establish the World War II Memorial. And there, again, it was, I think, 95 percent private funding largely through the efforts of our beloved colleagues, Bob Dole and Fred Smith, a citizen of national and international recognition and accomplishment, and together their large team of people did raise about $100 million. But at the very end there were expenses to be incurred that were not foreseen to enable a massive audience to come from all over the United States for the dedication. And at that time, as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I was able to secure some modest amount of funds, several million dollars, to enable that ceremony to be completed. So I think precedent is established there for the use of public funds for memorials of enormous significance historically and otherwise to our Nation.

Dr. King serves as a reminder that change can be brought about most powerfully when it is done by non-violent means. Visitors will come to the Memorial from every part of this country and indeed the world, to be inspired anew by Dr. King's words and deeds, and the extraordinary story of his life. It will be of particular inspiration to the many school children who will visit for years to come.

Dr. King's dream is the fulfillment, in part, of the revolutionary words of great American patriots such as Thomas Jefferson and it is fitting that the two monuments will rest across from each other.

I have worked with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, from the beginning of the efforts in Congress to secure a site and build a memorial on the national mall. I am proud of our humble contributions to this project and look forward--with great expectation to the day that we can visit Dr. King's Memorial in its rightful place--among the giants of American history and liberty.

Mr. President, I again commend the sponsors and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland, a dear, dear friend. We have worked on so many things together, and continue to do so.

But I recall very vividly going down on the day we dedicated the site. It was a bitterly cold day. There was a small tent in which there was a heater going, and we emerged from the tent. I, for some reason, remember one line, not spoken by either of us but by several others who spoke at the occasion: The site was chosen so the sunrise cast its first rays on the memorial; and then, as the sun set, the final resting rays of the day would drape the memorial. I remember that phrase to this day.

I thank my friend for his kind remarks.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to get into the queue. I am here to accept the manager's request. My amendment is filed. The Senator from Tennessee is my cosponsor. Could we follow the Senator?

I want to help the managers keep this bill moving. We would not require more than 30 minutes, equally divided.

That is correct.

This is offshore drilling.

If the distinguished manager would interpret what ``wait a while'' means.

I am here to accommodate.

If the distinguished manager would indicate, we could go tonight. I would be willing to wait all night.

Reserving the right to object, I want to be totally cooperative with the leadership, and they have been open and candid with me regarding the very strong opposition to the Warner amendment. I would advise my colleagues, whether we could get that parliamentary ruling is still not clear. So I will consider the following as a substitute to the provisions relating to the Senator from Virginia; that is, that I be recognized to bring the amendment up, that at least one or two colleagues who are in opposition would then express their opposition and, following that, I will commit, as long as there are one or two who will speak in opposition, to state the case, then I will ask to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, would the Chair recite the request now as it relates to the section pertinent to the Senator from Virginia? I say to my colleagues, if you would be willing to each speak 5 minutes, I will take 5, 5 minutes each for the Senators from Florida and New Jersey in opposition, then I will move to strike the amendment.

All Senators will speak no more than 5 minutes on this matter.

All right. That is sufficient.

Mr. President, I would also like 5 minutes for the distinguished Senator from Tennessee in favor of the amendment.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Tennessee have?

Mr. President, I commend my good friend. I have for a long time stated, indeed, before the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, my concern about the wind situation. I am not against it, nor is my distinguished colleague from Tennessee. But we are moving toward--and with a tremendous Federal subsidy--a program by which industry, looking at the subsidy, cannot turn down the opportunity to put these mills wherever they want. I am concerned mostly about my shoreline of Virginia. This amendment would protect certain segments of that shoreline--from windmills being put in the proximity of the historic areas, marine areas, and the like.

If you look at how carefully America has proceeded toward the erection of power-generating facilities, whether it is coal-fired plants, gas-fired plants, wind, whatever it is, there is a very well- laid-out regulatory process. That doesn't exist for the potential of putting windmills offshore. It doesn't exist. I have tried hard to encourage the Congress of the United States to pass a regime comparable to what is taking place for other power-generating facilities to protect our environment, protect the taxpayer, and to enable wind to go forward but only where there is a clear justification and a protection of the environment. Now, they can go offshore under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. They never envisioned, in 1899, the types of installations described by my colleague from Tennessee. There is nothing in there by which the States can gain any revenue for that wind generation offshore, as is now the case with oil and gas.

Should not my State, having taken the risk of allowing these things to go offshore, get some revenue? I think they should. Right now, it is free and open and, should they generate a profit, all of it goes into the corporate structure; not a nickel goes into the State. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for allowing me to join with him on this amendment.

Reserving the right to object. I think you would need 3 minutes for this.

At least 3 minutes.

I ask the Chair to advise the Chamber as to the pending business.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there was a unanimous consent put into order that following the votes, the Senator from Virginia would be recognized for a period of time, together with the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Florida, and the Senator from New Jersey, for the purpose of an amendment, which I understood was in order.

Is that under the unanimous consent, or is it that I just got the floor?

It is my understanding that the Presiding Officer stated incorrectly with regard to the Senator from New York; is that correct?

All right. I further inquire, is it appropriate for the Senator from Virginia to ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I can proceed.

I thank the Chair. This is somewhat unusual. We will proceed as directed by the Chair.

Mr. President, I first ask that the amendment at the desk be modified.

Mr. President, I modified it in such a way as to comport with the UC, whereby after I present the amendment, it can be withdrawn. That is the essence of it.

As I understand it, the Senator from Virginia has 5 minutes, the Senator from Tennessee has 5 minutes, and my colleagues in opposition have 5 minutes each.

First, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to proceed. There is a very strong opposition on both sides of the aisle to this amendment. I say to my colleagues that this amendment is important to have as part of the legislative history of this Energy bill--a bill that America has been waiting for for a very long period of time. Had I pressed on with certain parliamentary maneuvers, it could well have resulted in a filibuster. I have been here 27 years, and I think I have some understanding as to how to count votes and what is in the best interest of this Chamber. I did not want to precipitate that kind of parliamentary situation, particularly after the hard work of Senators Domenici and Bingaman and the leadership on both sides. But it is important.

It is important that this amendment reflect that there is a need in America to recognize that the potential for the offshore energy, be it gas or oil, is enormous, and that we as a nation must conscientiously put politics to one side and look at this, in the event that the energy crisis gets any worse for this country. We have no other recourse of any significant energy other than to go offshore. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana, in the course of this bill, will put on an amendment which recognizes, I think quite properly, that the States which have permitted offshore drilling and which are now producing essential energy for the U.S. be given a share of the revenue. It has my strongest support.

This amendment provides for the future, if other States so desire, to permit offshore drilling. They also can participate in the distribution of the proceeds from the oil and gas. It is entirely discretionary with the States. This amendment is designed to force no burden on any other State. If a State wishes to take those risks associated with drilling and the citizens accept that, and the legislatures accept it, then they should be entitled to the proceeds, or a portion of them.

In my State--and I am proud of it--the general assembly, this year, passed legislation urging that our State, through its Governor, begin to explore the possibility of acquiring the offshore drilling rights and revenues. The Governor, for reasons that he explained--and I do not say this by way of criticism--vetoed that. But I felt it important for the Senator from Virginia to stand and advise the Senate of the necessity to put in legislation to allow those States the option of deciding for themselves to do offshore drilling.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee.

How much time remains on my side?

The opposition?

Mr. President, I wind up the presentation by saying--and I regret to predict this--I see nothing but danger signs with regard to the worldwide energy consumption and the predicament the United States of America faces, particularly with the growing consumption of energy by China and India and other nations. It will impact here at home.

To my colleagues in Florida, show us how to fix our bill to protect your State fully. It can be done. That is what we do all the time, craft legislation. How do you explain how four States have already been doing this for many years--Mississippi, Louisiana, and those four States offshore--without any great disaster.

I predict the Halls of this Chamber will reverberate with the debate--maybe next year or the year after--and this subject will be brought back again when a solid realization will come to this Senate we have no place to go as a nation to protect ourselves and our energy needs but offshore.

I am delighted tonight I forced the opportunity, together with my colleagues, to show in this bill there are those in this Senate who are seriously concerned about the future and believe we must start now to do the planning for offshore. If this crisis hits, we cannot go 6 months or a year and suddenly tap those sources. We have to go through a legislative process in our States and the Federal Government. It will take 4 to 5 to 6 years before we could begin to draw the first bit of energy offshore.

I thank my colleague for the opportunity for this very limited right of a Senator to make his case. Unfortunately, we will not have a vote to determine how many other colleagues feel as we do.

I yield the floor.

I regret to say to my colleagues I don't think we have a second. If the Senator would ask unanimous consent, I would strongly support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 2 minutes be given to our distinguished colleague from Louisiana.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

I believe under the unanimous consent it is in order for the Senator from Virginia to seek unanimous consent to have this amendment withdrawn. I will do that momentarily.

I simply say to my colleagues, there is a way to fix this legislation and there is a way, also, to fix it in such a manner that we could restrict such offshore exploration to gas alone. Right now the permit process requires oil and gas, but Congress can fix that.

Gas alone would wipe out most of your arguments with regard to the environment. That should be taken into consideration because you have shared with me the risk to our national security, much less our economy, from this impending energy crisis.

I ask unanimous consent this amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the Presiding Officer of the order to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, yesterday, apparently, on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere, certain statements were made with regard to the American service personnel serving in Guantanamo. I am now paraphrasing what was reported in the Washington Times of June 16, when it is alleged that in this article on the floor of the Senate, this statement was made:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an

FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in

their control, you would most certainly believe this must

have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad

regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human

beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of

Americans in the treatment of prisoners.

Mr. President, as you can see by this shock of gray hair, I have lived now these 78-plus years, and I remember these periods of history that were cited on the floor of the Senate yesterday very well.

I see the leader standing. Does he wish to be recognized?

Not at all.

Mr. President, the Senator is correct. In World War II, with which I was going to commence my remarks in that context, I served at the very end. As a 17- or 18-year-old sailor, I was simply in a training command, but I remember that period of history very vividly.

All through my early years, prior to going into the Navy, late in the fall of 1944 and starting active service in 1945, the whole of this country was consumed with that frightful conflict in which, at the hands of Nazis, some 9 million people perished, 6 million of whom were of the Jewish faith. It is just extraordinary.

I was deeply disturbed by these comments to try to draw any analogy whatsoever to that period of history.

Then, following the Soviet gulags, I served as Secretary of the Navy during the height of the Cold War for some 5 years in the Pentagon and actually had a great deal of work with the Soviet Union at that period of time in the context of that threatening situation of the Cold War.

There is just no relationship to this. I was astonished. I did not want to let the Sun go down on this day without conveying to the Senate my own historical perspective and the danger that loose comments such as that--comparisons which have no basis in history--could do harm to the men and women serving wherever they are in the world today in this war on terrorism because this is the type of thing that is picked up and utilized by press antithetical to the interests of the United States and distorted in their own way.

It has to be addressed. I was prepared to do that.

Yes.

Yes. I do not have the accurate figures. I know Stalin had purged part of his country for no other reason than he just wanted to get rid of the people by the millions. The gulags came into focus primarily during the latter chapter of the Soviet Union when people disappeared by the tens of thousands into these encampments, never to be heard from again. It is not a chapter which Russia today looks back on with any pride at all.

I feel every day that I get up, and I hear of the casualties of our brave men and women, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq or occasionally in other areas of the world--I say what is it that we can do in this Chamber, what is it that we, as citizens, can do to bring them home safely? They are making enormous sacrifices together with their family to go into harm's way to protect us here at home from the threat of terrorism.

I feel very strongly about that. I really feel so strongly, I say to the distinguished leader of our party, that I feel apologies are in order to the men and women of the Armed Forces. I do not ask it for myself. But I feel these young men and women, all of whom are volunteers, all of whom have gone into harm's way and who are bearing the brunt of the present conflict, that these allegations have absolutely no basis in fact with history. I regret they occurred.

I yield the floor to anybody who wishes to question me or I will continue.

Mr. President, I say in response to the Senator's question that yesterday afternoon the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, came over to my office--we frequently visit each other in our offices. We spent over an hour and a half on a variety of subjects, and we addressed this issue. We discussed his coming up, which he is quite willing to do, for a hearing in the Armed Services Committee.

We are continuing to look into this matter. But let me point out, we are talking about millions of people, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said, in the period of World War II,

which I remember very well as a young man and as Secretary of the Navy during the period of the Vietnam era and Pol Pot. There is no comparison. Not one incarcerated individual at Guantanamo has lost his or her life. Not one.

In sharp contrast to those mentioned about facts elsewhere in the history of this world, our Nation should look with pride as to how the Department of Defense has specifically addressed each of the grievances. They have allowed any number of us to come down there. It is in the hundreds who have come down.

There are courts-martial being considered for some at this point in time. In other words, when wrongs are done, we carefully, methodically address them, giving due process to those who are under suspicion for having committed offenses.

Given time, this entire situation at Guantanamo will be spelled out fully to the public. If there are individuals who have done wrong, they will be held accountable.

I come back to the central theme that I have is these young men and women serving all over the world in uniform today and, indeed, members of our diplomatic corps, members of other Government agencies serving in harm's way, we have to think of them when issues are raised such as they were raised yesterday.

I understand the Senator wishes to address a question to the Senator from Virginia.

I ask unanimous consent that my time may be continued without limitation at this time.

Mr. President, I do not wish to create a parliamentary situation that precludes the Senator from expressing himself in any way that he wishes. I understood the Senator was about to ask a question. I will withdraw that. I will finish my statement, if I may, and then I will yield the floor.

To equate actions of the men and women in the Armed Forces, proudly serving in uniform and thereby representing this Government of the United States with regard to their services down there in Guantanamo maintaining the detainees, to the genocidal acts of murder and repression of the Nazis or Soviet gulags or Pol Pot is insulting to our men and women in uniform who are fighting for the safety of all of us at home and, indeed, our friends and allies abroad. To the contrary, completely unlike the repressive regimes of the Nazis--and I was moved to come down here because I think there are only a few of us around who lived during that period of time and were able to fully absorb the frightful consequences of that worldwide conflict. We had 16 million men and women of the U.S. military in uniform at that time. I just think that there is absolutely no comparison to what that chapter of history brought upon mankind by means of death to this situation we have, which is under investigation.

I was assured by the Secretary of Defense--I did not need the assurance because I knew it would be the case--that we will account for any wrongs that have been done under the due process of our system. The Department of Defense and others have investigated this situation and made known a series of facts at this time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.

You are reading from a report of one of our investigative agencies. There is no verification of the accuracy of that report. You take it at face value. I pointed out--and I discussed it with Secretary Rumsfeld--this allegation of the FBI agent, together with a lot of other facts, is now being carefully scrutinized under our established judicial process.

I trained as a lawyer and many years as a prosecutor and dealt with the Bureau. I have the highest respect for them. But I do not accept at face value everything they put down on paper until I make certain it can be corroborated and substantiated.

For you to have come to the floor with just that fragment of a report and then unleash the words ``the Nazis,'' unleash the word ``gulag,'' unleash ``Pol Pot''--I don't know how many remember that chapter--it seems to me that was the greatest error in judgment, and it leaves open to the press of the world to take those three extraordinary chapters in world history and try and intertwine it with what has taken place allegedly at Guantanamo.

I am perfectly willing to be a part of as much of an investigation as the Senate should perform and will in my committee. But I am not going to come to the floor with just one report in hand and begin to impugn the actions of those in charge, namely, the uniformed personnel, at this time. We should allow matters of this type to be very carefully examined before we jump to a conclusion.

Could we inquire of the Senator as to the use of this memo on the floor? Is that consistent with the practices of this body as regards--

I do not know how it came into your possession.

I ask the Senator, is it to be treated as a public document or is it part of an investigative process which--ordinarily the materials used in the course of an investigation are accorded certain privileges.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, my understanding is it is currently under investigation and being carefully scrutinized in the context of another series of documents. Until the administration has had the opportunity to complete the investigation and make their own assessment of the allegations, it seems to me premature to render judgment.

If the Senator will yield, again, I go back on my own recollections, those three examples the Senator used. I don't know what interrogation took place. Perhaps if we go into the sinews of history there were some, but what the world recognized from those three examples the Senator used, they were death camps--I repeat, death camps--where, as my colleague from Kentucky very accurately said, millions of people perished. It is doubtful they were ever often asked their names.

To say that the allegations of a single FBI agent mentioned in an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report give rise to coming to the Senate and raising the allegation that whatever persons of the uniformed military, as referred to in that report--albeit, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated report--are to be equated with those three chapters in world history is just a most grievous misjudgment on the Senator's part, and one I think is deserving of apologizing to the men and women in uniform.

I would say, Madam President, I served as assistant U.S. attorney for 5 years and dealt with the FBI all the time. I have very high regard for that service. But the Senator knows full well that is just an investigative report by one agent. It is under investigation by the Bureau and by the Department of Defense at this time in the context of many other pieces of evidence.

One cannot come to this great forum, which is viewed the world over as one which is known for trying to assert the rights of this country as taking its place in the world, as following due process and principles of our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights-- and comment to the Senate about some young uniformed person who probably is the subject of that FBI report--until such time as that person in uniform is adjudicated in a proper forum as to having done what is alleged in that report, or not done, it seems to me we shouldn't be discussing it in the Senate.

Madam President, the damage has been done. The Senator should have taken the precautionary steps prior to----

Madam President, the use of the words ``due process'' by the Senator from Virginia was restricted to due process that is taking place with regard to allegations in that report and others according to the actions of either uniformed or civilian personnel under the clear supervision and jurisdiction of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo. That was my use of due process.

It is a separate issue as to the due process of the detainees, the Senator is correct. That is a matter that should be openly discussed, is being discussed, and will be reviewed by this Chamber.

I come back again, and I just conclude--I see there are other Senators waiting to speak--we have to be extraordinarily careful in our remarks in the Senate as they relate to the safety of our people because this series of statements the Senator has made, factual references to chapters of history, can be manipulated by other people throughout the world to their advantage. That is my deep concern.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, is to be recognized at the hour of 2 o'clock; am I correct?

Well, then, I just simply, in my own right, seek the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The court to which Justice Brown has been nominated is one with which I am, I say in a humble way, most familiar. I practiced law there. When I was an assistant U.S. attorney I appeared before the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on many occasions. But most significantly, upon my graduation from the University of Virginia Law School in 1953, I was privileged to serve as a law clerk to Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Prettyman later became chief judge of this very important circuit court.

As a result of the profound respect so many people had, including myself, for Judge Prettyman, I had the honor several years ago of sponsoring, and with the help of others, passing, legislation to name the Federal courthouse in D.C. after Judge Prettyman.

Now, a half century later, after I had the honor of serving as a law clerk on this court, I am pleased, today, to strongly support the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to this very same court.

When I started to evaluate Justice Brown's qualifications for this prestigious judgeship, I turned first, as I do with every nomination, to the U.S. Constitution. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate, with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' individuals to serve as judges on the Federal courts. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the responsibility of nominating, and the Senate has the responsibility to render advice and consent on the nomination.

I am very pleased to have been a part of the group of 14 who brought before this body a concept by which we could proceed on these Federal judges. Justice Brown is the second in that series. I speak with pride about our accomplishment. In no way do we intend to usurp the roles of our distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader. But, nevertheless, after consulting with them, we went forward with our framework agreement. And this agreement now seems to be working for the greater benefit of the Senate and for the important role the Senate has with respect to its constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent to help establish the third

branch of our Government--our Federal judiciary. It is essential the vacancies be filled in a timely manner to enable that court to serve the people all across our Nation.

With respect to judicial nominees, I have always considered a number of factors before casting my vote to confirm or give advice and consent, as the case may be. The nominee's character, professional career, experience, integrity and temperament are all important. In addition, I consider whether the nominee is likely to interpret law according to precedent or impose his or her own views. The opinions of the officials from the State in which the nominee would serve, or States in the case of the circuit court of appeals, the views of the persons who have known and have observed the nominee through the years, and the writings and the record of the nominee, all are taken into consideration. That is because I believe our judiciary should reflect a broad diversity of the citizens it serves all across the Nation.

In this instance, I was privileged to invite Justice Brown to my office. We sat down, and I found her to be an extraordinarily accomplished individual. We had a very extensive exchange of views regarding the important post to which she has been nominated and the qualifications which she possesses. And she does possess outstanding qualifications; first, to have earned the nomination from our distinguished President and, secondly, to earn the support of this body in the advice and consent role.

I believe she will make an excellent jurist on this most respected court.

Her legal career spans more than a quarter of a century. After graduating with her bachelor's degree from California State University, Justice Brown went on to earn her law degree in 1977 from the University of California School of Law.

After passing the California bar exam, which I believe is considered nationwide to be one of the most difficult of the bar exams, she began a career in public service, mostly in positions with the State of California. She worked in the deputy attorney general's office for the State of California, and later worked in the deputy secretary and general counsel's office in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency of California--again, giving her a breadth and depth of experience regarding the problems and challenges that face our citizens all over this country.

After practicing law in the private sector for about a year, Janice Brown returned to public service by working in Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs office from 1991 to 1994. How privileged I am to have served with Senator Pete Wilson, later Governor, in this body for a number of years. We became close friends. We worked together, particularly on matters regarding national security and the military. He was a former marine in his lifetime, as was I, and I have a great mutual respect for him.

In 1994, Janice Brown left the Governor's office to serve as a justice on the intermediate California Appellate Court. Subsequently, in 1996, my good friend, then-Gov. Pete Wilson of California, had the honor of promoting Justice Brown to the California Supreme Court. With her appointment, Justice Brown became the first African-American woman to sit on the California high court.

Mr. President, I take humble pride in having, during my career in the Senate, recommended to a President the first African American in our State's history to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. His name came before the Senate. Subsequent to confirmation, and years of experience on the court, he rose to become the chief judge of the district in which his court resides in my State. This very fine man, with his customary quiet and dignified pride, his superb knowledge of the law, and understanding, serves Virginia with great distinction today.

And such will be the case with Justice Janice Rogers Brown in her service to the Nation on this prestigious court.

Indeed, since 1996 she has served the citizens of the State of California on the California high court, and she has earned their confidence as a jurist.

In the California system, once a judge is appointed, he or she comes before the voting public for confirmation or rejection in the next general election. That moment came in 1998 for Justice Brown when she and four other justices on the California Supreme Court came before the public in that election. While all were confirmed by the California voters, it is notable that Justice Brown was confirmed with the highest percent of the vote, nearly 76 percent--an astounding vote of confidence.

But Justice Brown's accolades don't just come from the voting public in California, they also come from a wide range of other people who know her well. Judges who served with her on the California Court of Appeals, a bipartisan group of law school professors in California, colleagues on other courts across the Nation, and others--they all agree: Justice Janice Rogers Brown is a brilliant legal scholar who respects the doctrine of stare decisis and who would make an outstanding Federal appeals court judge.

All of this is reason enough to confirm this highly qualified individual. But, when you put all that Justice Brown has achieved in context, it becomes even more apparent what an amazing individual we have before us in the Senate today.

You see, Janice Rogers Brown was born to sharecroppers in Greenville, AL. She attended segregated schools in the South and came of age in the midst of Jim Crow laws. Through hard work, she has earned her education and her legal credentials, and today she comes before us as one of the most brilliant legal minds this country has to offer.

I am proud to speak on behalf of this outstanding nominee, and it is my hope that the Senate will soon confirm Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the Federal bench.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.

The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries.

While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.

Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: according to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every two

years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common- sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

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