Floor Statements

Mr. President, I so appreciate that the majority leader has called this to the Nation's attention because we have been working on this bill for almost 2 weeks now. The majority of the body has not had its say. The Judiciary Committee worked very hard on this bill. However, it is a bill that I could not possibly invoke cloture on before we have had a chance to have input and the opportunity to change it in the direction that the full majority of this body--hopefully, a resounding majority of the body--would support.

The House of Representatives passed a bill that probably not one Member of the Senate would support. That is not going to be the final position of Congress. The Senate is taking a different approach. The Senate, in general, agrees that there should be a guest worker program. It has been very difficult to come up with the right solution on how our country handles the 12 million people who are here illegally--a solution that is fair and equitable for the citizens of the United States and ensures law and order on our borders. It would be wrong for Congress to pass a bill which indicates border security is business as usual, or that the laws of our country can be broken with no penalty whatsoever. Most of us want to pass a guest worker program that allows people to come back and forth legally into our country, help our economy, earn their benefits and be able to keep them--not in the underground, but aboveboard. Most of us want that.

Unfortunately, the bill before us does not provide the right solution. Yet, we are sincere in our desire to amend it. That is what our leader is trying to say. I think it is wrong for the Democratic minority to hold up amendments and not allow those who have worked for hours, days, weeks, and months on this bill, to offer alternatives, hear debate, and start shaping a bill that would put our country in the right direction, secure our borders, keep our friendship with Mexico-- our neighbor to the South, and treat people fairly.

Passing a bill that achieves these objectives is a goal I think we can all reach, but not if we cannot have amendments and are forced to vote on cloture. I could not possibly vote for cloture, nor could all but one or two on our side. That is not bipartisan. It is not the process we have followed in this Senate.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let us proceed with amendments. Don't waste the next 24 hours. Let Senator Kyl have his chance to have his amendment voted on. Let others who have ideas have their amendments voted on.

I think one area we have not significantly addressed, one I would like to be able to talk about, is an alternative for people who do not seek citizenship in America. There are many wonderful Mexican workers in our country who want to remain citizens of Mexico, who intend to stay with their families in Mexico, but who desire the economic opportunities in America. Why would we not provide them an opportunity to come out of the shadows, to work and earn their pay in the open, and then go home? Why should they wait in a 10-year line for U.S. citizenship, which they do not seek?

Clearly, we have not fully vetted this issue. The Judiciary Committee worked hard to produce a bill, a bill which I do not support. Yet, they certainly worked hard, did their homework, and were very thorough. We need to have a chance to work on that bill with the rest of the Senate because most of us are not on the Judiciary Committee. Immigration is an issue that affects all of our States and our country as a whole. We need to address it in a sincere, productive way that will come to the right solution. The only way to do that is to allow the Senate to debate and vote on amendments. If we can come to a consensus, and have a 75-to-25 vote, or a 90-to-10 vote on a final bill, then we would have produced the right solution. We will not be able to do that if we invoke cloture before voting on amendments.

Mr. President, I ask you notify me at 30 seconds, so I can turn the microphone over to Senator McConnell.

Mr. President, since 9/11, Congress and the administration have done so much to secure our homeland, but the area that we still must work on is port security. We have vulnerabilities because we don't have enough coverage overseas with customs and border agents. They need to be able to inspect the containers that will come to America. Our officers working with the host governments need to certify the contents of these containers at the point of origin.

This will reduce our reliance on the foreign governments' information that we may or may not be able to verify.

Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will not vote for the amendment.

The Senate just voted overwhelmingly to put almost $1 billion into port security. That is the right thing to do, but the right way to pay for it is out of the 920 account. To make this a priority, let us do it right. The Menendez amendment would increase taxes to pay for port security. We do not need to do that. What we should do is the right thing--provide more inspectors and make sure our ports are secure, and do it the right way with real money that is already there.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Burns amendment and ask to be added as a cosponsor.

It is very important that we add something to this budget to accommodate the extra needs we are seeing for veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think it is especially important that we not make the decision right now about the copays. I do not support what is in the President's budget regarding copays for the category 7 and category 8 veterans. I am looking for some alternatives that might bring in some income, that might give health insurance capabilities to these people who have no health insurance coverage.

We are looking at some other threshold besides $27,000 annual income of a veteran who does not have service-related injuries. That is the definition of a category 7 and category 8 veteran. They are not veterans who have had service-related injuries, they are veterans who have had no service-related injuries who make about $27,000 a year or more. I think that is a pretty low floor.

I would like to look at ways to increase it to a higher floor or make sure they have access to health insurance, which many of them do not. I haven't run the numbers on that, but I certainly think we should be working with the veterans groups to determine what would be reasonable and still allow us to prioritize the health care for our veterans which is what all of us want.

Senator Burns is right, we need more research into prostheses. The good news is that they are coming back, they are not being killed in war, as we have seen in so many previous wars. But the bad news is they are losing limbs, and we need to help them have the very best prostheses they could possibly have and enhance their ability to use them.

We will be working on those items. Senator Burns' amendment is the right approach because we do need to have that flexibility in this budget to try to come up with the right approach. It is too early to say what we are going to do with the President's proposal, that there be a $250 enrollment fee for these category 7 and category 8 veterans. I thank the Senator from Montana for putting this amendment forward, and I certainly hope we will adopt his amendment, which I think is a step in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota. I think he is right on target. He is putting the burden where it should be, and that is directly on the United Nations to do what is right with regard to Iran.

Our President has tried to put the Europeans out front to negotiate with the Iranians. I believe they have been less than forthcoming about what they were doing the last 2 years with nuclear capabilities. Now it is time for us to all step in as world leaders and say to Iran: You must stop making nuclear weapons. And further, if you do not, there will be repercussions.

But it will take the entire world community, led by the United Nations, to make an impact on Iran. The United States cannot do this alone. We do not trade with Iran. We need the people who are trading with Iran to say there will be consequences if a nuclear weapon is produced in that country.

So I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I hope very much the United States will step forward with the other leaders of the world to say we are of one mind.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment because today is Texas Independence Day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to read the letter of William Barret Travis from the Alamo. This is a tradition I continue that was started by Senator John Tower to commemorate Texas Independence Day, and that is today, March 2.

Today is the 170th anniversary of the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence, a document that was signed by, among others, my great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, and also his friend, Thomas J. Rusk, who first held the Senate seat I now hold. They both hailed from Nacogdoches, which is the oldest town in Texas--the town in which my mother grew up and the town in which I now own the home my grandfather built.

It is a very historic time for Texas. We celebrate Texas Independence Day every single year because we know that fighting for freedom has made a difference in what Texas is. We love our history. We fought for freedom. We were a republic for 10 years, and then we came into the United States as a State.

The defense of the Alamo by 189 courageous men, who were outnumbered 10 to 1, was a key battle of the Texas Revolution. The sacrifice of COL William Barret Travis and his men made possible GEN Sam Houston's ultimate victory at San Jacinto, which secured independence for Texas.

From the Alamo, Colonel Travis wrote to his countrymen the following:

Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a

thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have

sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours

and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender

at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the

sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with

a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the

wall--I shall never surrender or retreat.

Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism

and of everything dear to the American character, to come to

our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving

reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or

four thousand in four or five days. If this call is

neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as

possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due

to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death.

William Barret Travis, Lt. Col, Commander.

Colonel Travis's are the words of a true patriot. And his letter did inspire Texans to ultimate victory. In fact, his holding of the Alamo for so long did allow Sam Houston to muster his troops for the last stand at San Jacinto.

To show you one other example of how Texans love their history, the minister who opened our Senate today with prayer from Lovers Lane Methodist Church in Dallas, TX, showed me, at breakfast this morning, the ring he wears which is a replica of the ring of William Barret Travis that he wore at the Alamo. He put the ring around the neck of the daughter of one of those who was able to survive and leave the day before the onslaught that killed all of those men at the Alamo. So Susanna Dickinson's daughter had that ring around her neck--she was about 8 years old at the time--and that is why we know what the ring signified.

Another example of how history continues to inspire us: I, just 2 weeks ago, commissioned the newest amphibious ship of the U.S. Navy. It is an amphibious assault ship, the first of its class, the USS San Antonio. The USS San Antonio has in its motto the words from William Barret Travis's letter ``Never surrender, never retreat.''

That is a great ship which is going to carry marines into battle. It will carry our marines with the very best of technology, the very best safety measures we can possibly give them. And the quote ``Never surrender, never retreat'' will carry them into battle to help protect the freedom of Americans for years to come.

I am proud to be the sponsor of the ship the USS San Antonio. It represents the spirit of our armed services today, just as 170 years ago when we fought for our independence from Mexico and later became a great State of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the motion. I certainly hope our colleagues will vote to instruct conferees on a basic issue of fairness.

Today, there are eight States that have sales taxes but not a State income tax. Until 2 years ago, they were disadvantaged by not being able to deduct their sales taxes from their Federal income taxes, whereas an income-tax State would allow their payers to do that.

It is very important in this country that we have tax equity. In fact, the motion to instruct would give equity to all. It creates jobs because there is more economic activity when we treat all people in our States the same and allow them to deduct the State taxes they pay. It is a matter of fairness.

The States of Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, Florida, and Tennessee all have this situation in which their taxpayers will be disadvantaged if we do not instruct the conferees.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, when the hour of 8 o'clock arrives, I ask to be notified. I wish to speak on the motion made on my behalf by Senator Grassley earlier to instruct conferees to make the sales tax deduction permanent.

This is very important to the States that have a sales tax but no income tax. There are seven States that have no income tax. Yet the citizens of all the other States of our country are able to deduct the income taxes they pay at the State level from their Federal income taxes. Two years ago, we enacted the law that would bring sales-tax States into equity so that every State would be treated the same. We are now faced with another 2-year extension, or we will have this inequity continue because the sales tax deduction that was enacted by Congress lapsed at the end of last year. We have to make this deduction permanent.

I ask that our conferees be instructed to make it permanent so that every person in America can deduct their State taxes, whatever kind of tax that may be, from their Federal income taxes. This is a matter of equity. It is only fair that sales-tax States be treated the same as income-tax States.

I urge my colleagues to vote to make sales tax deductions permanent. Give people a choice. That is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Motion to Instruct Conferees

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fix an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries.

Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over a million clergy members across the country in their retirement, particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations.

Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff who are often paid lower salaries have adequate resources during their retirement years.

Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code impedes the ability of church pensions to recognize these valuable contributions to society with provisions that negatively impact church plans while exempting other equally important plans.

For example, Section 415(b)(1)(B) of the Code limits benefits for a retired church employee to 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his or her highest three years.

This limitation penalizes church employees because some church plans allow lower-paid employees to accrue benefits based on median salaries rather than their own, individual, lower compensation.

While the Code allows exceptions to this general limitation for governmental and multiemployer plans, it does not allow one for church plans.

The rationale for allowing an exception for governmental plans but not church plans cannot be reconciled when one acknowledges the situation in which most ministers find themselves when they retire.

For example, ministers often live in parsonages throughout their careers; and they are faced with acquiring housing for the first time when they retire.

Not having a significant asset in retirement, such as a house--an asset which could be used as collateral and security in time of need, leaves ministers vulnerable in their retirement years and justifies the need for including church pension beneficiaries in an exception to the general limitation.

The Code further punishes church pensions by requiring church plans to pay unrelated business income taxes on investments in leveraged real estate, while exempting the vast majority of retirement plans from this very same tax.

This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it.

The legislation I am introducing today would rectify this unequal treatment by exempting church plans from the 415(b)(1)(B) limit and the unrelated business income tax.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long over-due fix to the Internal Revenue Code.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fix an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries.

Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over a million clergy members across the country in their retirement, particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations.

Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff who are often paid lower salaries have adequate resources during their retirement years.

Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code impedes the ability of church pensions to recognize these valuable contributions to society with provisions that negatively impact church plans while exempting other equally important plans.

For example, Section 415(b)(1)(B) of the Code limits benefits for a retired church employee to 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his or her highest three years.

This limitation penalizes church employees because some church plans allow lower-paid employees to accrue benefits based on median salaries rather than their own, individual, lower compensation.

While the Code allows exceptions to this general limitation for governmental and multiemployer plans, it does not allow one for church plans.

The rationale for allowing an exception for governmental plans but not church plans cannot be reconciled when one acknowledges the situation in which most ministers find themselves when they retire.

For example, ministers often live in parsonages throughout their careers; and they are faced with acquiring housing for the first time when they retire.

Not having a significant asset in retirement, such as a house--an asset which could be used as collateral and security in time of need, leaves ministers vulnerable in their retirement years and justifies the need for including church pension beneficiaries in an exception to the general limitation.

The Code further punishes church pensions by requiring church plans to pay unrelated business income taxes on investments in leveraged real estate, while exempting the vast majority of retirement plans from this very same tax.

This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it.

The legislation I am introducing today would rectify this unequal treatment by exempting church plans from the 415(b)(1)(B) limit and the unrelated business income tax.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long over-due fix to the Internal Revenue Code.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to support Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Alito's 15 years of experience on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and his 15 years serving the Justice Department, including his position as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, make him well prepared to be an Associate Justice on our Highest Court.

One of the best insights into Judge Alito's judicial ability is gained from listening to his colleagues on the Third Circuit. Colleagues from both sides of the political aisle praise him for his judicial excellence. Judge Aldisert, a nominee of President Lyndon Johnson, stated before the committee:

We who have heard his probing questions during oral

argument, we who have been privy to his wise and insightful

comments in our private decisional conferences, we who have

observed first hand his approach to decision-making and his

thoughtful judicial temperament and know his carefully

crafted opinions, we who are his colleagues are convinced

that he will also be a great Justice.

Moreover, after an exhaustive investigation, Mr. Steve Tober, chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, declared that Judge Alito's ``integrity, his professional competence and his judicial temperament are indeed found to be of the highest standard.''

Mr. President, I have to say that anyone who watched Judge Alito at his Senate hearing would agree that his professional competence and judicial temperament were certainly on display. I believe that showed very well why he will be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

The American Bar Association gave Judge Alito its highest rating. Most important, Judge Alito has a firm belief in the rule of law upon which our country is based. As he stated on the first day of his hearings, ``No person in this country, no matter how high or how powerful, is above the law, and no person is beneath the law.'' Judge Alito recognizes that, in our system, judges interpret the law, but should not create policy. They should not decide what they would like to have the law be; rather, they simply should determine what the law states.

He said on his second day of hearings:

. . . it is not our job to try to produce particular

results. We are not policymakers and we shouldn't be

implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preferences

that we have.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, President Bush made clear that he planned to nominate to the bench judges who would respect the rule of law, judges who would interpret but not legislate. In particular, he drew attention to his desire to nominate people who would strictly interpret the Constitution. Knowing Supreme Court nominations were on the horizon and knowing the President's views, the American people re- elected President Bush.

With the previous nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts and now with the nomination of Judge Alito, the President is fulfilling his promise to the American people. Now it is time for the Senate to play its constitutional role in the nomination process to ensure the President's nominee meets the high standards we set for members of the Supreme Court of our land. Judge Alito is extremely capable, he is highly qualified, and he deserves the support of this body.

I wish to also rebut one statement that was made earlier today. I believe Judge Alito was unfairly criticized for his opinion in Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc. This was a case involving a mentally disabled man who claimed he was sexually harassed at work. They have alleged that by ruling against the plaintiff in the appellate court, Judge Alito showed he is ``results-oriented.'' Their criticisms are unfair and misleading. Judge Alito was not even able to form an opinion on the merits of the case because the plaintiff's lawyer presented an incomplete brief.

Judge Alito made clear in his dissent that had the plaintiff's lawyer raised the argument in a minimally adequate fashion, he might well agree and join the majority in voting to reverse. He continued to say:

I would overlook many technical violations of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and our local rules, but I do

not think it is too much to insist that Pirolli's brief at

least state the ground on which reversal is sought.

It is very important to understand that an appellate judge cannot create the facts. The appellate judge cannot argue the lawyer's case when he is not equipped with the facts or the reason for the request for a reversal. So I believe it is important that we set the record straight on that.

Judge Alito has shown by his manner during the hearing and his 15 years on the bench that he is fully qualified under the constitutional requirements and from every neutral observer with whom I have talked for this position. I hope there will not be further delay.

I am so hopeful that the people who would vote against him would at least let us have the vote. He has been thoroughly vetted. He has been thoroughly questioned. The Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, and I think by the end of this week we should allow Judge Alito to be able to start preparing for the very important cases that are going to come before the Court right away. Let him have the chance to be fully prepared and do the job we are asking him to do. It is the least we should expect of the Senate. It is the responsible approach for the U.S. Senate. The Supreme Court and the people of America deserve no less.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if we are not going to take up the major tax cut at this time, I am going to ask unanimous consent to take up the AMT.

In 1969, when Congress passed the AMT it was supposed to affect 1 in 500,000 taxpayers who make over $200,000 a year. In fact, that is not the case today. By 2010, the AMT is expected to ensnare 32 million taxpayers, the majority of whom have adjusted gross incomes of under $100,000. In fact, this especially hits people with children. By the year 2010, among married taxpayers with two or more children, 85 percent of married taxpayers with two or more children in 2010 will face the AMT. It prohibits the ability to deduct for children.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096, the alternative minimum tax relief.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator from Montana, I don't see how we can take part but not all of the tax reconciliation bill. It is time to do away with the AMT.

I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Montana has said he, too, wants to do that and that we need to do it right. To do it right we need to do the whole tax reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, I do hope the Senator from Montana, working with the chairman of the Committee on Finance, will make it a priority early next year to have the tax reconciliation package go through with AMT and with the other tax cuts that would be extended to show the American people they can rely on the tax cuts that have been passed and have helped the economy in its recovery.

It is very important we not leave any question in anyone's mind that the tax cuts that started the economic upturn 2 years ago will be extended. The American people will get to keep the money in their pocketbooks, spend it, and fuel the jobs our economy has produced.

I sign on to that effort immediately. With this kind of coalition maybe we can do something very important by doing away with the AMT in this country.

Mr. President, last Friday, when I spoke to my colleagues about the NASA authorization bill, the Senate, in the press of other business at the end of the session, was unable to take up the conference report on S. 1281, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005. Since then, the House of Representatives has adopted the report under suspension of the rules, demonstrating wide support for the compromise bill. I am very pleased that the Senate is now poised to approve the conference report as well.

I want to thank my ranking member on the Science and Space Subcommittee, Senator Nelson of Florida, for all his help. Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye were active participants throughout this process, and I certainly appreciate their efforts. Senator Lott was a key member of the Senate team that has brought us to this point.

My subcommittee staff, Jeff Bingham and Tom Cremins, and Senator Nelson's staff, Jean Toal Eisen and Chan Lieu, work so well together and have done so much to bring us to this point, and I want to say thank you to them.

When President Bush announced a new Vision for Space Exploration in January of 2004, he was not simply describing a new mission for NASA; he was describing a pathway to a future for the next generation. The legislation embodied in this conference report represents a statement by the Congress that the Vision for Space Exploration is the right vision for America in the new age of space. At the same time, the bill provides guidance to help NASA do its part in leading the way along this new path to the future by building effectively on lessons learned and by efficiently using its resources, especially the talent and expertise of its workforce.

S. 1281, as modified by the conference report, provides authorization for NASA funding at $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $18.7 billion in fiscal year 2008. The conferees believe these levels of funding will ensure the successful return to flight of the space shuttle and the completion of the international space station, as well as continuing the important work in exploration, science, aeronautics and education.

These funding levels also take into account the recently identified shortfall between what the administration had been projecting for shuttle flights and the number of flights needed to complete the international space station, meet our international commitments, and provide an important research capability in space.

I am especially pleased that the conference report provides the designation of the U.S. portion of the space station as national laboratory. This is an important and significant part of the bill. First, it demonstrates that the Congress understands the great value and potential represented by the research that can be done aboard the space station. It underscores the need to ensure that the laboratory is as capable, efficient and well equipped as we can make it. Second, it provides a framework for bringing additional, non-NASA resources to bear in supporting research aboard the space station. This will enable NASA to focus its resources on research needed to support the Vision for Exploration, while continuing to provide space station research opportunities in the broader areas of life sciences and fundamental sciences.

In my previous statement, I mentioned briefly a perfect example of the kind of fundamental research that the space station enables, which was described in a recent hearing before the Commerce Committee. Dr. Sam Ting, of MIT, discussed the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, scheduled to be attached to the space station. This device takes advantage of the unique space environment to measure--and help understand--the characteristics of matter in the universe. The results of this experiment could revolutionize our knowledge about the interactions of matter and potentially lead, for example, to the development of new, and virtually unlimited, energy sources.

As we move forward with the Vision for Space Exploration, we will need new vehicles and launch capabilities. NASA has made the decision to base those new vehicles on much of the existing capabilities and designs of the space shuttle program. This legislation ratifies that decision and provides the policy foundation to ensure its successful implementation. The evolution of our launch vehicles to a new generation requires that we be especially careful not to undermine our existing capabilities for human space flight. The legislation ensures a smooth transition between the shuttle and the new crew exploration vehicles by providing adequate resources to continue shuttle flights and accelerate CEV development so as to minimize any gap between the two systems. In addition, the legislation specifically directs NASA to make the maximum possible utilization of the personnel, assets, and capabilities of the space shuttle program in developing the next generation of crew and cargo vehicles. The new CEV will be designed with the flexibility to carry out a variety of missions. It will specifically be designed to provide access to the space station, and thus fulfills the role of a crew rescue vehicle, CRV, if needed, to ensure the safety of our crews aboard the international space station.

In order to further facilitate the evolution of current human space flight systems into those needed for the Vision for Exploration, the bill has provided for the merging of the human space fight activities into a single account. This is intended to provide the closest possible interaction between these activities, in those areas where they can be mutually supportive. At the same time, the legislation contains language to ensure that both the exploration activities and the human space flight, or space operations activities, retain sufficient resources to fulfill their core objectives.

Another important and historical NASA research activity is aeronautical research, a fundamental part of NASA's activities since its inception. All of us recognize that the continued health of the Nation's aerospace industry in a very competitive global marketplace makes it essential that we have solid aeronautical research capabilities. This legislation directs the development of a national policy to guide the Nation's aeronautical research--including that conducted by NASA. This policy will enable us to make informed decisions about the future directions for aeronautics research and the necessary resources to support them.

One of the more exciting new developments in space exploration is the expanded level of commercial interest in supporting and expanding space exploration. This legislation encourages those developments. It provides expanded authority for competitive prizes to promote commercial developments, and it encourages the use of commercial services and capabilities in servicing the space station, to cite just two examples. This is clearly an important new development in space exploration which the bill fully endorses.

Finally, let me say something about the broad range of science activities for which NASA has always been known. This conference agreement expresses very clearly the need for maintaining a balanced science portfolio throughout all NASA programs and provides the funding authority necessary to ensure the space sciences, earth sciences, and education activities remain vigorous parts of NASA's mission.

Mr. President, this legislation provides a comprehensive, forward- looking and responsible approach to the transition of our Nation's space exploration programs into a new era of discovery. I believe that, together with our colleagues in the House, we have crafted a congressional consensus that will help ensure this Nation's leadership in space exploration and provide benefits beyond measure and beyond imagination to this Nation and the world.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I don't know what the parliamentary situation is, if my time is not to be charged to the bill or charged to the bill. Could the Presiding Officer inform me?

That would be my request.

Mr. President, I am rising to say we now know we will get the votes on the reconciliation and we are going to have a vote on the Defense appropriations bill which includes the ANWR legislation as well as the Katrina hurricane relief and the Rita hurricane relief.

I rise tonight because I hope we now see the pathway to finishing a very productive year in the Senate. It is never easy to pass legislation in the Senate. We all know that. We have 100 Senators representing 50 States and everyone has a different idea. What we have to do is come together for the good of our country.

If ever there was a time when important legislation for the families of our country, for the military men and women of our country, for the children of our country, for the future, to have energy independence for America, this is the time when we must say, even if I don't like everything in this bill we must pass it. I don't like everything in this bill. Not one Member would say we liked everything in this bill.

However, what we have pending in the appropriations bill for our Department of Defense and regarding ANWR is essential for the future of our country. I hope my colleagues will look at this last opportunity we have this year to do what is right for our country.

On the appropriations bill, the chairman of the committee has done an incredible job. We are going to have a budget to which we will adhere. It is going to have an across-the-board cut to pay for the Katrina relief we all are seeking. We are trying to do the responsible thing. That is to meet the crises facing our country, the war on terror, doing what is right for our military men and women with boots on the ground as we speak, helping to make sure terrorists are stopped from disrupting Iraq and Afghanistan and coming back to America.

We are trying to do those things. We are trying to help the victims of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We are trying to make these important new expenditures in a responsible way with an offset of an across-the-board 1-percent cut in discretionary expenditures with the exception of veterans' health benefits. We are not going to cut those. We know the Veterans' Administration was running out of health care money, so we gave them an emergency supplemental to make sure veterans' health care needs are addressed.

Other than that, we have a 1-percent across-the-board cut in discretionary spending as an offset, because that is the responsible way to help rebuild the gulf coast that has been hit so hard this year.

We are taking up the Defense appropriations bill along with ANWR. Sometimes I hear on the other side of the aisle arguments as if we had not passed ANWR in the Senate. We have passed drilling in ANWR in the Senate because we know we must have an energy policy in this country that will produce more energy, more types of energy.

We have to employ conservation to conserve energy. At the same time, we have to promote solar energy; renewable sources, such as wind energy; research into other types of new fuels, which we are doing every day, so we have new sources; and increasing our domestic supply of oil and gas, which is the bread and butter of our energy needs for this country.

We are over 50 percent dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs in America. That is not a position in which the strongest Nation on Earth should find itself. We should have the capability to provide our own energy and depend on no one.

Drilling in ANWR would give us the amount of oil that we get from Saudi Arabia every day. We are looking at 4 billion to 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil and gas in this area.

I will never understand why the people who are so opposed to this will not go and look at it. The Wildlife Refuge is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. The area to be drilled is under 2,000 acres. Because we have new technologies, you can now drill for miles underground without ever marring the surface.

So we are talking about an area the size of Dulles Airport that would be the drilling site in an area the size of South Carolina.

Are there trees in this area? No. There is not a tree in this area. It is grassy plains. Drilling is not going to harm the environment. It is going to be done in an environmentally safe way. It will increase the energy supply in our country. The people of Alaska, where this is to be done, want it. They have overwhelmingly supported it time and time and time again. They have supported it in polls. They have supported it in coming to Washington to seek the approval of Congress because they want the jobs. They want the economic boost. So this is something that is good for everyone, and it is the right thing to do for our country.

So I hope, as we start voting on these very important bills and finish the business of this year--I hope very soon because so many of our Members want to be with their families at this time of year, just like everyone in America does--I hope we will do the responsible thing.

We were elected to represent the people and to stay here as long as it takes. I hope we do that tomorrow and we deliver to the American people a reconciliation bill that sets the budget on a path to lower our deficit by half, as the President has asked us to do, over the next 5 years; a Defense appropriations bill that will give the Katrina and Rita victims the help they need and deserve, and to be able to drill in ANWR so we will be able to add one more new source of energy for our country that we control, that we do not depend on foreign sources to produce for us. That is another vote for the stability of the economy and the national security of our country.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing as we start these important votes tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Defense appropriations bill, in favor of Katrina and Rita supplemental help. This is such an important piece of legislation. This is a bill that has already passed the House. It only lacks Senate approval to go to the President and give the Defense Department the appropriations it needs to do the job we are asking them to do. It will also help the people on the gulf coast who have been waiting for the signal that they will have some relief.

I start by talking about the defense part of this bill and say that it would be unthinkable not to pass the Defense appropriations that we must have to stay in an orderly way, going into the next year, with the priorities we have set for this fiscal year. Continuing resolutions are last year's priorities. So it is essential for Congress to act.

I have heard some on the floor say: ANWR is a big surprise. ANWR is hiding the ball. Putting ANWR in this bill is somehow thwarting the will of the Senate. The opposite is true. The Senate has voted in favor of ANWR. The House and the Senate have voted in favor of ANWR.

If we were putting something in a conference report that had never passed the Senate, that would be one thing. ANWR has been adopted by the Senate. Those who would hold up this bill are thwarting the will of the majority. I do believe we have a national security issue and an economic viability issue for our country if we put our heads in the sand and say, well, we know there is a shortage of energy, we know the price of gasoline has gone up almost a dollar--it went up almost $2 after the hurricanes hit for a short period of time, but thanks to the leadership of the President, who took very swift action opening the reserves, we were able to bring the price back down, but we know there is an energy shortage in the world. We know there are various reasons for that because there are more consumers now, because the economies of China and India and other places are now using more energy.

So if we are a country that is looking out toward the future, if we are a country that is going to make sure we have economic viability, we must take the steps to assure that we have energy supplies from our own resources in order to meet this challenge, and that means that we look for new sources of energy. It means we do research for renewable sources of energy. It means we highlight conservation and give tax credits for all of these items that would add to our energy stability, and yes, it also means we provide more opportunity to drill for the basic energy providers for our country, and that is oil and gas.

For some of those whom I have heard debating, to say, Oh, yes, we have an energy crisis in this country, but we should not drill on the east coast and we should not drill on the west coast and now we should not drill within 200 miles of Florida and we should not open up ANWR, is irresponsible. We should be looking to open up our own resources so that we are not dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs, and we should do it by opening up ANWR, which is the largest domestic resource we have. Approval for this has been passed by a majority of the Senate and a majority of the House time and time again. The will of the majority is being thwarted again, because we are looking to the future.

Let us take another argument that could be made. Maybe the people who live around ANWR or in whose State ANWR is do not want it. Are we forcing something on them by allowing this drilling? Oh, no. The people of Alaska have said time and time again they do want to drill in ANWR. They want to drill in ANWR because they know it will be done in an environmentally safe way. They know that the area which would be drilled is an area about the size of Washington National Airport in ANWR, which is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. The people of Alaska know that. They know it will not hurt the environment of their own State. They know it will provide jobs for their people. They know it will provide quality education for their children and small business opportunities for the people who live there and would come there to add to the economy of Alaska. So the people of Alaska who would feel the direct impact of drilling in this very small area want ANWR to be drilled because they know what it will do for the economy of their home State of Alaska. So we have the capability to drill in a very small area.

By the way, it is grassland. There are no trees in this part of ANWR. Sometimes I see the pictures on television against drilling in ANWR, and it looks like a pristine forest. There are no trees in this area. It is a grassland. In fact, there will be drilling when everything is iced over anyway. The roads will be ice roads that will melt in the summer, when there will not be drilling, so there will be no footprint. So I cannot think of anything more environmentally safe, and I think it is very

important for the future of the economy of Alaska and more importantly for the future security of our country because economic security is national security.

Can one imagine an economic downturn when we have had so many crises in our country in the last 5 years, starting with 9/11, a war on terror, an insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan, which is on its way to self-governance, and then there is Katrina and Rita, a tsunami and an earthquake in Pakistan, and we are trying to help all of the people affected by these tragedies? An economic downturn--it would be irresponsible for us to allow it to happen if we have any control, and ANWR is part of establishing our economic security by assuring that we will have energy no matter what else happens, whether it is a hurricane or whether it is a foreign country that provides a good source for us of oil and gas that all of a sudden says: Well, we are not going to provide that anymore, or if we do, it is going to be at such a price that it will affect your economy.

We are over 50 percent dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs today in America, and that is not a sign of the strongest Nation on Earth. So to say that ANWR is a surprise is wrong. To say that it has blind-sided the minority in this body is wrong. The Senate has passed ANWR before. We have passed it this year, and it is time that we get this bill to the President.

In the supplemental appropriations for the victims of Katrina and Rita, it is so important that we have accomplished the first real help that goes not only directly to the people but also to begin the infrastructure improvements where the gulf coast has been ravaged. One of the things I have tried to do in this bill is to ensure that where the evacuees have gone, the money will also go. This is hurricane assistance like we have never seen before.

In a normal hurricane, there are maybe 2 or 3 months of significant displacement, and there is a lot of cleanup and a lot of rebuilding, but most people are back in their area after a few weeks. Katrina so devastated Louisiana and Mississippi that people have had to flee with absolutely nothing, and they have had to stay in other States, get jobs if they can, get housing where they can, and educate their children. So that has meant that States such as Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee have paid a large part of the expense of the taking care of the people displaced by this hurricane, rather than the burden being on those States actually hit by the hurricane.

So we have had to rethink the model for how to provide this assistance and how we meet the needs of today. My home State of Texas, I think it is well known, has taken in the range of 400,000 evacuees. We have in the range of more than 40,000 in our school systems. We have had almost no reimbursement for the education of these children. We have had to repair schools that were closed so they can reopen. We have had to add temporary facilities. We have had to hire teachers and also try to welcome these children in so they would be able to function in the classroom. This has taken huge resources, tens of millions of dollars from our State.

I passed a bill in September that would have allowed the per-pupil cost of educating these students to be reimbursed, which would have especially helped these States which have taken large numbers. Texas has taken the most, but other States, relative to their populations, are in much the same situation. These are hits on education systems that they cannot absorb. Yet the bill I passed in the Senate in September never passed the House. Finally, last night, in this supplemental appropriations bill we have addressed the needs of these children in the way I had asked in September that they be helped. We are giving the help to these school systems that have taken in these children.

Our school districts and our States have been footing the bill for these added education expenses since the children came over--in desolation, frankly--right after that level-5 hurricane hit the gulf coast of America.

To think this bill would be held up because there are people on the other side who want to thwart the majority that has passed ANWR and would hold up our Defense Appropriations bill and our supplemental appropriation for the victims of Katrina and Rita. I hope those who would thwart this bill would reconsider.

In this bill, we have money for the education of the students, which has been a priority for me. It also includes money for repairs and dredging of waterways in the hurricane-affected States; plus, of course, money to start rebuilding the levees in New Orleans; grants for the Department of Labor for displaced workers; social services block grants; Head Start money for children displaced by the hurricanes; community development block grants in the hurricane-affected States, which includes Texas. Texas has spent just about all of its community development block grant money, much of it for hurricane assistance, so we will look forward to replenishing some of that which was needed before the hurricane. It has money for highway, road, and bridge repairs, and for State and local law enforcement assistance. I can tell you, having toured in Houston, Austin, and Dallas, the convention centers where evacuees were being held, there was a lot of overtime money for the law enforcement personnel, and that needs to be reimbursed because those police departments and sheriffs departments are not able to absorb that. There is money from the Small Business Administration for disaster loans and money for manufacturing extension centers.

There is an offset for all of this added money because there are many people in our country who believe that spending more money and adding to our deficit is not the responsible thing to do. So there is a 1- percent across-the-board cut in discretionary spending. Veterans are exempt from this. Obviously exempt from this would be salaries of our military and civilian personnel. There will be no cuts in veterans health care. That is something I talked to Senator Cochran about on Sunday, to make sure we did not cut into the veterans health benefits, because we had just put in an added $1.2 billion because there were more calls on the veterans health care programs. I certainly didn't want to get into a hole in that department.

We have offset this supplemental expenditure with an across-the-board cut in the discretionary spending and other areas so we do not add to the deficit.

In addition, in this conference report, we have ensured that avian flu vaccines will be available in this country. Again, we are looking out for something that we see happening in another part of the world and are trying to protect our citizens if somehow avian flu does come to our shores.

The LIHEAP money we have passed on this floor has an added amount of $2 billion for home heating assistance. That is very important in certain places in our country where heating assistance is needed. We all know the cost of energy is going to be very high this winter.

There are border security improvements. I come from a State that is very concerned about the security of our borders. I went with the majority leader just 2 months ago on a helicopter tour of the border, where we saw the footprints that were very fresh in the fields in Mexico, that walk right into the Rio Grande River, knowing those were illegal aliens who had just come into our country. We went to one of the border stations where we saw illegal aliens being processed. They were not from Mexico, they were from other countries. So the funds for increased border security are in this bill. This is something that is important to the security of our country.

I hope we will be able to pass this bill without being thwarted by the minority. We will have more than a majority if we are forced to cloture. I do not know if we will have 60 votes, but it will be the majority of the Senate speaking on these important issues: the Department of Defense appropriations and the Katrina and Rita supplemental appropriation which will get people the help they need in important areas such as education, debris cleanup, medical treatment, and reimbursement. It has provided for other areas of emergency needs such as the avian flu vaccine, LIHEAP assistance, border security improvements--things that we have worked on all year in the Senate and which have the support of a majority of this body.

This is not the time to be held up on procedural motions that would require

60 votes when the majority should be able to go forward on policies that have been set in the Senate all year. The Senate has passed ANWR. The Senate has passed Katrina- and Rita-related supplemental appropriations. The Senate always passes the Department of Defense appropriations. It would be unthinkable not to be able to do that before we leave for the year, to fulfill our responsibility. I hope we can come together at a time when we should show our country this unity.

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

Mr. President, the conference report on the authorization of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is in its final stages of being approved. There are some things that are still to be worked out, but I am proud to have been the subcommittee chairman of the NASA Science Subcommittee that produced--along with the House, of course, and the full Commerce Committee--what I think is an excellent authorization of our National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I worked with my colleague, Senator Nelson of Florida, to produce a bill that does envision the flight to space, the flight to the moon again, and then to Mars. It is the vision laid out by President Bush in January of 2004. It is incumbent on Congress to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and also to support it fully so that we will continue the vision that John F. Kennedy had when he said: We will put a man on the moon. Now we can take it the next step and put a man on Mars, a woman on Mars.

It is important that we understand that this is important not only because it is a huge feat and victory for the world that we can do this but also because we get so much basic science from making this commitment. It improves our quality of life right here on Earth.

This conference committee report does authorize funding for NASA at $17.9 billion in 2007 and $18.7 billion for 2008. That gets us on track to fund the shuttles that will continue to build out the space station and also to begin immediate work on the crew return vehicle that will be the next generation of vehicle going into space after the space station has been completed.

It is a congressional responsibility to set the parameters for what we do with NASA, and we are taking that responsibility seriously. We believe that we should finish the space station, finish the international commitment that we have made to our partners and allies who have put millions of dollars in the space station, and so that we can continue the basic science research necessary, not only for us to learn how we can live and work in space for those people who will be going to the moon again and then later to Mars but also for the basic geological findings we know we can find if we explore the Moon and hopefully Mars. And something that was said at one of our Commerce Committee hearings by Dr. Sam Ting of MIT, there is very important physics research that using the cosmic rays to determine how we might have alternative forms of energy is a very important purpose for the space station to be completed.

This report also designates the U.S. portion of the space station as a national laboratory so that we can bring other funds besides NASA funds, besides Government funds into the space station, and that will help make sure we are able to do the most possible research and make the best use of the space station. It demonstrates that Congress puts a great value on the research that can be done aboard the space station and also a great value on keeping our word to our international partners.

America must lead in the space exploration and science area, but we must do it in collaboration with other countries. I don't think we should just consider ourselves competitors with other countries. If we are going to be the leader, we should lead. We should go forward. We should break the barriers. And we should share with others what we have learned for the good of mankind. That is exactly what this bill envisions.

It also supports aeronautical research. This has been a fundamental part of NASA activities since its inception. It will allow us to continue the great work that has been done in the past. It will assure that we take the next step toward the crew return vehicle that will replace the shuttle at the earliest possible time. We will accelerate that process.

I am very proud of this conference report. The House and Senate worked together very well. It was a bipartisan effort and a bicameral effort. We are going to see a new impetus for NASA with the support of Congress and the President. That is exactly what this country should be doing at this time.

I yield the floor.