Floor Statements

Madam President, I think President Bush has hit a home run. Because I was with the Baylor Lady Bears this morning congratulating them on winning the national NCAA women's basketball championship, I would say he hit a three-pointer from midcourt. I think John Roberts is exactly what our country expects in quality and demeanor for a person to be elevated to the highest court in our land. The Supreme Court is such an important part of our Constitution, unique, really, in the world, that we have a judicial branch with such stature as the coequal branch of government along with the President and the Congress. For someone to be able to sit on the Supreme Court, you look for a John Roberts, someone who has integrity, temperament for the Court, and you have to have judicial temperament because you are an arbiter who is going to affect people's lives.

Academic achievement. We want our Supreme Court Justices to have the finest legal mind possible, and John Roberts fits that description-- Harvard, summa cum laude graduate; Harvard Law School, graduated with honors, and respect of his peers. When you have someone such as Walter Dellinger, who served as Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton, who told the Judiciary Committee at one point, ``In my view, there is no better appellate advocate than John Roberts,'' I think that shows the range of support and respect from his peers John Roberts has. He has experience in a variety of legal fields including, of course, serving on the Circuit Court of Appeals, second only to the Supreme Court. But he is also young enough that he will be able to make a lasting impression on the Supreme Court. At the age of 50, we know he has many years to serve.

Some people have asked me, well, didn't you want a woman? Well, yes, of course, I did. Of course, I think diversity is important on the Supreme Court. I would like to see another woman. I would like to see a Hispanic American on the Supreme Court. But I believe first and foremost what we want is the very best person, and for this time the President has chosen John Roberts. I think we should give him our full support.

Yes, the Senate is going to do its due diligence. Yes, we are going to meet our responsibilities. We are going to ask questions. We are going to examine his background. Of course, we are going to look at his record as an attorney, as a judge. But we also are going to do it with integrity and with a respect for the process. I think Justice Ginsburg's confirmation process is an example. In fact, President Clinton's two nominees for the Court took an average of 58 days from nomination to confirmation. I think 2 months is an acceptable amount of time to be able to delve into someone's background and career, to be able to ask the questions you would expect from the Senate, and I thought

that in President Clinton's nominations we gave him deference. As Senator Durbin said, just before me, President Bush is not going to appoint someone Dick Durbin would appoint. Well, certainly President Clinton isn't going to appoint someone that I would also nominate. But that wasn't the question. The people of America elected President Clinton, just as they elected President Bush. So we now need to look at their nominee, knowing that perhaps the philosophy may not be the same on the other side of the aisle as it is going to be for President Bush's nominee. But I want the same deference given to John Roberts I gave to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I looked at her record of integrity, I listened to the people who were for her and against her, and I determined that for President Clinton this was a nominee who should be supported. She would not meet my litmus test of issues, but she is an academically qualified person of integrity with judicial temperament.

I hope Judge Roberts receives the same level of support and respect that has been given to Justice Ginsburg by this Senate.

President Bush and the White House staff have demonstrated an unprecedented level of consultation with Senators. I don't think any President and his staff have consulted with as many Senators as President Bush has on this, his first nominee. I was very pleased to be called and to be able to give names.

I admit that John Roberts was one of the names I mentioned in my consultation call as the example of the very great legal mind and opportunity he would bring to the Court. He is the kind of person we expect to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Everything I have heard so far, both from Democrats and Republicans-- Republicans being supportive, Democrats being wait and see, let's look at the record, but not negative--is a good thing. John Roberts is going to meet every test. He showed when he was at his Senate confirmation hearing for his circuit court of appeals appointment that he is really good. He had tough questions. You could see the intelligence coming through.

I know he is a family man. He was with his wife and two precious children at the hearing he had a couple of years ago and then again last night. He is a family man who will be a role model for children, for our country, and a patriot, a person who wants to be a public servant, someone who believes in our country and the role of the Supreme Court in our country.

This is a man who is going to be confirmed very easily. I hope that is the case. I hope the Senate will show how the Senate ought to operate with due diligence and, yes, asking questions in a respectful way for this very esteemed judge who is being proposed for the Supreme Court by our President.

I am proud of our President. He has done a terrific job of looking at all of the options and saying he wants one of his legacies to be the selection of a great Supreme Court Justice who will serve for a long time. He has made the right choice.

I support this nomination. I support the right of the Senate to do our responsibility under the Constitution for advice and consent. That is going to happen from the early indications I have seen, in the talk shows, in the questioning by the media, and also in the Senate. I look forward to the next 2 months and seeing this institution do what we ought to be doing in the right way.

I am very proud today to support the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate office building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review bio-security preparedness and efforts to address agroterrorism threats.

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet to hold a Business Meeting on July 20, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. on the following agenda:

Resolutions: To authorize GSA's fiscal year 06 Capital Investment and Leasing Program; to authorize a lease prospectus for the General Services Administration headquarters; committee resolution on the Delaware River and its Tributaries, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; committee resolution on the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material on the Delaware River, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; committee resolution on the South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River, IL; and committee resolution on the Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou, LA.

Nominations: Marcus A. Peacock, of Minnesota, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Granta Y. Nakayama, of Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency.

Legislation: H.R. 1428 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2005; S. 1250 Great Apes Bill; S. 1409 Alaska Native Villages reauthorization; S. 1265 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005; S. 1339 Duck Stamp bill; S. 1340 Pittman-Robertson extension; S. 158 Long Island Sound; S. 1410 Neotropical Birds reauthorization; S. 1415 Lacey Act technical correction; and S. 1400 Water Infrastructure Bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nominations of Robert M. Kimmitt, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Randal Quarles, to be Under Secretary of the Treasury, Domestic Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Sandra L. Pack, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Management, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Kevin I. Fromer, to be Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury, Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 10:15 a.m. to hold a hearing on Accelerating Economic Progress in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Reporters' Privilege Legislation: Issues and Implications'' on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: The Honorable James Comey, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Matthew Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine Inc., Washington, DC.

Norman Pearlstine, Editor-in-Chief, Time Inc., New York City, NY.

William Safire, Political Columnist, New York Times Company, New York City, NY.

Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon and Reindel LLP, New York City,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Commmittee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 20, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Commmittee on Aging be authorized to meet Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 2:30 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 10 a.m. on A Review of United States Climate Policy and the $5 Billion Budget Request for Climate Related Science and Technology in fiscal year 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 2 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 703, to provide for the conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in the State of Nevada to the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, and for other purposes; S. 997, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest, MT, to Jefferson County, MT, for use as a cemetery; S. 1131, to authorize the exchange of certain Federal land within the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 1170, to establish the Fort Stanton-Snowy River National Cave Conservation area; S. 1238, to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to provide for the conduct of projects that protect forests, and other purposes; and H.R. 1101, to revoke a public land order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, CA.

Is there a time limit?

Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray, Senator Akaka, and all Members who have worked together with Senator Feinstein and myself on this veterans issue.

I spent last Thursday with Veterans' Administration Secretary Nicholson. I am very pleased Secretary Nicholson has done so much to address this issue once he determined from an audit of the agency that we were not going to get through 2005 for the Veterans' Administration without taking from maintenance funds and other funds to cover our operating expenditures. The Secretary could have tried to put this Band-Aid on, but he did not. Secretary Nicholson came right out and said we do not have enough for 2005. We have models that show us what the growth rate for service in the Veterans' Administration would be. The models show about 2.3 percent. That has been the norm throughout the last number of years. But in fact the growth rate is 5 percent. So Secretary Nicholson, Josh Bolton, at the Office of Management and Budget, and the President himself said we are not going to put a Band- Aid on the Veterans' Administration.

Senator Murray saw this coming early on. She did believe there were more veterans coming into the system from what she was hearing in the field, and the Veterans' Administration at that time did not see the model that was not working. But when they did, they stepped up to the plate. They have now come back with numbers that are higher than the $975 million that has been put in an emergency appropriation on the House side just for 2005. Now, our $1.5 billion that I intend to support is to be spent this year or going into next year if necessary. I am going to support this amendment and, in fact, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Murray amendment.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield the remainder of our time to Senator Murray.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at 10 a.m. on Digital Television Transmission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Digital Television Transmission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 12 at 10 a.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Jill L. Sigal to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; David R. Hill to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy; and James A. Rispoli to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at 2 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Improper Payments: Where are Truth and Transparency in Federal Financial Reporting?''.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Music Licensing Reform'' on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on water and power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 3 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 49, to establish a joint Federal-State Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission for the State of Alaska; S. 247, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, Oregon; S. 648, to amend the reclamation states emergency drought relief act of 1991 to extend the authority for drought assistance; S. 819, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes; S. 891, to extend the water service contract for the Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Nebraska; and S. 1338, to require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the bureau of reclamation and the United States Geological Survey, to conduct a study on groundwater resources in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk on two issues. First, I think everyone is talking about Sandra Day O'Connor and the great contribution she has made to our country. I am pleased to say she is a friend of mine. I have gotten to know her because we have many of the same parts of our background. Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, TX, and she actually graduated from high school in El Paso, TX. She grew up on a ranch in Arizona, and it was, of course, a remote place, so her parents sent her to high school in Texas to try to make sure she received a first-rate education.

I think we see from her record in college and law school that she did, indeed, receive fine preparation. She was one of the brightest students to come out of Stanford Law School, graduating right at the top of her class along with her classmate, William Rehnquist.

Sandra Day O'Connor is a person who has overcome obstacles, and she has done it in the most graceful way, in a way that is a role model for girls in our country, for women in our country, because she has always kept a positive attitude. When she couldn't get a job out of Stanford Law School, graduating right at the top of her class, she cajoled an offer from the county attorney in the county where Stanford was located, and was able to win that first job. Then, of course, she excelled from that time forward.

She has excelled in everything she has done. She became the leader of her party in the State Senate in Arizona. She was plucked from the State court of appeals to become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

When you think about it, to be thrust into this national limelight as the first woman to become a Supreme Court Justice in our country, in 1981, this was a glaring spotlight for a young woman from Arizona who was on the court of appeals at the State level. Yet President Reagan saw something in her that was quite special. He saw that she had the leadership abilities and the basic grounding and the intellect to take this job. He really took somewhat of a chance because she wasn't the well-known commodity that Supreme Court Justices usually are. But he knew the time was right to appoint a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court and he found the woman who was the right one for the job. She earned her place in history.

As she announces today that she is taking her retirement, I think all of us who know her and have admired her for so many years do want to wish her well. We believe she deserves this wonderful opportunity to have some time for herself.

Sandra Day O'Connor also was named to the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. That is another connection that we have. This is a wonderful museum in Fort Worth, TX, that honors the cowgirls of our country who have made a difference, the cowgirls who have shown that ranching life and that independent spirit can be the basis for success that is really unmatched. Sandra Day O'Connor is in the Cowgirl Hall of Fame and she is a real cowgirl. She did grow up on a ranch. She talks about her childhood where they didn't even have running water in her home. Growing up like that made her hardy and able to overcome obstacles.

She has made quite an impression on the Court as well. Sandra Day O'Connor has been one of those people on the Court who is a strict constructionist and who is an intellectual who is sometimes considered a swing vote, but you always know that her conservative philosophy is one that is very careful not to make laws from the bench but allows lawmakers to make the laws of our country.

I think her opinion as the dissenting opinion in the most recent case on eminent domain shows that basic conservative philosophical underpinning, saying it would be outrageous to expand public purpose in eminent domain to include private projects, even if they are private projects that are going to enhance the tax base of the city. That is not what the Constitution intended in its preservation of private property rights.

I think Sandra Day O'Connor has made an impact on the Court and an impact on our country.

I want to end my talk about Sandra Day O'Connor reading from an interview I did with her when I was interviewing for my book ``American Heroines,'' interviewing the women of today who are breaking barriers, the women of today who are the first at something that is important. Sandra Day O'Connor, of course, the first woman on our United States Supreme Court, was one of those I interviewed.

I asked her what was her most important trait for success. And she said something I think is especially important to note today, on the day she announces her retirement. She said:

I am blessed with having a lot of energy. I think I

inherited it from my mother. But to be a working mother

requires an enormous amount of energy to do your job and to

manage to take care of your family and to go nonstop all the

time with never any personal downtime. I can't remember a

time in my life when I had time for myself.

I think on the day that she is announcing her retirement, to have that time for herself, makes us understand that this is a woman who deserves, finally, to have her time for her family.

She said:

Another attribute that perhaps has been helpful is a

curiosity about things, how things work. I think a love of

learning and finding out about things is useful. And, third,

probably, is liking people. Enjoying talking to them, whoever

they are with whatever lifestyle or standard of living. I

have always enjoyed talking to people. I think I got that,

maybe, from my grandmother, in Texas.

So that is just one excerpt from an interview with an extraordinary woman, a woman who made her mark in the history of the United States and who will always be remembered, as we wish her well in her retirement, as one of the leaders of our time, the leaders of the last century who, indeed, did break an important barrier.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the Veterans' Administration issue that we dealt with this week in the Senate. I want to bring us up to date, where we are, to try to fix some of the problems that Secretary Jim Nicholson has brought to our attention. We were hoping that the Veterans' Administration would not have financial difficulties this year. But I have to say that Jim Nicholson stepped right up to the plate when he saw that, in fact, we would have a shortfall this year, and we would need to borrow from capital funds and maintenance funds in order to make ends meet by the end of this fiscal year, September 30. He came straight to Congress. He didn't try to hide it. He didn't go and try to Band-Aid the Veterans' Administration. He came absolutely public, to the Congress, and said: We have a problem. Even though he did not anticipate it, even as late as a month ago.

But, in fact, models that have been used for 20 years in the Veterans' Administration have had to change because we do have veterans now coming out of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more injuries and fewer deaths in this kind of conflict, and I think we are proud there are fewer deaths and we are proud these soldiers who are injured are going to be taken care of.

The Senate voted unanimously this week to amend the appropriations bill that was on the floor with an emergency supplemental of $1.5 billion. This was the initial estimate Secretary Nicholson gave to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs about what they would need to get through the 2005 fiscal year and take them into 2006 with their preliminary estimates.

Last night, the House of Representatives passed a bill for $975 billion as an emergency supplemental, just taking care of the year 2005. That now is resting in the Senate.

I have talked to Secretary Nicholson today. I talked to Josh Bolton at the Office of Management and Budget today. I have asked them to come back to the Senate the week of July 11, and tell what they project their needs to be for 2006. As chairman of the Veterans Affairs Appropriations Committee, along with my colleague Senator Feinstein, who is the ranking member, we want to have all of the information before we mark up our 2006 budget for the Veterans' Administration which will occur July 21. I asked Secretary Nicholson and the Office of Management and Budget director to determine what is going to be needed in 2006, and if they can give us that number and assure the money will be transferred into the budget for 2006, then the Senate would pass the House bill and send it to the President so that 2005 would be taken care of. We did not want to pass that bill until we know the 2006 number is finite so we can assure we will take care of the 2006 deficit in projections. We must try to do this in July to get our appropriations bills going.

We are going to come back July 11 or 12. Hopefully, we will have numbers next week that will allow us either to pass the House bill that will take care of 2005, knowing exactly what we will need to take care of 2006, or send the $1.5 billion that has already passed the Senate over to the House to take care of 2005 and take us into 2006 with a cushion if the Veterans' Administration says they cannot make good estimates for the rest of 2006 at this time. That is where we stand.

Here is the point I make: The Veterans' Administration, the President of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget Director--the Office of Management and Budget being responsible for being the steward of the President's budget--the Democrats on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Republicans on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, all working together along with the House of Representatives, are going to do what is right for veterans. We will not make this a partisan issue. We will not make it some test between any function of Government. We are going to do what is right for the veterans who have served our country, who are protecting freedom for our children. The money will be there. There will not be one iota of service not given to a veteran today or next week or next year. That is our commitment to them. It is part of the war on terrorism.

Democrats and Republicans are going to work together. The President is going to assure we do. The Veterans' Administration and the Office of Management and Budget are going to do the right thing. And Secretary Nicholson has already done the right thing by coming forward in a public way, being criticized by some for having made these mistakes, but saying, I am not going to let this pass for one more day. We are going to do the right thing.

Everyone is working together. We will do the right thing by the veterans. We will have a supplemental appropriation. We will get a bill to the President in very short order to make sure not one stone is left unturned to give our veterans the best care possible for the great service they have performed for our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of this agreement. Twelve years ago, I rose in this Chamber to speak about NAFTA to express a vision that free trade will one day encompass all of North, Central, and South America. Today, we have an opportunity to further that vision by entering into an agreement that will strengthen U.S. trade relations and promote democratic reform in Central America.

CAFTA will provide the U.S. exports with market access to Central America, similar to the duty-free access we have given Central American exports. Although nearly 80 percent of Central American and the Dominican Republic exports enter the U.S. duty free, America continues to pay high tariffs on over $1.5 billion of annual exports to Central America, our tenth largest export market globally.

CAFTA rectifies this inconsistency by providing open market access to U.S. goods, services, and farm product exports. Specifically, over 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial product exports to Central America and the Dominican Republic will be duty free immediately upon implementation of CAFTA. The remaining tariffs are phased out over 10 years.

Almost 20 years ago, Central American countries were ruled by dictators and communist insurgencies creating chaos and fostering corruption. With American support and encouragement, Central America has evolved into a region of fragile democracies. Elected leaders are welcoming freedom and encouraging economic diversity, while looking to the United States for a means to develop a mutually beneficial relationship. CAFTA allows the United States to strengthen the economic ties we currently have with Central America and the Dominican Republic, while supporting political stability.

History shows us that bilateral and regional free-trade agreements promote economic growth by significantly increasing U.S. exports. In my home State of Texas, exports to Chile have doubled since the Chile free-trade agreement was implemented in 2004. The success of NAFTA in the last 10 years yields similar results. Since NAFTA was implemented, combined exports from America to Mexico and Canada have increased by more than 150 percent in Texas, and 113 percent nationally.

CAFTA shows the same promise and encourages U.S. growth as well. One out of ten jobs in the United States depends on exports. Similarly, foreign companies which invest in the United States create jobs. In fact, since 1990, foreign companies have invested more than $1.5 trillion and employed more than 6 million U.S. workers. Free-trade agreements encourage export growth and help create jobs.

I think it is important, also, to look at this from a hemispheric point of view. I do believe that it is important that we have free trade from the very north, Canada, all the way through the tip of South America. Strengthening our hemisphere will be good for America, and it will be good for every country in this hemisphere. It will also help us with many of the problems that we face with disparate economies. Many of our immigration issues come from people wanting to come to the United States because they cannot earn a living for their own families where they live. It is not that they want to leave their countries, it is that they are trying to provide for their families. If we have more free trade in our hemisphere, people will be able to support their families where they live, and we will have healthy economic relations with those countries rather than dealing with that on the basis of an immigration problem.

So I do think that as we are looking at the places where we can strengthen economies, and where it is in our best interests to strengthen economies, we should look in our own backyard. We are having trade issues with China and with the European Union. Why not look to our own hemisphere, our own backyard, for strengthened relationships? That is what CAFTA will continue us on the right track to do. We have NAFTA and now we have Canada,

the United States and Mexico; we have Chile and we have other countries in South America. I think the Central American agreement will add another component to that.

I want free trade with every country in South America with which we can get an agreement. This is a very important part of our long-term stability and the strength of our economy and the economy of our whole hemisphere.

I hope we will look at the big picture. I know that many Senators are concerned about jobs in their States and the impact this might have. Many people in Texas were very concerned about NAFTA because of the labor being less expensive just across the border, but NAFTA has been an overall plus for Texas, as it has been for America. We want to continue to strengthen our relationships with Mexico, Central America, and all the way through the tip of South America.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

I ask unanimous consent that the time I consumed be charged to Senator Grassley.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to start this morning by finishing something that Senator Murray just talked about and say that today the Veterans' Administration is going to step to the plate, along with Members of the Senate.

Senator Murray has been so helpful in working out some agreements that will allow us to pour another $1.5 billion into the veterans programs. We will talk more about that later today. But Senator Santorum, Senator Kyl, Senator Craig, myself, Senator Murray, Senator Byrd, and Senator Rockefeller have come together as a united front to assure that veterans who are coming back from this war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not shortchanged. This is the way we should work with the administration and the Senate.

Mr. President, I do want to start our morning business time to talk about the President's speech last night, when he was talking to those wonderful soldiers at Fort Bragg, NC, and laying out for the American people not only the victories and the successes we are having in Iraq but also talking about the hard pull that we are making, that those soldiers are making.

I thought the President's candor was refreshing. He did not say: This is all hunky-dory. He said this is a long, hard road. He said: In the beginning, I said it would be. It has certainly proven to be. I think he was candid about exactly where we are, that we have had some great successes, and we have had some setbacks. Certainly, the vote of the Iraqi people was a huge success. That has set the stage for the next phase of trying to secure Iraq and making a difference in the Middle East.

When people talk about what is happening in Iraq, I do not think we hear enough about how much better off the Iraqi people are today. Oh, yes, it is hard to see suicide bombers taking innocent lives. It is. But remember how many innocent lives were taken by Saddam Hussein.

When Saddam Hussein was taking innocent lives, there was no hope for those people. There was no way out. Today innocent lives are being taken, but they are not being taken in vain. They are being taken in a cause for freedom that will end in democracy for Iraq. That is what the President laid out last night. The President has taken the Iraqi people from a despot who was torturing and killing innocent people--sometimes for sport--and is turning Iraq into a country that is trying to get its own feet on the ground and establish the roots of democracy.

When I look at some of the improvements that are being made in Iraq that I hear about from our armed services personnel returning from Iraq--and I have been to Iraq, but I always like to talk to the people who have been there most recently--when I talk to the young men and women on their R&R leave in the middle of their term, then I see that there are roads being built. The oil industry is being repaired. The electricity grids are being restored and improved. Schools are being opened. The Iraqis see Americans teaching in the schools and providing medical care, rebuilding their infrastructure. Within

a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein, electricity generation was higher than prewar levels, and it has increased since then. Water supplies have been repaired and sewage systems have been fixed. It is incredible the progress that has been made.

We have to look at the big picture. What the President was saying last night is that we are on the cusp of beginning to show people throughout the Middle East that self-governance is something all people can achieve. We are beginning to see the seeds of that self-governance today.

Our distinguished assistant leader, Senator McConnell, is here. I want him to have his full 5 minutes, so I will close my remarks.

I am proud that our President especially chose to go to Fort Bragg, NC, and give his report to the American people in front of those wonderful soldiers who are protecting freedom for America, just as those in World War I and World War II did. The people of America will stay the course. We will protect freedom for our children, and we are being led by our President to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican side?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Stevens.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. He has been such a strong leader as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee as well. No one knows better how the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are performing their duties and how this administration has stepped up to the plate to make sure they have what they need to do the job. He has been to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has visited the troops, as have I, and his words were very helpful in talking to the American people about this subject.

Mr. President, as we begin this day, we are also going to have a very important amendment that will help our veterans be able to have the service they need as they are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many of the veterans of previous wars who are now in the Veterans' Administration system.

Secretary Jim Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, came to the Congress just this past week and said that there has been a surge in the use of veterans facilities that has caused the ability to determine what will be needed in the future to be skewed. All of the patterns of the past are now not in place for use today because we have more veterans coming into the system. That is not a bad thing.

We owe the veterans the care they thought they would receive when they entered the military service and which they so richly deserve. Whether they fought in a war or not, they were there to serve, and many of them did fight in wars--brutal wars. The one we are in now is a brutal war. There are actually more injuries and fewer deaths in the kind of war that we are fighting. That means that many people are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan injured.

Our President has said unequivocally that we are going to take care of those people who have served, and we are going to treat their injuries because they deserve to have that treatment. So Secretary Nicholson has come to us and asked for an emergency appropriation. We are going to give Secretary Nicholson, of course, an emergency appropriation.

Senator Murray and Senator Byrd are working on an amendment. I have a second-degree amendment with Senators Santorum, Kyl, and Craig. It is a leadership amendment because we put it together with the White House, the OMB, and the Veterans Affairs Department, to try to get the numbers. We wanted to know what we will need for this year, going into next year.

I am chairman of the Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. I have worked with Senator Craig, who is the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which authorizes the policies that affect veterans. We have put together a second-degree amendment to Senator Murray's and Senator Byrd's amendment that will put $1.5 billion into the system immediately, and it will be there until it is spent. It will take us into the next fiscal year, because we are not going to scrimp on serving our veterans. We need more prostheses; we need improved ability to help people who have lost arms or legs, or who have been burned. We are going to provide that help, Mr. President, and our amendment is going to be a consensus that will come together with everybody at the table.

We are going to do the right thing by our veterans with an emergency appropriation that will come to the Senate floor this afternoon. It will be put on the Interior appropriations bill. We worked with Senator Burns and his staff to put this emergency in at the first possible vehicle, and the first vehicle is on the Senate floor today. We just got the numbers this week. That is why we are going to immediately put in force an emergency appropriation that will assure that our Veterans' Administration has the funds it needs to treat these veterans. It also is going to assure that we don't take from the building funds because we know there are many veterans facilities in the process of being built or promised to be built. We need more veterans facilities, not fewer. So taking from maintenance accounts or capital accounts didn't seem like the right thing to do.

We worked together with the Veterans' Administration, with the leadership of our President, with Democrats and Republicans, to come up with the right numbers to put it on the first bill that will go through the Senate this week. We hope the House will work with us to fund this appropriation and that nothing will be, in any way, delayed or denied to a veteran, either one coming back from Iraq or one coming back from Afghanistan or from anywhere in the world, or a veteran who has served previously.

Mr. President, I so appreciate the President's speech last night. I appreciate that he gave his speech at Fort Bragg, NC, in front of those men and women serving our country in the most noble way. I appreciate that the President said we hope more people will volunteer for the Army. We need more volunteers right now. We are ramping up the end strength of the Army by 30,000. This is part of our ongoing effort to revamp the Army. The Army is doing a fabulous job in Iraq. So are the Marines. The Navy and the Air Force are helping. But we need to have America come together.

I was so pleased that the President asked Americans to do something next week, on July 4, Independence Day. He asked every American to reach out to a family of someone serving today in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know the people of America will respond. I know they will go to that Web site and start the process of finding out how they can do more to give those young men and women with boots on the ground overseas fighting terror the opportunity to talk to their folks back home, to talk to their families.

The President is taking the lead, and the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--must come together to lead our country to do the right thing in the war on terror.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to, first of all, read the cosponsors of the amendment in the proper order. They are Senators Santorum, Hutchison, Craig, Kyl, Frist, McConnell, Talent, Thune, Collins, Murray, and Byrd. That is the order of everyone coming on board. I so appreciate Senator Murray and Senator

Byrd also being cosponsors of this amendment. Frankly, all of us were taken aback last week when we got this information, and we did come together in a bipartisan way to try to address the issue very quickly. That is why we are now trying to put an emergency amendment on the vehicle that is on the floor today. We want to make sure the Veterans' Administration has the money it needs and that it doesn't take from other very essential accounts, such as maintenance or capital. We want to have sound financial management as well as serving veterans needs.

It would be terrible to go into the next fiscal year, starting October 1, in any kind of a deficit situation. My bill, the Veterans' Administration and Military Construction Appropriations bill, was scheduled to be marked up tomorrow. Clearly, when we heard that the Veterans' Administration did have problems with its projections, we decided to put that off until mid-July. I hope--and it is my intention--by mid-July to have better information so that we will know what the $1.5 billion will cover between now and October 1 and what is going to be necessary for the 2006 budget, if anything, beyond the $1.5 billion. I will say that through the great cooperation of my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, and the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, which would be Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, we were able to get $1.3 billion above the allocation that we had originally been given for veterans even before this happened. So because of Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, and Senator Stevens, we were able to go forward with an extra $1.3 billion, knowing that the Veterans' Administration has been called on more than any projections would have anticipated. But today we are trying to now pass $1.5 billion over and above that $1.3 billion for 2005 purposes so that we are in a sound financial situation.

The President, speaking last night, started reminding people why we are in a war on terrorism and what it means to America and what it means to our security. Part of the war on terrorism, part of any war for freedom, is making sure that those Active-Duty and Reserve units serving right now with boots on the ground know that if they are injured, if they can no longer serve because they are injured, when they leave the service they will be taken care of. That is part of our responsibility as the stewards of our Government and certainly our appropriations process.

As the chairman, along with my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, of the committee that will be doing the appropriations for veterans, this is an amendment that is very important. It is an emergency, and it will take us into fiscal year 2006 so that we will not have any kind of fiscal restraints. But we certainly are going to have to look at fiscal year 2006 as we go down the road and work with the Veterans' Administration and the OMB and our Democratic colleagues and our House colleagues to make sure that we are not in any way shortchanging the veterans.

I am pleased to work with Senator Santorum representing the leadership on our side of the aisle, and Senator Murray and Senator Byrd and the leaders on their side of the aisle to come together through the second-degree amendment offered by Senators Santorum, Hutchison, Craig, Kyl, Frist, McConnell, Talent, Thune, Collins, Murray, and Byrd. This second-degree amendment will bring us in line, and it will assure that the Veterans' Administration has the flexibility to put this money where it is needed. That was a very important part of the amendment.

Also, it is important we keep the projects that are in the pipeline. There are veterans hospitals and clinics that are in the process of beginning to be built. We certainly did not want those to be delayed because the administration was having to use money for those purposes instead for the operations of this year.

I am pleased to be a part of this amendment, pleased to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Washington and the Senator from West Virginia, along with Senator Craig, who has done an outstanding job as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. When we started working on this issue a few days ago, both of us talked to Secretary Nicholson. We talked to Josh Bolton at OMB to try to get the best approach. It is still up in the air exactly where this will come out. But I know we are working in a bipartisan way to do what is right by our veterans, to work with the administration. I know it is our President's clear commitment that we will assure there is no shortfall in the Veterans' Administration. This emergency appropriation will make sure that is the case.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased about Senator Byrd's comments and especially to have Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of this amendment. She has been a part of this process all through the time we have wrestled with it. She has more veterans in her State than all of us do, so it is quite appropriate for her, as one of the leaders in this area, to be a cosponsor. I thank you.

Mr. President, I see that my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, has come to the floor. I want to thank Mr. Grassley for his hard work on the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. I commend my good friend and Senator Baucus for their efforts to complete this important section of the Energy bill.

The Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 supports the development of energy production from renewable resources and complements the Energy bill that Senators Domenici and Bingaman have worked in a bipartisan fashion to put together. I agree with my colleagues that we must continue to seek alternative sources of energy; it is in the best interest of America.

I would mention, however, that we must also continue to sustain domestic production of oil and gas. According to the National Petroleum Council's Natural Gas Study, a $10-billion-per-year investment over 20 years will be needed in order to meet future natural gas needs. We cannot overlook the importance of developing our domestic oil and gas resources. Domestic production is a critical first step toward energy independence while alternative sources are more fully developed. I ask my colleague from Iowa if he would agree with me that U.S. imports of foreign energy are at unacceptable levels, and the need to develop our domestic resources is an important step toward energy independence.

I thank the Finance Committee chairman. A central goal of the Energy bill is to enhance the production of U.S. energy sources, including oil and natural gas, and thus allow us to reduce our reliance on imported energy. To do that we need to make domestic oil and gas exploration projects cost competitive with those abroad. Allowing geological and geophysical expenditures to be amortized over 2 years will help make U.S. projects more economical by reducing the administrative cost burdens to both taxpayers and the IRS. It will especially help small operators take more risks to find new sources of oil and gas. This provision has been in every Energy bill--House and Senate--over the past several years. It has enjoyed bipartisan support because it makes sense. These expenditures are similar to research and development expenditures paid by other industries. Research and development expenses are either currently expensed or they receive a tax credit. Shorter amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures, while not as generous a tax treatment as expensing or a credit, would help to equalize the tax treatment of similar expenditures for all industries.

I would also raise the importance of similar tax treatment of delay rental payments. Congress needs to pass legislation to clarify that delay rental payments can be amortized over 2 years to enhance and preserve domestic oil and gas production. This is important for developers who cannot afford to run continuous operations on the properties they hold. The current uncertainty of how these costs are to be treated has led to costly litigation; prompt clarification will eliminate needless administrative burdens on taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

Unfortunately, these two provisions were not included in the Senate Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. They are both important provisions for a comprehensive Energy bill. I would ask my colleague if he would work with me to see that they are included in the final conference package.

I want to thank Senator Grassley for his consideration and willingness to work with me.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, and I are today introducing a far-reaching bill to reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 5 years, from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010.

This legislation is already the product of close bipartisan cooperation among Republicans and Democrats, which should be a surprise to no one, for space exploration is something that is important to all Americans, and promises and provides benefits to all of us, to all of humanity.

This bill represents an important opportunity for the Congress to play its fundamental role, in conjunction with the executive branch, in establishing the policies and principles that will guide our Nation's exploration and utilization of space.

The President has outlined an ambitious new Vision for Exploration that enables us to see where we can be 30 and 40 years ahead, with a renewed US presence on the Moon and crews and habitats on Mars, and perhaps even beyond. I support and endorse that vision and believe it describes a course America must take into the future.

This legislation expresses the sense of the Congress that such a broad, visionary goal is important and necessary to help stimulate our efforts today to develop the capabilities and the skills to reach that goal, and to reap tremendous benefits and rewards for all of us here on Earth as we do.

The bill authorizes funding for NASA for the next 5 fiscal years, from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2010. The authorized levels are close to those requested in the President's budget request for 2006 and increase at a level to keep pace with estimates of inflation over the subsequent years.

Where the legislation differs from the President's request or from the plans that have been developed at NASA to begin the vision for exploration, we believe the adjustments made in this legislation will improve NASA's capability to carry out those plans and to sustain the high level of public and congressional support necessary for the long- term success of the vision for exploration.

Those differences revolve around two major areas of concern: (1) the need to ensure a sustained, continuous ability for the United States to launch crews and cargo into orbit; and (2) the need to maintain our existing commitments to both our international partners and our scientific partners in the International Space Station.

In other areas of space policy and programs, we have included language which expands on the administration proposals. We provide for the establishment, by the President, of a proposed National Policy for Aeronautics and Aeronautical Research, to provide a framework for making intelligent and far-reaching decisions about this crucial aspect of our Nation's ability to remain competitive in the global market of aeronautics. We must know what capabilities must be retained in our present aeronautics research infrastructure and what may be better served by changes that would remove the competition within NASA for limited resources in a constrained budgetary environment. Difficult choices must be made, but the first step in making informed decisions is to have a comprehensive policy framework to guide those decisions.

We endorse and expand, by repeated references in several portions of the bill, the desire to open the door for greater commercial participation in the exploration and utilization of space and space- based assets, from the development of basic launch capabilities, to crew-capable launch vehicles, to resupply and even research management of the International Space Station, and missions to the Moon and Mars, to Earth observation and remote sensing capabilities.

Commercial capabilities have experienced a dramatic upsurge in the recent past which makes this an especially important and promising aspect of this legislation. Just one year ago, on June 21, 2004, SpaceShipOne, built by the private firm of Scaled Composites, flew into the lower reaches of outer space, making pilot Mike Melvill the first civilian to fly a commercially-built spaceship out of the atmosphere and the first private pilot to earn astronaut wings.

As I said earlier, we believe the provisions of this legislation will make it easier for NASA to pursue the vision for exploration. Let me, in conclusion, expand briefly on that statement by referring to two specific areas of interest: the development of a crew exploration vehicle, and the assembly and operation of the International Space Station.

NASA has begun several efforts in the past decade, to develop a replacement vehicle for human space flight, with a view to eventually retiring the space shuttle. Each of them has failed, after considerable expense, to find the technological breakthrough that was necessary for their success. They were focused on new technologies, new systems that were largely untested, and unproven. We are now out of time, and can no longer afford the luxury of attempting to develop a dramatically new and different human space flight capability.

This legislation directs NASA, wherever practical, to use existing technology and industrial capacity, derived from our 24 years of experience with the space shuttle, in developing alternative means for launching crews and cargo into space. This approach promises not only to result in less cost to NASA and less risk of failure in development, but it will enable this nation to avoid an unacceptable--and potentially dangerous--situation where we do not have a capability to launch humans in space, especially at a time when the number of nations who have that capability is increasing, as the entry of China into that long-exclusive ``club'' has demonstrated.

NASA has said it cannot afford to continue to provide for all the research that has been planned for years to be accomplished aboard the International Space Station. It has begun the process of narrowing the scope of the use of the space station to those experiments that can contribute directly to the needs of the vision for exploration, and the support of human missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. This legislation states strongly that such a restriction on the range of research disciplines aboard the ISS is not in the best interests of the Nation, or of our partners.

The bill directs NASA to retain and support those ``non-vision'' science disciplines, and authorizes an additional $100 million, initially, for NASA to do that. But more importantly, the bill designates the U.S. portion of the ISS as a national laboratory facility, and directs NASA to provide a plan, by March of next year, which will enable a national laboratory, within NASA, to assume research management responsibility for that on-orbit national laboratory facility.

The potential gain for NASA is that the national laboratory will be empowered to bring other, non-NASA, resources to bear in operating the ISS, thus freeing NASA of much of that operational responsibility, while at the same time allowing it to support the specific research it needs for the vision for exploration.

The legislation provides other authorities, as requested by the administration, to facilitate NASA operations and management, and addresses other issues, such as continued monitoring of safety-related issues. While it adds some reporting requirements for NASA, it also eliminates a number of statutory reporting requirements that are no longer necessary.

This legislation to reauthorize NASA is necessary and vital to the future success of our Nation's effort in the exploration of space, and I take great satisfaction in offering it today for the Senate's consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, and I are today introducing a far-reaching bill to reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 5 years, from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010.

This legislation is already the product of close bipartisan cooperation among Republicans and Democrats, which should be a surprise to no one, for space exploration is something that is important to all Americans, and promises and provides benefits to all of us, to all of humanity.

This bill represents an important opportunity for the Congress to play its fundamental role, in conjunction with the executive branch, in establishing the policies and principles that will guide our Nation's exploration and utilization of space.

The President has outlined an ambitious new Vision for Exploration that enables us to see where we can be 30 and 40 years ahead, with a renewed US presence on the Moon and crews and habitats on Mars, and perhaps even beyond. I support and endorse that vision and believe it describes a course America must take into the future.

This legislation expresses the sense of the Congress that such a broad, visionary goal is important and necessary to help stimulate our efforts today to develop the capabilities and the skills to reach that goal, and to reap tremendous benefits and rewards for all of us here on Earth as we do.

The bill authorizes funding for NASA for the next 5 fiscal years, from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2010. The authorized levels are close to those requested in the President's budget request for 2006 and increase at a level to keep pace with estimates of inflation over the subsequent years.

Where the legislation differs from the President's request or from the plans that have been developed at NASA to begin the vision for exploration, we believe the adjustments made in this legislation will improve NASA's capability to carry out those plans and to sustain the high level of public and congressional support necessary for the long- term success of the vision for exploration.

Those differences revolve around two major areas of concern: (1) the need to ensure a sustained, continuous ability for the United States to launch crews and cargo into orbit; and (2) the need to maintain our existing commitments to both our international partners and our scientific partners in the International Space Station.

In other areas of space policy and programs, we have included language which expands on the administration proposals. We provide for the establishment, by the President, of a proposed National Policy for Aeronautics and Aeronautical Research, to provide a framework for making intelligent and far-reaching decisions about this crucial aspect of our Nation's ability to remain competitive in the global market of aeronautics. We must know what capabilities must be retained in our present aeronautics research infrastructure and what may be better served by changes that would remove the competition within NASA for limited resources in a constrained budgetary environment. Difficult choices must be made, but the first step in making informed decisions is to have a comprehensive policy framework to guide those decisions.

We endorse and expand, by repeated references in several portions of the bill, the desire to open the door for greater commercial participation in the exploration and utilization of space and space- based assets, from the development of basic launch capabilities, to crew-capable launch vehicles, to resupply and even research management of the International Space Station, and missions to the Moon and Mars, to Earth observation and remote sensing capabilities.

Commercial capabilities have experienced a dramatic upsurge in the recent past which makes this an especially important and promising aspect of this legislation. Just one year ago, on June 21, 2004, SpaceShipOne, built by the private firm of Scaled Composites, flew into the lower reaches of outer space, making pilot Mike Melvill the first civilian to fly a commercially-built spaceship out of the atmosphere and the first private pilot to earn astronaut wings.

As I said earlier, we believe the provisions of this legislation will make it easier for NASA to pursue the vision for exploration. Let me, in conclusion, expand briefly on that statement by referring to two specific areas of interest: the development of a crew exploration vehicle, and the assembly and operation of the International Space Station.

NASA has begun several efforts in the past decade, to develop a replacement vehicle for human space flight, with a view to eventually retiring the space shuttle. Each of them has failed, after considerable expense, to find the technological breakthrough that was necessary for their success. They were focused on new technologies, new systems that were largely untested, and unproven. We are now out of time, and can no longer afford the luxury of attempting to develop a dramatically new and different human space flight capability.

This legislation directs NASA, wherever practical, to use existing technology and industrial capacity, derived from our 24 years of experience with the space shuttle, in developing alternative means for launching crews and cargo into space. This approach promises not only to result in less cost to NASA and less risk of failure in development, but it will enable this nation to avoid an unacceptable--and potentially dangerous--situation where we do not have a capability to launch humans in space, especially at a time when the number of nations who have that capability is increasing, as the entry of China into that long-exclusive ``club'' has demonstrated.

NASA has said it cannot afford to continue to provide for all the research that has been planned for years to be accomplished aboard the International Space Station. It has begun the process of narrowing the scope of the use of the space station to those experiments that can contribute directly to the needs of the vision for exploration, and the support of human missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. This legislation states strongly that such a restriction on the range of research disciplines aboard the ISS is not in the best interests of the Nation, or of our partners.

The bill directs NASA to retain and support those ``non-vision'' science disciplines, and authorizes an additional $100 million, initially, for NASA to do that. But more importantly, the bill designates the U.S. portion of the ISS as a national laboratory facility, and directs NASA to provide a plan, by March of next year, which will enable a national laboratory, within NASA, to assume research management responsibility for that on-orbit national laboratory facility.

The potential gain for NASA is that the national laboratory will be empowered to bring other, non-NASA, resources to bear in operating the ISS, thus freeing NASA of much of that operational responsibility, while at the same time allowing it to support the specific research it needs for the vision for exploration.

The legislation provides other authorities, as requested by the administration, to facilitate NASA operations and management, and addresses other issues, such as continued monitoring of safety-related issues. While it adds some reporting requirements for NASA, it also eliminates a number of statutory reporting requirements that are no longer necessary.

This legislation to reauthorize NASA is necessary and vital to the future success of our Nation's effort in the exploration of space, and I take great satisfaction in offering it today for the Senate's consideration. 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, how much time remains?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we have taken one step forward in the last few days on our advise and consent responsibility in the Senate. I am here today to say we are doing the right thing by one nominee, and that is to have a fair up-or-down vote on Judge Priscilla Owen to be a justice on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after 4 years of waiting for this day.

During this entire process, she has continued to serve on the Texas Supreme Court, demonstrating judicial temperament beyond anything I have ever seen. She has waited patiently, showing courage, determination, and a quiet spirit, the likes of which I have never seen before.

This is a person who would have been confirmed by the Senate four times, though she has never been able to take

her rightful place on the bench. On May 1, 2003, she received 52 votes in a cloture motion; on May 8, 2003, 52 votes; on July 29, 2003, 53 votes; and on November 14, 2003, 53 votes.

She has waited, and she is going to be rewarded. She will get over 50 votes, and she will take her place on the bench. Justice Owen ought to receive 100 votes. Anyone who has looked at her record and who has seen her experience knows she is a judge who does not believe in making law from the bench. She believes in interpreting law, trying to determine what the Supreme Court has said on this subject, trying to determine what the legislature intended, as it is her responsibility to do. To depict Justice Owen as a judicial activist is absolutely wrong. President Bush is trying to put jurists on the bench who have a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, who interpret as opposed to making laws from the bench.

Justice Owen, as has been said so many times, has bipartisan support in Texas. Fifteen State bar presidents--Republicans and Democrats--have come out in her favor. The American Bar Association gave her a unanimous well-qualified rating, the highest they give. She was reelected to the Texas Supreme Court with 84 percent of the vote. Priscilla Owen has had distortions of her record. She has had innuendoes about what she believes, no one speaking from knowledge, and yet she has never lashed out, she has never shown anger or bitterness, always a judicial demeanor, always respect for the Senators as they were questioning her.

I believe it is an important time in the Senate that we are now voting on someone who has been held up for four years, and I hope this is a time that is never repeated in Senate history. I hope we will go forward with all of the judges who should have the respect given to people willing to serve, people who have taken an appointment with the honest view that they can do a good job for our country and, in many cases, taking pay cuts to do so. I hope they will be treated by the Senate in the future with respect. I hope we can debate their records according to the different views. But in the end, I hope they will get an up-or-down vote, not only for these nominees, but out of respect for the President of the United States. Our President, George W. Bush, has had fewer circuit court of appeals nominees confirmed by the Senate than any President in the history of our country--69 percent. Every other President of our country has had confirmation rates in the seventies, eighties, and even Jimmy Carter in the nineties, and yet our President has not had his right under the Constitution for appointment of judges who would get an up-or-down vote by the Senate.

I hope that period in the history of the Senate is at an end today. I hope this is the first day of going back to the traditions of over 200 years, except for that brief 2-year period in the last session of Congress. I think the people of our country also agree this period should end. They agreed by the votes they cast for Senators who are committed to up-or-down votes. There were Democrats who ran on that platform and won, and there were Republicans who ran on that platform and won.

I hope very much that today we will end a dark period in the Senate and return to the traditions of the past 200 years and not only confirm Priscilla Owen, as we are going to do today, but start the process of giving up-or-down votes to the other nominees who have come out of committee after thorough vetting and after debate of any length of time that is reasonably necessary to bring everything to the table and to the attention of the American people. In the end, every one of these people has reputations and experience and they deserve the respect of an up-or-down vote.

Priscilla Owen, I have to say, is the perfect person to be first in line to break a bad period in the history of the Senate because she is a person of impeccable credentials. She is a person with a great record of experience, showing what a smart, honorable judge can be. She is a person who graduated at the top of her class at Baylor Law School. She is a person who received the highest score on the State bar exam. She is a person who practiced law for over 15 years and was so well regarded that she was asked to run for the Texas Supreme Court, and she did so. She is a person who was reelected with 84 percent of the vote and endorsed by every major newspaper in Texas. No one ever said anything bad about Priscilla Owen as a person. Her record has been distorted, but she is a person of impeccable credentials.

I was able to talk with Priscilla in the last few days. She is so happy that she is going to finally have this opportunity because she certainly has withstood so much. This is going to be a bright day in her life. And Priscilla Owen deserves a bright day.

I said in one of my earlier speeches that the classmates of her father at Texas A&M, the class of 1953, have a reunion every year. They realized at their reunion 2 years ago that one of their classmates who died very early had a legacy. The class newsletter came out saying, with a headline: ``Pat Richman's Legacy,'' and it told the story of Priscilla Owen. It related back to her dad in the class of 1953 at Texas A&M when it was an all-male school, and almost every member of the Corps of Cadets went into the service after graduation, as did Pat Richman.

Pat Richman served in Korea. He left his sweetheart, whom he had just married, pregnant, as he took off for Korea. Priscilla was born while he was gone. He came back to see her for the first time when she was 7 months old. Pat Richman died of polio 3 months later. His daughter, of course, never remembered anything about him, but he was a star in the class of 1953.

When the newsletter came out, they decided to invite Priscilla Owen to their last reunion this spring, and she went. She told me she learned things about her dad she had never heard before because, of course, it was from the perspective of his college classmates.

I ended that speech by saying I hope Priscilla Owen will be able to go to this year's reunion of the class of 1953 and that she would be able to go as a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge.

In about 2 hours, this Senate is going to finally do the right thing for this woman of courage, conviction, and quiet respect for the rule of law and for our President, quiet respect for the Senate that I do not think has merited that respect in her individual case, although I love this institution. But she does respect the institution, the process, and most especially the judiciary of our country. Priscilla Owen is finally going to be treated fairly by the Senate. I know the class of 1953 is going to invite her back, and I know she will attend as a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to once again hear stories about her dad, Pat Richman, a man she never met but who is so respected by those classmates because he was one of the class stars.

It is time that Priscilla Owen has that opportunity. I am pleased the Senate is finally going to give her what is rightfully due and long overdue, and that is an up-or-down vote, where I am confident she will be confirmed. She will make America proud because she will undoubtedly become one of the best judges on the Federal bench in the United States of America.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about Priscilla Owen, a woman who serves on the Texas Supreme Court, a woman of the highest moral character, and a woman whose confirmation has been held up by the Senate for over 4 years--Justice Owen was first nominated on May 9, 2001, by President Bush. Her nomination has actually been voted on four times by the Senate: May 1, 2003, a cloture vote, she won 52 votes; May 8, 2003, she won 52 votes; July 29, 2003, she won 53 votes; November 14, 2003, she won 53 votes.

If one looks back on a 200-year Senate tradition, the Constitution's requirement for simple majority votes on judicial nominations--as well as the specific instances where the Constitution does, in fact, specify super-majority votes, one would presume that Priscilla Owen would be sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the majority in the Senate would not have to be restoring precedent. My goodness, why isn't she sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals bench?

Priscilla Owen is not sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, even though she received a majority of the votes in the Senate four times, because a new standard is now being required, a new standard of 60 votes. Did we have a constitutional amendment that would require 60 votes? No. Did we have a new rule that required 60 votes? No. We just have the use of a filibuster by the minority in the Senate in the last session of Congress--the first time in the history of our country when a majority of the Senate has been thwarted by the minority on Federal judicial appointments.

There have, from time to time, been filibusters when the person did not have 51 votes in the Senate; never when a majority of the Senate voted to support that nominee. Yet that is exactly what has happened to Priscilla Owen.

There has been a change in the balance of power that was envisioned in the Constitution without a constitutional amendment. Last Friday on the Senate floor, some Democratic Members of the Senate actually said: We should have a 60-vote requirement for Federal judges to be confirmed by the Senate. That is worthy of discussion. It is worthy for us to have that debate. But the debate should be in the context of a constitutional amendment--going through the process our Founding Fathers said would be required for a constitutional amendment. Let's put it to a test. Let's determine if that is the right thing and do it the right way. But that is not what is happening here today.

In fact, it is significant that we look at the historical comparison of the first term of a Presidency and the confirmation of appeals court nominees. President George W. Bush has the lowest percentage of confirmations of any President in the history of the United States. President Clinton had 77 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed. President George H.W. Bush had 79 percent. President Reagan had 87 percent. President Carter had 93 percent. President Ford had 73 percent. President Nixon had 93 percent. President Johnson had 95 percent. President Kennedy had 81 percent. President Eisenhower had 88 percent. President Truman had 91 percent. But President Bush today has 69 percent, the lowest of any President in the history of our country. Almost 30 percent of his circuit court nominees were filibustered and let die by the Senate.

The balance of power is delicate--founded in a Constitution that is not easily changed. It is important that those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not tread on it without going through the proper procedures of a constitutional amendment. Thwarting the majority by requiring 60 votes on qualified judicial nominees, as the minority did last session, undermines the delicate balance of power.

I hope the Senate will come to its senses. There has been a lot written lately about the Senate, about the process in the Senate being broken. Last week, I talked to a well-known

journalist to discuss his views of what is happening in Washington. I asked him a number of questions, but the most difficult was the one that he posed to me: What in the world is the Senate thinking about in the confirmation process? Don't you realize that this is impeding the President's ability to recruit quality people for Government service?

Mr. President, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are correct. We are heading for a crisis, but it is not a crisis over minority rights. No one on our side of the aisle has even suggested that minority rights should be overrun. The filibuster will remain intact. What we are trying to do is get the constitutional process for confirmation of Federal judges back to what has been the tradition in the Senate and what the Constitution envisioned, and that is a 51-vote majority.

Never, until the last session of Congress, was the majority will thwarted in Federal judge nominees and circuit court most particularly. So the crisis is not over the Senate process; the crisis is how group influence is turning the Senate into a permanent political battleground. It is unseemly, it is wrong, and it is going to harm the quality of our judiciary because we are going to start seeing nominees who are not the best and the brightest, who don't have clear opinions, and who are not well-published and renown constitutional experts.

I think it was pretty well brought out in an article in the Washington Post yesterday, titled ``The Wreck of the U.S. Senate.'' It quoted John Breaux, our former Democratic colleague. He said:

Today, unfortunately, outside groups, public relations

firms, and the political consultants who are dedicated to one

thing, a perpetual campaign to make one party a winner and

the other a loser, has snatched the political process.

Some years ago, we started on a road downward toward a low common denominator, and I think we are continuing that descent. In the article, I think it mentioned that the point of embarkation for this descent was the nomination process of John Tower, a former Senator who had an incredible record on national defense, who was perhaps the most knowledgeable Senator in the Senate on that subject, who was turned down for his Secretary of Defense with innuendo, things that were totally untrue being said about him. Many of my colleagues who are in this body today say it was unconscionable what was done to Senator John Tower.

Mr. President, I am sorry to say I think it has happened again and again. I look at Priscilla Owen, who is one of the best and brightest, who is a judge with judicial temperament, who has shown her brilliance from the days she graduated from Baylor Law School cum laude, top of her class, Baylor Law Review, to making the highest score on the Texas bar exam the year she took it. The distortions of this fine judge's record have been incredible. She has been meticulous in following the law, in not trying to make law but interpret the law; and I am really concerned that if someone like Priscilla Owen, who is a judge who has the backing of 15 former State bar Presidents--probably most of the ones who are still alive--Republicans and Democrats, the support of 3 Democrats with whom she served on the Supreme Court, as well as every Republican, the support of the Attorney General of the United States, with whom she served, who actually sought her out for appointment because he was so impressed with her judicial standards. If someone like that has to take ``brick baths'' for 4 years, how are we going to recruit the very top legal minds in our country, people who have shown themselves time and time again to be excellent at what they do? How are we going to recruit them to submit themselves to this kind of process?

The National Abortion Rights Action League was reported by columnist Bob Novak to have hired an opposition research team not just for Priscilla Owen--and they have certainly been active against her--but to look at the records of 30 sitting judges, including Judge Edith Jones from Houston, and why would they be doing that? Why would the National Abortion Rights Action League start looking at sitting judges in our country today to try to find some way to harm them or distort their records? Why would they do that? Interestingly, it looks as if the people chosen to be investigated are people who might be potential appointees to the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. President, we are in a downward spiral in this country. Prior to holding federally-elected office, I remember watching the Senate debate over Clarence Thomas. I thought the Senate did an excellent job of debating Clarence Thomas, bringing out the major points. But the hearings on Justice Thomas' nomination were brutal. They were brutal. They were personal. It was something which I am sure was very difficult for him to overcome. I don't think we have to be personal to make points. I don't think we have to distort records. I don't think we should employ innuendo in looking at nominees for our Federal bench.

I think the Senate needs to take a very hard look at the processes we are using, at the outside influences and the motivations of these groups. When I turn on my television in Washington, I see ads for and against Priscilla Owen. Priscilla has been silent for four years, unwilling to lash out at her opponents and too respectful of Senate procedure to defend herself against empty criticisms. But I am glad she has been defended. I visited with her last week when she was here, and there is a personal toll on the people in this process. She will be a fine judge, but was she prepared for the four years of ``brick baths'' to which she could not respond? You know, she had several very nice opportunities to do something else in these four years, but she is such a fine person, with such a strong backbone, that she did not want to withdraw her name from consideration so it could be used in the Presidential election. She didn't want to leave President Bush vulnerable to an attack that her nomination was a mistake and that there was something hidden in her record. She is proud of her record, and she knows President Bush is proud of his appointment of her. She has nothing--nothing--upon which she can base any kind of decision to leave this nomination process. She is sticking with President Bush because he made a good decision, and he is sticking with her.

But these judges are not people who have put themselves in the arena in the same way that partisan politicians do. I don't think she was prepared to be attacked on a weekly or monthly basis and have her record distorted when she submitted herself for this important nomination. She was rated unanimously by the American Bar Association committee that gives its recommendations on judges to the Judiciary Committee as ``well qualified,'' the highest rating that can be given by the ABA. It was unanimous. Yet, this fine person has been raked over the coals, has had misrepresentations and distortions made about her. I recently spoke about Priscilla Owen, the person--I shared what kind of person she is. I talked about her service as a Sunday school teacher and that she lost her father when she was 10 months old. I talked about what a lovely person she is.

One of my colleagues came to the floor and said, yes, she is a lovely person, but that is not enough; we should not be talking about whether she is lovely or not. Well, I wanted people to see that in addition to a stellar record, an even-handed disposition, a great legal mind, and impeccable integrity, Priscilla Owen is also a lovely person. An honest person who has even gone against the prevailing view of the Republican Party in Texas by suggesting we not elect Supreme Court justices in Texas. She has actually written on that subject, saying we should not taint the judiciary with partisan politics. So, I want the record to reflect that she is a lovely person--but also a person of principle, of strength, and of profound wisdom. She is as excellent a nominee, with as excellent a record as we have ever seen come before the United States Senate.

Mr. President, I think the Senate, as a body, should think about how we treat the people who come to submit themselves for public service. Many of them do so because they believe this is their calling and they do so with every good intention, including taking large salary cuts. Priscilla Owen chose to take a huge salary cut to run for the Supreme Court of Texas instead of continuing as a partner in a major law firm in Texas.

She has shown in every way that she is qualified for this position, and I hope we will give her what she deserves after four years of waiting, and that is an up-or-down vote. When we do, she will be confirmed and she will be one of the finest judges sitting on the Federal circuit court of appeals today.

I yield the floor.