Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aide to our committee clerk for the Science and Space Subcommittee be permitted the privilege of the floor, Tom Cremins.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for the passion and commitment he has to the protection of our law enforcement officers, who are doing a great job for us. I appreciate what he is saying and doing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the two managers in relation to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, and when the Senate then receives the conference report, it be immediately considered, and the conference report be adopted, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I believe what we bring before the Senate today is a product worthy of our support. The conference report has been crafted under two different approaches. What I believe has emerged is not only a good compromise but also makes strides in both oversight and policy. What has emerged is a solid recommendation.

I thank my chairman, Senator Cochran, for his leadership. This subcommittee faced some extreme budgetary shortfalls, and without his leadership, and basically allocating more resources to this committee, we would not be able to bring this conference report to the Senate today.

I also especially thank my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for her constant support and willingness to work together. I thank her staff as well: Christian Evans, B.G. Wright, and Chad Schulken for their hard work and professionalism, along with my great staff, Tammy Cameron, Dennis Balkham, and Sean Knowles. It has been a team effort and I appreciate that so much.

The military construction portion of our bill provides $6.2 billion for military construction, $5.1 billion of which is for Active Component construction, and $1.1 billion for Reserve Component construction. It also includes $4 billion for family housing. There is $1.75 billion for BRAC implementation and cleanup for both 2005 and prior rounds. The conference agreement also provides necessary services for our service men and women and their families, not only enabling them to effectively do their jobs, but also providing an improved quality of life in our military communities. This is important for many reasons. Of course, it is the right thing to do for our military. It is also the smart thing to do with our tax dollars. In this time of war and frequent deployments, recruiting and retention, maintaining a ready and available workforce is very much on the minds of our military leaders. We often say, in this era of an All Volunteer Force: You recruit individuals, but you retain families. The quality-of-life improvements that make our military communities great places to live are crucial in the retention of military families. Within this conference report before you, we fund projects that will improve the lives of those families. We fund 11 family housing privatization projects, which will provide high-quality, market-standard housing for nearly 15,000 military families; 39 barracks projects that will get our single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines out of substandard living conditions, or, in some cases, off ships and into first-rate facilities; and schools, child development centers, and family support centers that will ensure our servicemembers' children and spouses are cared for, are included in this bill.

These improvements make it easier for troops to deploy, to focus on their day-to-day jobs, while giving them the peace of mind that comes with knowing their families and homes are taken care of, so they can give their attention to the job we are asking them to do--protecting America. The conference report provides the first piece to the most recent BRAC round. With the funds provided, it places priority on those funds which are critical to carrying out BRAC, while providing the necessary financial oversight of the resources provided.

For our veterans, we have fully funded the President's request for veterans benefits and health care. This has not been easy. House and Senate conferees have provided $22.547 billion for medical services, which includes $1.225 billion in emergency funding to fully meet the President's amended request for medical care for the country's veterans. This conference has strongly responded to the VA's recent budgetary shortfall by putting in place stringent financial reporting requirements in an effort to avoid the repeat of budget crises witnessed this summer in VA health care.

We have fully funded the request for medical facilities and infrastructure, totaling $3.3 billion for fiscal year 2006. We have created three Centers of Excellence for mental health care, while at the same time fully funding health care for post traumatic stress disorder and other mental health care throughout the VA.

The conference has funded medical and prosthetic research at $412 million, which is $19 million more than the President's request. This is important because we know many of our troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from loss of limbs, to a greater extent than we have seen before. So we want the research to make sure the prostheses they have make

them fully ambulatory and able to function in the rest of their lives.

The conference takes the unprecedented step of providing $15 million specifically dedicated to Gulf War Illness research for this year and the next 4 fiscal years, fulfilling the Research Advisory Commission's recommendations on Gulf War Illness. This is a disease for which we must determine the cause so we can treat the one in six who returned from the Gulf War with these symptoms and protect future service men and women from contracting this disorder.

The conference report before you today establishes a new account within the VA dedicated to information technology systems. Not only does this new account provide for increased oversight and consolidated information technology efforts within the VA, it codifies the new position of a VA Chief Information Officer and subsequent reorganization. I believe this is a critical step toward helping the VA achieve success in medical recordkeeping and medical record availability. Its HealtheVet-electronic patient records project paid great dividends during the recent hurricanes.

In fact, the conference report has also responded to the recent hurricanes by providing the VA authority to establish an Assistant Secretary for Disaster Preparedness, something which will enable the VA to better respond to future disaster situations.

Finally, we have provided $1 million over the President's request for the American Battle Monuments Commission for an environmental study to save the eroding monument at Normandy Cemetery.

All in all, I believe the conference report before the Senate provides much-needed resources and does so while maximizing our limited resources in meeting the greatest needs of our military, their families, and our veterans.

On a personal note, I want to say I have worked very closely with Secretary Jim Nicholson of the VA, and I know of his dedication to doing what is right for our veterans, something we all wish to do. I appreciate his leadership. We owe our active-duty military, our Guard and Reserves, who stand ready to serve, and our veterans, who have served, the care of our country. We have achieved these goals in the conference report today.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report.

Mr. President, I yield to my ranking member, Senator Feinstein.

Mr. President, collegiality and bipartisanship is a

two-way street. You can't do it if only one person wants to do the right thing. I have worked with Senator Feinstein. She has been chairman of our committee, and I have been ranking member. I have been chairman, and she has been ranking member. We have always come together to do what is right for the military personnel who are defending our country as we speak today. We both believe in quality of life, good housing, good health care facilities, good childcare facilities, and all the things that we can provide in the purview of our bill. And now we have the veterans, which has been added to our bill this year, which is a great opportunity for us to continue to say thank you to those who have preserved the freedom for our generation.

We have come together on the goals, and I could not ask for a better partner.

I so appreciate that we can do this in the Senate, which is what we ought to be doing in every committee. I hope by our ability to do this--frankly, the Appropriations Committee, in general, does so--we will be able to create a better America for all of our constituents.

I thank the Chair and yield back all of my time.

Mr. President, we have already passed the resolution. When it comes from the House, we have deemed that it would be passed here.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4133, which was received from the House.

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

I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5 minutes off the bill.

Mr. President, I wish to speak today on an amendment that has been offered on this bill that I very much hope the Senate will not agree to.

The Dorgan amendment, which has been offered, would institute a windfall profits tax on the major oil and gas companies. There is the belief among many in this country that oil industry profits are excessive compared to profits of other companies that do business in our country. I do not believe that is the case.

In the second quarter of 2005, the oil industry earned 7.7 cents for every dollar of sales. The average profit for all U.S. industry in the second quarter was 7.9 cents for every dollar of sales. Thirteen U.S. industries earned higher profits in the second quarter than the oil and natural gas industry: banking, software and services, consumer services, and real estate.

The rate of return on oil sales for the third quarter of 2005 is slightly higher, at 8.1 cents for every dollar of sales. However, the damage to the oil industry caused by the hurricanes will eat into the bottom line in future quarters. British Petroleum has estimated it will take a $700 million hit to the company's energy production and infrastructure from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. The Congressional Budget Office estimates capital losses from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the energy producing industries will range from $18 to $31 billion.

Reinvestment in infrastructure, both production and refining, is a critical issue. My good colleague from North Dakota and I would agree on that point. While I am sure his proposal is well intended, the impact would be contrary to the goals we all seek to achieve. His proposal takes a short-term approach to what is a long-term investment issue. Investments in infrastructure in the oil industry are over long- term windows.

What we must do is encourage the oil companies to take their profits and reinvest them back into exploration, production, and refineries. The oil companies seek to invest in refineries, but no one is investing in new refineries in America. In fact, there has been no new refinery built in America in over 20 years.

If we are going to have a bigger supply and bring the price of gasoline at the pump down, we must have more oil refineries and more production. We also need conservation. We also need renewable sources of energy. We need new sources of energy. We all agree on that.

This amendment seeks to single out oil companies, dub them ``excessively profitable,'' take their profit and give it to the Government to spend as it would, rather than letting the oil companies keep it and invest it in the infrastructure, production, and refinery capacity. That is what will get to the issue we are all trying to address; that is, bringing the price of oil down so the price at the pump will be lower.

Senator Schumer has discussed another potential amendment that hits at the big oil companies. I realize that is a political thing for him to do right now. We are not here to do the political hit and run. We are here to do the right thing for our country. We are here to try to build more reserves, more production capacity, and more refinery capacity to bring the price of gasoline down at the pump and to bring the price of energy down for the farmer who is trying to use natural gas. The price is rising such that our small farmers are in a tough position. What Senator Schumer has discussed doing is instituting a double tax on any income made by a company overseas.

We are severely restricting the ability for an oil and gas company to drill in America today. You basically cannot drill off the East Coast or the West Coast, nor Florida. We can drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but it is very expensive and requires deep drilling. We hope we will be able to open ANWR--but right now we are very limited. We need to have a supply in our country, with American jobs and more production coming back to America. More and more production is going overseas.

I end by saying, the double taxation of one industry is unfair. If we have an oil company and a computer chip company doing business in Italy and they pay taxes in Italy, the computer chip company would get a credit for that tax paid when it files in America, but the oil company would not, thereby paying tax twice. Is that the way to have more oil coming into our country and to drive the price down at the pump? I don't think so. It is counterproductive.

I hope the Senate will do the right thing. It may not be the political thing, but it is the right thing if we are going to reach our goal, which is to bring down the cost of natural gas and gasoline at the pump for the consumers and the small business people of our country, keeping our economy strong and keeping jobs in America. The way to do this is not to single out the oil companies. We must invest in infrastructure, more production, and additional refineries. If we will help them with a regulatory system that does not penalize them and delay construction for 10 or 15 years, we can bring the price of oil down. It will be to the benefit of everyone in our country.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan amendment and any potential Schumer amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I appreciate very much the chairman bringing this pension reform bill to the floor. As a Senator from a State that has several major airlines, three headquartered in my home State of Texas, I know this is very important for them. It has been worked on for a long time. I appreciate the efforts of the distinguished chairman in this regard.

Judge Alito

I also want to take this opportunity to answer some of the things that have been said in the Chamber today, particularly about Judge Alito, who is the President's nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States.

It has been implied in the Chamber today that maybe he doesn't deserve an up-or-down vote. After all, Harriet Miers didn't get one.

I am the perfect person to say I think Harriet Miers should have gotten one. I do believe Harriet Miers was qualified for the Supreme Court. If she had been allowed to open her mouth and say what she believed and talk about her experience, she would have been confirmed, and she would have been a superb Justice.

However, Harriet Miers didn't get an up-or-down vote because she withdrew her nomination. She withdrew it voluntarily. It was her decision. I was sorry she did. I didn't want her to make that decision. But to imply that all of a sudden now we have a new standard, that Judge Alito doesn't deserve an up-or-down vote, is absolutely wrong and it must be refuted. Judge Alito does deserve an up-or-down vote just as every nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States who has gone through the committee and come out deserves an up-or-down vote. The idea that seems to be creeping in here is that, maybe for the first time in the history of the United States, there might be a filibuster, a partisan filibuster of a judge, a nominee to be Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States. That would be a terrible thing for the United States of America, for the President, and for the Senate of the United States. It would be wrong for everyone concerned. It would set a precedent that I believe would cause partisanship in this body to escalate to a degree that we do not want to see happen.

Partisanship has already escalated in the Senate. I am sorry that it has. But I think there are many instances where we work in a bipartisan way in the Senate, and we accomplish a great deal when we do. So I think the idea of throwing a bombshell into the Senate and breaking all tradition and all precedent and filibustering on a partisan basis a nominee for the Supreme Court who is reported out of committee is wrong, and I hope the hints of that happening are wrong. I hope they are put to bed. I hope we will give this judge his due.

This man is qualified for the Supreme Court of the United States by any standard. He has an academic record that is excellent. He has years of experience as a circuit court judge. He is very well regarded as a circuit court judge. His opinions are reasoned. He has even gone against what are his stated personal beliefs in order to adhere to precedent and give great respect to the law of the land. He is everything we are looking for in a Supreme Court nominee.

When he has his hearings and he has the chance to answer the questions of the Judiciary Committee and he is then voted out of that committee, even a suggestion that he doesn't deserve an up-or-down vote is outrageous. I hope we can stamp out those little feelers, say this was a misunderstanding, that Judge Alito most certainly is a nominee deserving of an up-or-down vote in the Senate if he is, in fact, voted out of the committee.

Amendments To The Iraq Resolution

I also want to take this opportunity to discuss an amendment that was agreed to yesterday by the Senate regarding the Iraq resolution. There has

been a statement on the floor today saying that this was a rebuff of the President's policies. The rebuff was to the amendment that was put forward that would set a timetable for a withdrawal, that would call on the President to say on a date certain we are going to withdraw troops from Iraq.

I have been one in the past who has said we should have a game plan. We should have an exit strategy. I have said that when we were in Bosnia. I said it as we are in Iraq. I said it about Afghanistan. It is a legitimate role for the U.S. Congress to say: Mr. President, give us an update on where we are and give us what we can expect to see. That is exactly what happened. It was not unusual.

When we are in a conflict overseas with our troops on the ground, it is not unusual that the Congress would ask for a report on the status of the conflict. Most certainly it is fair to ask for a report. The President welcomed that because he knows the role of Congress, just as we do. Those who would characterize that as a rebuff are wrong. The President knows how tough this situation is. All of us do. Every one of us grieves when we lose one American life. But I will say I could not be more proud than I am of our Armed Forces, our men and women who are fighting for our freedom today as we speak in this Chamber, because those with boots on the ground know that if we set a time prematurely when we would exit, we would embolden the enemy they are facing today. We would say to the enemy: Have at it. No matter what happens, we are out of here on a date certain.

Don't you think that puts the lives of those troops who are on the ground right now in jeopardy? The idea that we would do something like that is appalling. The Senate didn't do it. The Senate voted down an amendment. The Senate rebuffed that amendment because it was wrong. Instead, we did what is the role of the Senate to do, and that is we asked the President for a status report. We asked the President for the game plan for the future. Of course, the President is going to do that. He has been doing that. We have had briefs on the situation in Iraq and briefs on what the next step is ever since we went in to Iraq.

Of course it is the right of Congress and the role of Congress to ask for this. The President understands that and actually said he was very pleased that the Congress did that and that he would, of course, do that type of report as he has been doing on a regular basis in various ways, through the Secretary of Defense, through the Joint Chiefs, the Chairman, and the Ambassador to Iraq from the United States. We have had reports from all of these people on the status. We have seen the votes that have been taken in Iraq. We have seen the progress.

I think it is important that we set the record straight. On this floor this morning, I think there have been some statements that needed to be refuted, and that is what I have attempted to do.

I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me this time and thank him for bringing this pension bill to the floor. It is a very important bill. It will mean a lot to the employees in my State and the employees throughout our country in airlines that are struggling right now. This is an industry we need to protect.

Mr. President, one of my longtime friends, Patricia Patterson, and I were recently discussing the life and service of a great American, and I wanted to take a moment and bring to the attention of my colleagues this American success story.

Al Casey passed away on July 10, 2004, after a lifetime of contributing strong leadership and a gregarious disposition to numerous companies, communities, and organizations from across the country.

After putting himself through Harvard, Al enlisted in the Army during World War II. Following his military service, he returned to Harvard business school, earning a graduate degree in finance. Al loved Harvard, and his friendships there opened doors and enriched his life throughout his long career.

Al's first job was in New York for Railway Express. He and Ellie, his wife of more than 40 years, then moved to San Francisco with the Southern Pacific Railroad. Al later worked as President of the Times Mirror Company and the Los Angeles Times for 8 years, before moving to possibly his most visible corporate assignment--CEO of American Airlines. His philosophy, ``you don't have to be mean to be tough,'' carried him to success in most of his professional endeavors, especially with American, where Al provided aggressive leadership. When he came to American Airlines, he had already established a reputation of high ethical behavior. This, combined with his ability to laugh at himself, secured for him the cooperation and loyalty of his employees.

Following his retirement from American Airlines, Al began a relationship with SMU's Cox Business School as a faculty member. His teaching career was interrupted to rescue First International Bankshares as it emerged from bankruptcy. Later, he served as Postmaster General of the United States under President Reagan. Al enjoyed this tour immensely, even signing letters to close friends as ``Big Stamp.'' He returned to teaching, only to be tapped in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, to pilot the Resolution Trust Corporation--which was charged with disposing of financial and real estate assets left behind in the wake of failed savings and loan companies in the 1980s. It was a massive undertaking that no one thought could be done. Al worked for 18 months and was able to lead the RTC in disposing of almost all of the assets by the time the Clinton administration took office.

Al had a positive outlook on life and genuinely desired to know about the triumphs and tribulations in the lives of friends and coworkers. He supported countless community and civic organizations and was committed to improving the cities and neighborhoods where he lived and worked.

The effects of his steady guidance and endless enthusiasm for life have been felt in major corporations, in professional associations, in government organizations, and in the personal lives of many Americans. Albert Casey coined ``Casey's Law,'' which holds that ``if anything could go right, it should.'' I was honored to know Al, and I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to commemorate such a fine man. He is certainly missed and fondly remembered.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for talking about what our people with boots on, on the ground in Iraq, are saying and what they are seeing.

I think it is important that we talk to them about the feelings in America because some people might get a misimpression if they listened to people who actually put forward the idea that we would cut and run from something that was started for all the right reasons--to protect Americans.

The President, knowing what happened on 9/11, was determined that he was not going to have another terrorist attack on America with weapons of mass destruction. That is why we went into the Middle East. We took on Saddam Hussein, who was known to have, from many different sources, weapons of mass destruction.

So we are there, and our troops are doing a great job. We are building the confidence in Iraq. You can see it from the people who are voting with their feet. They are walking to the polls and voting. Even under threat of death, they are working to establish a democracy. They are defying the terrorists. They know what the terrorists are doing to their country, and they are fighting back. And we are going to stand and fight with them, as we promised we would do.

I want to talk about this picture. It says more than any words ever could. Michael Yon is a former Green Beret who has been out of the service for years. He is also a gifted photographer and writer. He was embedded in Iraq for 9 months earlier this year. He learned about the area, the people, the unit in which he was embedded, and the situation in Iraq. His photographs capture an honest and inspiring message about our soldiers' service in Iraq, the mindset of the terrorists we are fighting, and what this war is all about.

I would like to read Michael's own words describing what happened on Saturday, May 14, 2005, in Mosul, just before he took this heartbreaking picture:

Major Mark Bieger found this little girl after the car bomb

that attacked our guys while kids were crowding around. The

soldiers have been angry and sad for two days. They are angry

because the terrorists could just as easily have waited a

block or two and attacked the patrol away from the kids.

Instead, the suicide bomber drove his car and hit the Stryker

when about twenty children were jumping up and down and

waving at the soldiers.

Major Bieger, I had seen him help rescue some of our guys a

week earlier during another big attack, took some of our

soldiers and rushed this little girl to our hospital. He

wanted her to have American surgeons and not go to the Iraqi

hospital. She didn't make it. I snapped this picture when

Major Bieger ran to take her away.

The soldiers went back to the neighborhood the next day to

ask what they could do. The people were very warming and

welcomed us into their homes, and kids were actually running

up to say hello and to ask soldiers to shake hands.

Eventually, some insurgents must have realized we were back

and started shooting at us. The American soldiers and Iraqi

police started engaging the enemy and there was a running gun

battle. I saw at least one Iraqi police who was shot, but he

looked okay and actually smiled at me despite the bullet hole

in his leg. I smiled back.

One thing seems certain: The people in that neighborhood

share our feelings about the terrorists. We are going to go

back there, and if any terrorists come out, the soldiers hope

to find them. Everybody is still very angry that the

insurgents attacked us when the kids were around. Their day

will come.

Mr. President, it is stories like this one that reaffirm why Americans are so proud of our troops and proud of the Iraqi people for embracing democracy and supporting our efforts to defeat terrorism. U.S. troops are not seen as occupiers, as some in our country would have you believe. Our soldiers are standing beside Iraqi forces, and their sacrifice to win the war on terror will never be diminished.

We are fighting an enemy who is willing to make a point of killing innocent children. There will be no freedom if we cut and run. We know why we are there, and we will complete the mission.

This story shows so much about how our troops feel. And if any person in this country talks to troops who have returned from Iraq, they will tell you similar stories about the feelings of the Iraqi people. Iraqis often are under threat of death if they are talking to American soldiers or trying to do something productive that would move their country forward, such as voting on a constitution, which they did in droves. They are standing firm despite the threats.

Our troops are going through the process of teaching the Iraqi police and the Iraqi soldiers how to help themselves, how to work the equipment, and how to counter insurgents who would wait until children are in the picture before choosing to blow themselves up.

This is an enemy that we must not let stay on this Earth. We must eradicate it wherever it is. And we must make sure that it does not come to America because if this enemy would wait until children are surrounding our soldiers to do their heinous crimes, what would they do if they came back to America to attack our people? How heinous would their crimes be here?

Our President is trying to make sure they do not have that opportunity, that they will not be able to perpetrate their horrible and indecent acts against the people of America on our soil. Our President is taking every step to assure that Americans are secure.

So I think it is time for us to stop the partisan bickering. No one in their right mind would suggest that this is a time for America to turn and run. So let's try to work together to make sure we are doing everything possible to help the Iraqi people get on their feet, hold their elections, and begin the process of self-government.

Nothing will eradicate terrorism more quickly than showing

that democracy and self-governance can work. That is what our

President is leading our country and our troops in the field

to provide: Safety and security for the Iraqi people so they

can govern themselves. The Iraqi people are moving forward

with a constitution they have written and they have voted

for, which will be followed by more elections of a parliament

and leaders who will take this constitution and make the laws

that will give freedom to every Iraqi. Freedom is something

which they have not known--many of them--in their lifetimes.

It is a worthy cause because it will also assure the security

of the American people in future generations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Richard Errett Smalley of Rice University.

On October 28, 2005, Texas and America lost a brilliant mind, a great American and a dear friend, Richard Smalley.

Early in his life, Dr. Smalley developed a love for science as he collected single-cell organisms with his mother at a local pond and studied them with a microscope.

He took this love of science with him to the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1965 with a bachelor's degree in chemistry.

After working at a Shell Chemical Company manufacturing plant in New Jersey for 4 years, Dr. Smalley continued his education at Princeton University, graduating with an M.S. in 1971 and his Ph.D. in 1973.

He moved his family to Chicago to begin a postdoctoral period with Donald H. Levy at the University of Chicago.

While there, Dr. Smalley's work began to elevate when he pioneered what has become one of the most powerful techniques in chemical physics, supersonic beam laser spectroscopy.

In 1976, Dr. Smalley joined the Department of Chemistry at Rice University as an assistant professor, where he, along with his colleague, Dr. Robert F. Curl and British chemist Sir Harold Kroto, discovered a new class of carbon molecules called the fullerene, or ``buckyballs.''

This discovery led to the team's 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, and spurred the development of nanotechnology as a revolutionary area of science capable of solving global problems in fields ranging from medicine to energy to national security.

Dr. Smalley's accomplishments in the field of nanotechnology have greatly contributed to the academic and research communities of Rice University, the State of Texas, and the entire country.

He, along with Nobel Laureate Michael Brown, was a founding cochairman of the Texas Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science, which has played an instrumental role in enhancing research in Texas.

Dr. Smalley devoted his talent to employ nanotechnology to solve the world's energy problem, which he believed could ultimately solve other global problems such as hunger and lack of water.

His devotion to science and its application to solving world issues earned him numerous honors and accolades, including the Distinguished Public Service Medal from the U.S. Department of the Navy and the Lifetime Achievement Award from Small Times Magazine.

While Dr. Smalley may no longer be with us, his legacy will continue to grow as scientists build upon his work and all of us around the world reap the benefits of his discoveries.

My condolences go out to his wife Deborah, two sons, Chad and Preston, and the rest of his family and friends.

Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Wyoming for the great leadership he is providing for our Nation to start preparing us for the different types of flu viruses that might come our way. I know he has worked very hard on this in his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I certainly was pleased to hear his comments on this very important issue. It is one that is important for all of us to assure that our country is ready if we have the kind of pandemic that could happen. It reminds me of Y2K when many were concerned that computers would crash all over America when we turned into the next century, and because we were prepared, there was no crisis. That is what I hope is the result of our addressing the potential flu strains that may be making their way across the world and could affect Americans in the future.

Harriet Miers

Mr. President, I particularly will talk today about my friend Harriet Miers. All of us were stunned this morning--I certainly was--when I heard she had submitted her resignation as a nominee to the Supreme Court because I have total confidence in her. I have total confidence she would have been a superb Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I have that confidence because I know her.

Many people were making judgments before they knew her. They were not giving her the benefit of the opportunity to come into an open forum and talk about her views.

She wrote today to the President: As you know, Members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive branch materials and information will continue.

This is a letter that was written by a woman who cares more about our country, more about our President and his role and the respect for his role under the separation of powers in the Constitution, than she cares about a wonderful cap for a wonderful career, and that is her career. I admire her even more, if that is possible, for the decision she has made. I have to say I am disappointed in that decision because I know she would have been a superb Justice. She would have been a strict constructionist. She would have been a judge who knew the place of a judge, not to make law, which is a requirement and responsibility for those elected for that purpose. She would have been a Justice who looked at and interpreted the law.

I will tell my colleagues what else Harriet Miers would have done that I think is very important. She would have known what it was she could do on the Supreme Court to give guidance to legislatures, to Members of Congress, to clients who are being represented by lawyers throughout the country, about how the law should be interpreted. She would have given the guidance to legislatures about what the constitutional requirement would be.

When one is giving tests for discrimination, for instance, the Supreme Court has said there are varying tests for discrimination. There are rigid tests in some circumstances, there are more moderate tests in other circumstances. I would like to have had someone on the Court with real-world experience to more clearly define those tests so that Congress, so that legislatures, would know when they pass a law more how the Court would interpret that law in light of a more clear path to the right result.

I would have liked someone who has had the experience of living in a part of the country that is different from other members of the Court. I think we need diversity of geography. I think there are different issues in eminent domain, in business and commerce, in regard for private property rights, in States that have a lot of Federal lands versus States that do not have a lot of Federal lands. There are different approaches to these issues by people who live in different parts of the country and I think that kind of diversity is important.

This is a woman who has been a leader in the legal field. She worked her way through SMU Law School. She was also case notes editor of the Southwestern Law Journal, which is now the SMU Law Review. She became one of the first women to be hired by a major Dallas law firm as an associate. She then rose to lead that law firm, to be the managing partner, the first woman to do so in the State of Texas. She worked in the leadership of the bar association, which is the legal organization that sets the standards of ethics, propriety, and practice for our lawyers in this country. She rose to be the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and later the first woman president of the State Bar Association.

I graduated from law school about the same time she did. I graduated from the University of Texas. She graduated from SMU. I know how hard it was to get a job. I know the obstacles she faced. I know she did not have the door opened for her with her outstanding record at SMU that many of our male colleagues in law school had. Yet, she attacked those barriers with a positive attitude and spirit. She knew if she proved herself, she would be rewarded as anyone else. She never gave up.

She caught the eye of a Governor of Texas, and she had been a Democrat. I think everyone knows she was a Democrat in the early years. Most people in Texas were. In 1989, she made a decision that she wanted to support a Republican, George W. Bush. That changed her views in many things. I think some of the things that were being brought up from before she changed her views and her support have been used to indicate she is not firm in her views. Well, I think she is firm in her views. I think she is firmly a strict constructionist, a person who has proven herself intellectually in business, in experience, and in leadership. She would have been a terrific Justice. I do not think she was given her due.

I am disappointed, but I do not question her decision because I know she made the decision on the right points and for the right reasons. She wanted to protect the Presidency from invasion of the rights of the President.

Can you imagine if a President had to stop and think--before asking advice from his legal counsel or his top staff as he is trying to make an important decision for our country: If I ask this question in writing, is that going to be recoverable in the public arena? Do I then have to temper what I say?

A President cannot talk to each of his staff members all day. He has many other responsibilities, so he has to communicate in writing. I think he should be able to communicate with his key staff people as he is in the decision making process, and I think he should not have to worry that it is going to, all of a sudden, be misconstrued in the public arena when it was part of his decision making process.

That is what Harriet Miers is also trying to protect. She is giving up probably something she never dreamed she would be, because it is the pinnacle of a legal career to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. She is giving that up because she believes that right of the President would either be invaded or it would be made a cause celebre, and that would not be healthy for our country or for the President. So she gave up what could have been a dream of hers, to do what is right for our country.

I want to reaffirm my view that she would have been an excellent Supreme Court Justice, that she had the right background and experience, that she would have brought a viewpoint that is a very important viewpoint to the Court. You know, if we didn't want diversity of experience in making these

important decisions, we would have one Justice of the Supreme Court; we wouldn't have to have nine. Our Founding Fathers decided to have nine. I think they were right, as they are in so many parts of the Constitution that they thought would be important for the Constitution to last over 200 years. I think diversity of experience and background is very helpful for a Court of nine Justices.

I am disappointed today, but I am very supportive of her decision because it was her decision and because she made it for the right reasons. I wish her well and I am very pleased she is going to stay as White House Counsel, one of the most important jobs in the White House. She will continue serving our country. When I talked to her this morning she was upbeat, she was positive, she was strong, and I know she will be a great contributor to the United States of America and to the President she serves. I commend her today, with all that she has gone through, for the grace with which she has gone through it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bingaman. We have been working on increasing the amount put in the advanced placement program for years. Together, we actually started the Federal funding for this program. It has been a phenomenal success.

In fact, in a recent study on the lack of emphasis in science in our country in high schools and colleges, one of the recommendations made by the commission, which I think the Presiding Officer of the Senate sitting in the chair today is familiar with, * * *

One of the recommendations is increasing the Advanced Placement Program. That is exactly what we are doing with this amendment.

The Advanced Placement Program allows students to pursue college- level studies while still in high school. It is celebrating its 50th anniversary and it is now in 15,000 schools around the world, including 60 percent of high schools in America. Through these programs, students experience a rigorous college level curriculum and have the chance to earn college credit, advanced placement, or both.

According to a U.S. Department of Education study, participation in advanced placement courses is a stronger predictor of success in college than test scores or grade point averages. A 2002 study by the University of Texas at Austin showed that among students with the same SAT scores and class rank, advanced placement students scoring three or higher on the exams performed better in advanced college courses than students who participated in concurrent enrollment or who did not skip any college courses at all.

Research has also shown that 61 percent of students who take two or more advanced placement exams graduate from college on time. By contrast, only 29 percent of other college students earn a degree within 4 years.

When you consider the average total charges at a 4-year public institution in the 2005 school year were more than $12,000 per year and $29,000 per year for private colleges, graduating within 4 years becomes a very important objective.

While much growth has occurred in advanced placement participation, a vast gap still exists between the 57 percent of the class of 2004 who embarked on higher education last fall and the 13 percent of the class of 2004 who were prepared to succeed in college by having mastered an AP course in high school. Currently, 40 percent of students entering 4- year colleges and universities are requiring some remedial education while 63 percent of students at 2-year institutions do. This is a significant concern. One or more remedial courses, particularly in math or reading, negatively influence the likelihood that a student will obtain that bachelor's degree.

Last year, a fellow Texan and current Assistant Secretary of Education, Tom Luce, wrote a book entitled ``Do What Works: How Proven Practices Can Improve America's Public Schools.'' Among other programs, the book highlighted the importance of advanced placement courses in educating today's students. In his book, Secretary Luce states:

Advanced Placement courses are increasingly viewed as a key

to driving higher educational achievement by all students,

particularly economically disadvantaged and minority

students.

Secretary Luce dedicated his book to Edith and Peter O'Donnell, two great Americans who know and understand the importance of educating our youngsters. Peter O'Donnell recently sat on the Commission of National Academies which published a report entitled ``Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.''

The report outlined a number of recommendations to strengthen America's competitiveness with the ultimate goal of creating new, high- quality jobs. One of the recommendations was to train additional advanced placement instructors to teach advanced courses in mathematics and science. Some ways we can do this are by subsidizing test fees for low-income students who are enrolled in AP classes and plan to take an AP test, and by expanding teacher training and participation in online courses.

President Bush requested $51 million in his budget for this program. That would be an increase of $22 million from last year.

This amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Bingaman would accomplish the President's funding goal by adding an additional $7 million. It is very important we do this. It does have offsets.

I particularly thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin and their staffs for helping find the offsets, realizing the importance of this program.

My friend Peter O'Donnell was certainly on the mark when he suggested advanced placement would start our students in a higher echelon of academic programs to better prepare them for college. These programs will also help them get through college within a 4-year period, which is becoming more and more of an issue in public and private universities around our country.

I thank Senator Bingaman for being a partner with me on this. Since 1998 we have worked on this together. If we can continue to increase the program and, therefore, increase the number of participants, we will see the college students who perform better having more opportunities for science and math careers, which is very important for the future of our country.

I yield the floor.

A voice vote would be fine with us.

I ask unanimous consent at 3 o'clock today the Senate proceed to executive session and to consecutive votes on the following nominations: No. 386, John Smoak, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida; and No. 384, Susan Neilson, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.

I further ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote; further, that following those votes the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate a friend and fellow Texan, Ms. Lisette Mondello, who is being confirmed to be Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. She is one of the finest and most qualified individuals for this position.

Ms. Mondello has been serving as the senior advisor to the Secretary of Education. This experience is invaluable and has provided exceptional training for the position of Assistant Secretary.

Prior to her position with the Department of Education, Ms. Mondello was the director of communications in my office for 4 years. During that time I valued her counsel and commitment. In fact, her husband Joe Mondello, was my legislative director for several years. Prior to that, she worked for our colleague, Senator Alfonse D' Amato.

Additionally, Ms. Mondello has held several positions in the private sector and with grassroots organizations. These experiences have contributed to an understanding of political and public relations from two distinctive viewpoints. She will bring an enormous wealth of knowledge and understanding to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Ms. Mondello received bachelor of arts degree from Trinity University in San Antonio, TX. She obtained a Certificate in Finance from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX.

Given Ms. Mondello's rich and diverse background, she is ideally suited

to serve as the department's lead in public and intergovernmental affairs. She has earned an impressive record of accomplishment and will bring great enthusiasm and honor to this position.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Bill T. Teague upon his retirement as president and chief executive officer of Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center in Houston, TX.

Mr. Teague is a State, national, and international leader in blood banking and transfusion medicine management. During his 31-year tenure, the nonprofit Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center has become one of the most respected blood banking facilities in the country, currently serving more than 220 healthcare institutions in the 24-county Texas gulf coast and east Texas regions. Prior to this position, he served as director of the Community Blood Bank in St. Petersburg, FL, and director of the Travis County Medical Society Blood Bank in Austin, TX. A past president of both the South Central Association of Blood Banks and the American Association of Blood Banks, and a former treasurer of the American Blood Commission, Mr. Teague is also active in a number of professional organizations. He has received numerous honors throughout his career and has been recognized, due to his involvement and service, as a leader in the Houston community.

Mr. Teague has dedicated both his professional career and personal time to generating blood donations and encouraging others to give the gift of life. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his accomplishments and wishing Mr. Teague well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious threat facing our Nation--illegal immigration. Despite successful efforts by me and other Members to increase border patrol forces, add new detention facilities, and improve border monitoring, the problem of individuals entering our country illegally continues to impact communities across the country. Just last year, the number of immigrants entering our country illegally outnumbered those entering through legal means. While legal immigration contributes to the diversity and uniqueness of our society, illegal immigration undermines the system and weakens the legitimate process by which people can enter our country. With the Census Bureau estimating that 10 to 11 million people reside in our country illegally, clearly our strategy in confronting this issue must change.

Immigration and naturalization are constitutionally defined powers granted to the Federal Government. As such, many view the issue of immigration as strictly a Federal burden, to be addressed by Federal legislation, policies, and payment. While immigration policy is certainly initiated at the Federal level, one cannot ignore the inherent truth that the impact of illegal immigration is predominantly manifested in our State and local communities, often in the form of overwhelmed emergency rooms, overburdened school systems, and overcrowded prisons. Our local communities often find themselves with little recourse or ability to address the pervasive and crippling effects of a broken immigration system. These effects, of course, are not confined to our southern border regions,

but rather they reverberate across the country.

The country's immigration system is long overdue for a comprehensive overhaul, and I commend the efforts being made by a number of my colleagues to generate attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Ideas are being proposed to improve avenues for legal immigration, enhance enforcement capabilities, and address the growing presence of illegal immigrants with nationalities other than Mexican. While I applaud these proposals and eagerly await our opportunity to discuss them, I believe it is essential that we recognize the role our State and local communities can have in addressing illegal immigration, particularly when it comes to the area of enforcement. As such, I am introducing legislation today to solidify the right and opportunity of our State and local governments to enforce the law--immigration law.

Historically, the authority for State and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been limited to the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act; these include acts such as physically crossing the border illegally. By contrast, the enforcement of the act's civil provisions, which include apprehension and removal of deportable aliens already in the country, has been strictly a Federal responsibility, with States playing an incidental supporting role. This view was recently reinforced when a community in New Hampshire attempted to prosecute illegal immigrants for criminal trespass but was thwarted when a judge ruled it was constitutionally impermissible, stating that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction on civil immigration issues.

Enforcing the laws of our country should not be confined to Federal authorities when the illegal behavior specifically impacts the State and local communities. Just as State and local officials can arrest, detain, and prosecute for illicit drug violations, so they should be able to for illegal immigration violations. The legislation I propose today would enable State and local officials to arrest, detain, and prosecute illegal immigrants for all Federal immigration violations, both civil and criminal, and would authorize States to create immigration enforcement provisions in accordance with Federal immigration law. My proposal preserves the Federal Government's constitutionally delegated authority to determine immigration status, a determination to which the States would defer. Allowing communities to take enforcement actions based on their own needs, while working within limits set under Federal law, is sound, appropriate policy.

Further, in order to strengthen border security and reduce the strain on local and Federal border officials, my bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a Volunteer Border Marshal Program The program will assist the Department in securing our borders by using trained, State-licensed peace officers in a volunteer capacity. These volunteers would be assigned to the Border Patrol on temporary missions to identify and control illegal immigration, as well as human and drug trafficking.

In order to properly tackle the problem of illegal immigration, Federal, State, and local authorities must work as partners. Our communities must have the tools necessary to fight it effectively. My legislation will empower States and communities with a new weapon to combat illegal immigration and thereby reinforce our legal naturalization process. I encourage my colleagues to support this sensible approach to addressing this serious problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious threat facing our Nation--illegal immigration. Despite successful efforts by me and other Members to increase border patrol forces, add new detention facilities, and improve border monitoring, the problem of individuals entering our country illegally continues to impact communities across the country. Just last year, the number of immigrants entering our country illegally outnumbered those entering through legal means. While legal immigration contributes to the diversity and uniqueness of our society, illegal immigration undermines the system and weakens the legitimate process by which people can enter our country. With the Census Bureau estimating that 10 to 11 million people reside in our country illegally, clearly our strategy in confronting this issue must change.

Immigration and naturalization are constitutionally defined powers granted to the Federal Government. As such, many view the issue of immigration as strictly a Federal burden, to be addressed by Federal legislation, policies, and payment. While immigration policy is certainly initiated at the Federal level, one cannot ignore the inherent truth that the impact of illegal immigration is predominantly manifested in our State and local communities, often in the form of overwhelmed emergency rooms, overburdened school systems, and overcrowded prisons. Our local communities often find themselves with little recourse or ability to address the pervasive and crippling effects of a broken immigration system. These effects, of course, are not confined to our southern border regions,

but rather they reverberate across the country.

The country's immigration system is long overdue for a comprehensive overhaul, and I commend the efforts being made by a number of my colleagues to generate attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Ideas are being proposed to improve avenues for legal immigration, enhance enforcement capabilities, and address the growing presence of illegal immigrants with nationalities other than Mexican. While I applaud these proposals and eagerly await our opportunity to discuss them, I believe it is essential that we recognize the role our State and local communities can have in addressing illegal immigration, particularly when it comes to the area of enforcement. As such, I am introducing legislation today to solidify the right and opportunity of our State and local governments to enforce the law--immigration law.

Historically, the authority for State and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been limited to the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act; these include acts such as physically crossing the border illegally. By contrast, the enforcement of the act's civil provisions, which include apprehension and removal of deportable aliens already in the country, has been strictly a Federal responsibility, with States playing an incidental supporting role. This view was recently reinforced when a community in New Hampshire attempted to prosecute illegal immigrants for criminal trespass but was thwarted when a judge ruled it was constitutionally impermissible, stating that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction on civil immigration issues.

Enforcing the laws of our country should not be confined to Federal authorities when the illegal behavior specifically impacts the State and local communities. Just as State and local officials can arrest, detain, and prosecute for illicit drug violations, so they should be able to for illegal immigration violations. The legislation I propose today would enable State and local officials to arrest, detain, and prosecute illegal immigrants for all Federal immigration violations, both civil and criminal, and would authorize States to create immigration enforcement provisions in accordance with Federal immigration law. My proposal preserves the Federal Government's constitutionally delegated authority to determine immigration status, a determination to which the States would defer. Allowing communities to take enforcement actions based on their own needs, while working within limits set under Federal law, is sound, appropriate policy.

Further, in order to strengthen border security and reduce the strain on local and Federal border officials, my bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a Volunteer Border Marshal Program The program will assist the Department in securing our borders by using trained, State-licensed peace officers in a volunteer capacity. These volunteers would be assigned to the Border Patrol on temporary missions to identify and control illegal immigration, as well as human and drug trafficking.

In order to properly tackle the problem of illegal immigration, Federal, State, and local authorities must work as partners. Our communities must have the tools necessary to fight it effectively. My legislation will empower States and communities with a new weapon to combat illegal immigration and thereby reinforce our legal naturalization process. I encourage my colleagues to support this sensible approach to addressing this serious problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Florida, in bringing before the Senate today, S. 1281, the NASA Authorization Bill of 2005. Our subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee have worked hard to prepare legislation that we believe is important and timely, because it comes at a watershed moment in this Nation's civil space program.

That moment has come at no small cost. It grew out of a terrible tragedy that took place in the skies over Texas 2\1/2\ years ago, when the space shuttle Columbia and her brave crew were lost as they were returning home from an important and successful research mission.

In the aftermath of that accident, we were forced, as a nation, to once again confront the question of the value of space exploration in the face of the risks involved in sending our best and brightest--and those of other nations who are our partners in space exploration--into the hostile realm of space. The overwhelming and resounding answer, from the families of those who were lost to men, women and children across the country, and our elected leadership, was ``yes.'' They gave the same answer that Lewis and Clark gave to Thomas Jefferson 200 years ago, when he charged them with the task of exploring what was then a great, largely unknown expanse.

Just as that difficult but inspiring voyage of discovery opened the way for this Nation to spread its wings from sea to sea, the voyages of discovery into the far reaches of space have begun--and will continue-- to open vast opportunities for our Nation, and for the world.

While the vision that drove Lewis and Clark--the discovery of a northwest passage to the Pacific Ocean--was not the result they achieved, the understanding of the raw richness of our continent, and the insights into themselves and their fellow human beings provided a wealth of discovery more diverse and more valuable than any specific goal they had in mind as they began.

Among the many important findings of the investigation into the Columbia accident was the need for a renewed guiding vision for our human space exploration programs. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush provided the essence of that bold new vision for exploration, not only for NASA, but for the Nation. It extends far beyond his tenure in office--beyond the tenure of most of us serving in the Senate today. It reaches beyond many years and ultimately millions of miles into the solar system in which we live. It will require a long-standing commitment by this Nation, and it will not be an easy vision to accomplish. We will find unexpected obstacles and challenges along the way. If we didn't, it would not really be exploration. Our task as a nation, and in the company of international partners who will join us on this journey, will be to meet those challenges and turn them into opportunities.

The essential first step in the new Vision for Exploration was to return the space shuttle to flight. As we all know, the space shuttle Discovery launched into orbit and began this Nation's return to space flight on July 26th. Commander Eileen Collins and her crew,

the crew aboard the International Space Station, and the entire NASA team conducted an extremely successful first test flight to assess the progress made in the space shuttle program since the tragic Columbia accident. While the shedding of foam debris during liftoff--the direct cause of the damage to Columbia--was reduced to a level far below that previously experienced, it has not been eliminated and more work remains to understand and address that problem. Fortunately, among the major improvements in the Shuttle program is the vast increase in the ability to monitor and collect visual information on the health of the Orbiter both during launch and in orbit. That unprecedented level of information was combined with new on-orbit repair techniques to further enhance our confidence in the shuttle program's flight readiness. All of us, I'm sure, were thrilled to watch astronaut Steve Robinson deftly pluck the small gap fillers from Discovery's underside, and the amazing never before seen images of the orbiter's thermal protection system. Our subcommittee will continue to monitor the application of the findings of this first test flight to the preparations for the launch of the second test flight next year, which continues this first step in the Vision for Exploration.

The legislation we bring before the Senate today supports the Vision of Exploration outlined by the President. It provides an opportunity for the Congress to fulfill its responsibility to help set the stage for the commencement of our new national journey of exploration. It has been 5 years since the Congress has enacted authorization legislation for NASA and its programs. Those 5 years have seen a great deal of change in the realm of space exploration. First and foremost, for nearly all of that time, humans have been living and working continuously on orbit 240 miles above the earth aboard the International Space Station. Despite the interruption of its assembly by the Columbia accident, the space station has already provided a great deal of important scientific information resulting from the research the expedition crews aboard the ISS have been able to accomplish. And most of its laboratory facilities are not yet on orbit. The space station represents an immensely valuable asset for this Nation and our international and scientific partners, and the legislation before the Senate today will serve to ensure it realizes the vast potential it has long promised.

The past 5 years have seen other changes.

As we have undergone the recovery from the Columbia accident, we have witnessed the most comprehensive review of the hardware, systems and processing for the space shuttle program since it began operational flights 24 years ago. While we may never be able to completely eliminate the risks of human spaceflight, the space shuttle system is safer today than it has ever been, and we have learned valuable lessons that can be applied to the next generation of human space flight vehicle.

Last year we witnessed dramatic evidence of yet another major change in space exploration when pilot Mike Melville flew SpaceShipOne, built by the Scaled Deposits Corporation, over 100 kilometers high, to become the first person to fly a privately-built vehicle into the reaches of space on September 29, 2004. Five days later, on October 4 Brian Binnie at the controls, SpaceShipOne became the first private manned spacecraft to exceed an altitude of 328,000 feet twice within the span of a 14-day period. With that accomplishment, Scaled Deposits Corporation won the $10 million Ansari X-Prize, funded entirely by private funds. A new era in private, commercial development of manned and unmanned spacecraft has begun, which offers exciting opportunities for the future.

For example, two space entrepreneurs are planning to join together in the launch early next year of the Falcon V launch vehicle, built by Elon Musk's Space-X Corporation, which will carry aloft a prototype one-third scale space module built by Robert Bigelow's Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Other companies are developing designs and building prototype hardware that could be the precursors of commercially developed space station modules and the means of supplying and maintaining them with cargo and crews that could complement and expand the research opportunities provided by the International Space Station. S. 1281 includes language which both encourages and enables increased commercial involvement in space activities, including servicing the International Space Station, developing and conducting free-flying space research vehicles, and providing for increased use of competitive prizes and incentives to spur private investment and development. We would expect to see that private sector interest and involvement eventually extend beyond earth orbit to become an integral part of the nation's broader commitment to exploration of the Moon, Mars and destinations beyond.

I would like now to discuss some of the key provisions of the NASA reauthorization bill which I believe are especially important to the new beginning we are making as a nation within the Vision for Exploration.

There is an old saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It is also true that we must begin from where we find ourselves today. As I said earlier, the first step of the Vision was initiated this past summer with the launch of Discovery, and will continue with the subsequent flights of the space shuttle to complete the assembly of the International Space Station and fulfill our commitments to our international partners and--I must add--our commitments to our scientific partners.

Over the past 17 years, this Chamber has been the scene of vigorous discussion and debate on the International Space Station, long before the first module was launched in November of 1998. Through all that discussion, the central theme of those of us who supported the space station--and two-thirds of us consistently supported it in the votes following those debates--was that the ISS represents a unique laboratory in space, which holds the promise for scientific findings that can directly benefit us on Earth. I find it interesting to hear statements that the space station has not fulfilled that promise. Those who suggest that seem to have forgotten that it is not yet completed. In fact, only one of the three planned laboratories is on orbit now-- the US Destiny laboratory--and it is not yet fully equipped. The remaining modules are completed, and are at the Kennedy Space Center, awaiting their launch and outfitting so that the long-standing plans for ISS research can finally begin. We and our international partners have invested far too much in building and preparing those facilities, and the on-orbit structure that will provide their home and supporting power and crew accommodations, to back away from that investment now. To do so would not only represent a wasteful, irresponsible and inexcusable breach of faith with the American taxpayers, but an unconscionable betrayal of scientists and researchers in a wide range of disciplines who have invested years of effort and resources preparing to conduct research that can only be done in the microgravity of space.

This bill acknowledges and reaffirms our commitment to fulfill the promise of the ISS. We recognize that NASA has limited total resources and has been given an enormous task to lead the Vision for Exploration. The demands of many valuable and important existing programs have forced NASA to make difficult choices in focusing those scarce resources in ways which support the goals of the Vision. We understand that reality, and have attempted in this 5-year reauthorization bill to provide a stable, consistent and moderately increasing level of funding to enable NASA to address those challenges.

At the same time, we have encouraged, as I noted earlier, the increased participation and involvement of commercial interests and capabilities, in a way that can relieve NASA of some of the basic burdens of space operations. With respect to space station research, we believe additional steps must be taken to enable NASA to conduct the research it must to support long-duration human spaceflight, and to return to the Moon, and move onward to Mars, while not sacrificing or undermining the investment we have made in the ISS.

To accomplish this, the legislation designates the U.S. segment of the

International Space Station as national laboratory facility. It further directs the NASA Administrator to develop a plan, within one year after enactment of the bill, to establish a ground-based national laboratory structure that will be responsible for maintaining and operating the research capabilities in the on-orbit laboratory facilities. The ISS national laboratory will be empowered to establish scientific--and funding--relationships with other governmental and non-governmental entities and to include international participation as well. The infusion of new participants and non-NASA resources will free NASA of much of the financial burden it would require to sustain broad-based research aboard ISS, and would thus enable it to focus its ISS research, as planned, on those disciplines and experiments which directly support the needs of the Vision for Exploration.

We believe this represents a creative and responsible approach to meeting our international commitments and fulfilling the long-standing research promise of the ISS, while not inhibiting NASA's pursuit of its exploration objectives.

In order to continue the Nation's exploration activities, both in continuing essential activities in low-Earth orbit and moving outward, back to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, we must have a new generation of launch and flight vehicles. The Vision for Exploration calls for the development of a new crew exploration vehicle and associated launch systems, to meet that objective.

As I have stated, this legislation supports the goals and objectives of Vision for Exploration. As the saying goes, however, sometimes ``the devil is in the details.'' As those details have been revealed in the planning to implement the vision, I have expressed concerns about some of the early transitional steps to redirect NASA's emphasis from low- Earth orbit to exploration of the Moon and Mars. I have already addressed the question of ensuring the maximum use of the International Space Station. My other primary concern has to do with the transition from the Space Shuttle to the new crew exploration vehicle. The initial announcement of the Vision for Exploration called for the termination of Shuttle flights in 2010, and the first flight of the crew exploration vehicle in 2014. The resulting 4-year hiatus in this Nation's ability to launch humans into space was simply unacceptable to me. It would represent a serious degradation of our national and economic security, as the community of spacefaring nations expands with the advent of Chinese human spaceflight capability and the potential of even more nations developing such capability, potentially challenging U.S. leadership in this important strategic area and major engine of technological advancement.

S. 1281, as introduced, stated that uninterrupted U.S. spaceflight capability is essential to our Nation, and required, in Section 202 of the bill, that the Space Shuttle Orbiter not be retired until a replacement crew-capable space vehicle be made operational. NASA's new Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, stated, in his confirmation hearing before the Commerce Committee, and again in a subsequent subcommittee hearing on the space shuttle, that he shared our concern about a lengthy hiatus period in U.S. spaceflight capability. Since assuming leadership of NASA, he has undertaken an effort to approach the development of the replacement vehicle in such a way as to close that gap as much as possible. In anticipation of the success of those efforts, Senator Nelson and I agreed to a modification of the language in the bill--included in the manager's amendment to the bill--which provides some flexibility in meeting the goal of uninterrupted U.S. spaceflight capability, but continues to state it as a policy objective. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study was recently completed and I am very pleased to say that the results track very closely to the provisions of S. 1281. The CEV development would be accelerated to 2012, with the possibility of moving its operational date to 2011. The key to CEV acceleration is largely a question of resources, and sufficient funding could enable an even earlier operational date, possibly closing the potential gap in spaceflight capability altogether.

In Dr. Griffin's appearance before the Science and Space Subcommittee during our hearing on the space shuttle program, he pointed out that the plan for space shuttle retirement involves the retirement of the Orbiters, not necessarily the additional components that make up what we call the space shuttle. Those additional components are the solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank.

I remind my colleagues that the Orbiter is a vehicle that has two major spaceflight functions combined in a single vehicle: the delivery of crew to and from orbit, and the delivery of cargo, or payloads, to and from orbit. The future developments of U.S. human spaceflight capability are intended to separate those functions. That will enable the development of much more simplified--and arguably much safer, more efficient, and less costly--vehicles to serve each separate function. The provisions of S. 1281--coupled with the revised plans for vehicle development recently announced, will fulfill those objectives using major elements of our existing systems and adapting them to meet the requirements of both manned and unmanned launch systems.

Launch vehicles and spaceflight vehicles do not prepare and launch themselves into orbit or maintain themselves entirely independently while in space. They require ground-based support facilities, institutions and skilled personnel. The maintenance of those capabilities are, in fact, the most labor and resource-intensive elements of a spaceflight program, over time. They must be maintained even when the vehicles themselves are not flying, and must be kept in a high state of readiness. For human spaceflight systems, especially, that expertise and readiness are fundamental elements of flight safety.

The non-orbiter elements of the space shuttle program, both in flight hardware and ground support, represent an enormous national asset and, with modifications and reengineering, can potentially be adapted to meet--in separate configurations--the requirements for human spaceflight and for the launch of large, heavy payloads. Those large payloads are beyond the reach of either evolved expendable launch vehicles or privately-developed launch vehicles--or the current or planned launch vehicles of any other nation, for that matter. For these reasons, and others, this legislation directs and encourages 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. Again, the new NASA plans will do just that, as envisioned by this legislation.

Another important and historical NASA research activity is aeronautical research, a fundamental part of NASA's activities since its inception. Indeed, not only is ``aeronautics'' the first ``a'' in NASA, but NASA came into being as an expansion of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, which was established in 1915. That heritage is an important NASA legacy and the continued health of the Nation's aerospace industry in a very competitive global market-place makes it essential that our Nation have solid aeronautical research capabilities. Equally important, in an environment of limited resources, is that decisions about priorities for funding and programs be guided by a clear statement of policy, based on a thorough understanding of both available assets and essential requirements. This legislation directs the development of a national policy to guide the Nation's aeronautical research--including that conducted by NASA. The policy is to be developed within one year after enactment of the legislation, in order to provide time for a thorough and complete assessment of every aspect of aeronautics research, and yet provide the earliest possible guidance for both the administration and the Congress in determining the appropriate funding levels for U.S. aeronautics research. We have chosen not to establish a specific level of funding for that research in the legislation, in order to provide the flexibility for the NASA Administrator to establish those levels using the national policy guidance we have required to be developed.

Finally, let me say something about the broad range of science activities

for which NASA has always been known. The remarkable feat of the Deep Impact asteroid interception mission and the extraordinary success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars Rovers are, of course, only the most recent and dramatic examples of NASA Space Science expertise. Less spectacular, but equally significant, are the earth observation and earth sciences programs which help us understand--and better care for-- the spaceship of which all of as are crew members--spaceship Earth. As with aeronautics research, we have not spelled out specific funding authorization levels for the full 5 years authorized among the various science disciplines, providing flexibility for the NASA Administrator to make the best judgments about resource allocations. However, we express clearly in this bill the need for maintaining a balanced science portfolio throughout all NASA programs. In addition, we require accountability and will maintain careful oversight over the plans and decisions made to implement that balance.

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 other body, we will be able to craft 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.

I want to thank my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, for the spirit of cooperation he and his staff have brought to the development and refinement of this legislation. It represents a truly bi-partisan--really a non-partisan--result, as is appropriate for the Nation's space exploration programs. I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of my Subcommittee staff and the full Commerce Committee staff who have worked to bring this measure before the Senate. And, of course, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senators Stevens and Inouye, who have supported our efforts to provide authorization and a strong policy foundation to our Nation's space exploration efforts.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1281.