Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the great leadership our President is providing in the area of Social Security.

When Social Security was created in 1935, the average lifespan of an American was about 64, and 54 percent of the workers in our country were expected to live to collect Social Security. So the system was sound and, of course, the actuarial table was sound.

So much has changed--all for the good--in our country. In fact, today our life expectancy is 79 plus for a woman and 74 plus for a man. Yet we know that is going to get better. People are going to live even longer than that and, furthermore, they are going to be healthy. They are going to be able to collect more than they invested in their Social Security.

Our President is looking at the facts. Our President is looking at the statements from the previous administration, President Clinton, who said: There is a red flag here and we better look at Social Security if we are going to start the process of determining what is the right thing to keep Social Security stable.

But it was before that that our President started seeing this looming crisis on the horizon. Today we know from the testimony of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, that in 2008, the baby boomers are going to start coming into the Social Security system. In 13 years, 2018, the Government will begin for the first time to pay out more than it is collecting. That means we are going to start seeing more encroachment on the deficit. By 2042, the fact is there will be an absolute bankruptcy.

By law today, what happens when that occurs, when bankruptcy is declared, benefits will automatically be cut without any further action of Congress or the President--drastic cuts, probably 25-percent cuts. So if we are going to keep our promise to the people in the system today, to the people in the system 10 years from now, we are going to have to take action to preserve those benefits in a fiscally responsible way. If we are going to keep the promise to people who are 20, 25, 30, 35, we are going to have to do something that is innovative and creative, something that has been tried in other countries, and it has worked, and that is to allow our young people to set aside 2 or 3 percent of their 12 percent in a personal account that they can own themselves and control with investments that would be certified investments. What would be certified is something like a 401(k) offering, something like a total market index and a total bond index or a 50/50 total market/total bond index, something very conservative and proven through all the cycles of the stock market to be much better in return than anything someone could get in Social Security.

Young people overwhelmingly favor this option because they know they will be able to build up and get bigger checks, with less government responsibility, and they will be able to pass to their children what is left over in their accounts when they die so their children will have a nest egg to grow.

This is something the President wants Congress to do, and I am going to help him because I believe it is the right thing to do for our country, for the young people coming into our system, to make sure they have something better if they choose that option.

The important thing that has been missed in much of this debate is that personal accounts are an option. If someone wants to stay in the system exactly as it is now, they have that option. But if they want to go into the new system, which would allow them to take some part of their present tax and have a little more control and absolute ownership, they have it as an option. People 55, 60 will probably not do it, but a lot of people who are 50 and certainly people below 50 are going to look at that, and we will have a huge influx into that new option that will then allow a better future and an ownership that has never been allowed before.

Our President is taking the lead. We have a duty, as Congress, Republicans and Democrats together, to sit down with the President to discuss different plans. Maybe we can take something from this plan and something from that plan. Personally, I will not support raising taxes. I don't think we need to do it if we plan ahead. I will not support raising the limit on the salaries that are now taxed. That is unnecessary if we take steps now to start a transition process that will eventually take more of the burden off Government and make the Social Security system sound. But that is my opinion.

There are others on the other side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle who may have a different view. Some may favor a part of what the President

favors. Some may not. The important thing is that we recognize our President's leadership, that he is not saying: I am going to walk away from this. He is saying: I am going to do the right thing. And he is asking Congress to sit down with him. We owe him that because he is trying to do the right thing.

Secondly, it is irresponsible for any sitting Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives not to come to the table. Certainly we have disagreements, but all of us have the same goal. The goal is to save Social Security for future generations and to do it in the least expensive, most efficient, least obtrusive way we possibly can.

I am proud of the President's leadership. I am proud to support him in saying: Yes, we are going to do what is necessary now when it is less painful and less expensive.

I will now turn the rest of our time over to the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I note that he has just returned from Iraq. I think he just returned last night. I appreciate so much his coming to the Senate floor when I am sure he has jet lag. I know he has been through a trying time because like myself and others--we have been to Iraq. We know that it is a tough trip but certainly something worth doing for every sitting Member of Congress. You do learn so much about what our troops need, what they are facing. You want to pat them on the back and let them know how much America appreciates the efforts they are making.

I appreciate Senator Brownback being here this morning. I appreciate very much his willingness to come to the floor and speak.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will make much-needed improvements to our container security system. The Federal Government currently has no coordinated strategy which integrates the many aspects of inter-modal container shipping.

We may not be able to physically screen every container on the move in our Nation's vast economy, but we should not leave vast shipments of cargo completely unchecked. My bill lays out a systematic plan to coordinate and expand existing methods of screening and securing materials using available technology.

The cost to the U.S. economy of port closures on the West Coast due to a labor dispute last year was approximately $1 billion per day for the first five days, and rose sharply thereafter. These disruptions have become so costly because the container shipping system is designed for speed and efficiency; as a result, the U.S. and its global trading partners have in effect become hostages to a ``just-in-time'' distribution model where any disruption of the system has far reaching and immediate global impact.

I am eager to prevent a similar situation from occurring, since in my home State the Port of Houston, a $15 billion petrochemical complex, is the second-largest port in the U.S. and first in international tonnage. Texas has 13 deepwater ports, many of which subsequently move freight by rail, a model typical nationwide.

My bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to incorporate aviation, maritime, rail and highway security in a single plan. We need a coordinated strategy to make the most of federal, state, and local capabilities.

The bill requires a ``smart box'' standard to reduce the cost of inspecting shipping containers and calls for all containers to meet this standard by 2009. It establishes penalties for commercial shippers, to hold them, and by extension their clients, responsible for properly documenting the contents of their shipments. Finally, it significantly increases U.S. Customs' presence overseas, because identifying a dirty bomb after it is unloaded onto U.S. soil may be too late.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will make much-needed improvements to our container security system. The Federal Government currently has no coordinated strategy which integrates the many aspects of inter-modal container shipping.

We may not be able to physically screen every container on the move in our Nation's vast economy, but we should not leave vast shipments of cargo completely unchecked. My bill lays out a systematic plan to coordinate and expand existing methods of screening and securing materials using available technology.

The cost to the U.S. economy of port closures on the West Coast due to a labor dispute last year was approximately $1 billion per day for the first five days, and rose sharply thereafter. These disruptions have become so costly because the container shipping system is designed for speed and efficiency; as a result, the U.S. and its global trading partners have in effect become hostages to a ``just-in-time'' distribution model where any disruption of the system has far reaching and immediate global impact.

I am eager to prevent a similar situation from occurring, since in my home State the Port of Houston, a $15 billion petrochemical complex, is the second-largest port in the U.S. and first in international tonnage. Texas has 13 deepwater ports, many of which subsequently move freight by rail, a model typical nationwide.

My bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to incorporate aviation, maritime, rail and highway security in a single plan. We need a coordinated strategy to make the most of federal, state, and local capabilities.

The bill requires a ``smart box'' standard to reduce the cost of inspecting shipping containers and calls for all containers to meet this standard by 2009. It establishes penalties for commercial shippers, to hold them, and by extension their clients, responsible for properly documenting the contents of their shipments. Finally, it significantly increases U.S. Customs' presence overseas, because identifying a dirty bomb after it is unloaded onto U.S. soil may be too late.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise provisions for Hispanic-serving institutions, HSIs, under Title V, Developing Institutions. The changes will expand opportunities in postgraduate education, an essential part of our economy that enables our workforce to maintain the knowledge that keeps our nation at the forefront of science and technology.

The bill will establish a program of competitive grants for HSIs that offer post-baccalaureate certifications or degrees. Grants will support graduate fellowships, services for students, facilities improvement and faculty development, among other things. It authorizes $125 million in grants for fiscal year 2006, and will reduce red tape by eliminating the requirement that an HSI certify half of its students are low- income, thus making it easier for students to transfer from two to four year colleges.

According to the 2000 Census, Hispanics represent the nation's largest minority population. Unfortunately, too few graduate from high school or college, despite being the fastest-growing ethnicity in that age group. We need more resources to support Hispanic educational opportunities. Hispanic-Serving Institutions are currently educating 51 percent of the 457,000 Hispanic higher education students in the United States. Although HSIs account for 5 percent of all institutions of higher education, almost one-half of the 1.5 million Hispanic students currently in college programs attend them.

Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Hispanics earning master's degrees grew 136 percent and the number of doctor's degrees grew 85 percent. Our Nation's economic strength and prosperity will depend on the knowledge, skills, and leadership of a population that already makes up one of three new workers joining the U.S. labor force today.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been committed to increasing federal support of HSIs. Since 1995, Title V funding has increased from $12 million to $95 million in fiscal year 2005. I believe this is an important investment to ensure our nation's youngest and largest ethnic population has access to the educational opportunities needed to excel.

Because I believe the success of Hispanic students will play a critical role in determining this country's future, I am proud to offer this bill that will improve options for graduate and postgraduate study, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise provisions for Hispanic-serving institutions, HSIs, under Title V, Developing Institutions. The changes will expand opportunities in postgraduate education, an essential part of our economy that enables our workforce to maintain the knowledge that keeps our nation at the forefront of science and technology.

The bill will establish a program of competitive grants for HSIs that offer post-baccalaureate certifications or degrees. Grants will support graduate fellowships, services for students, facilities improvement and faculty development, among other things. It authorizes $125 million in grants for fiscal year 2006, and will reduce red tape by eliminating the requirement that an HSI certify half of its students are low- income, thus making it easier for students to transfer from two to four year colleges.

According to the 2000 Census, Hispanics represent the nation's largest minority population. Unfortunately, too few graduate from high school or college, despite being the fastest-growing ethnicity in that age group. We need more resources to support Hispanic educational opportunities. Hispanic-Serving Institutions are currently educating 51 percent of the 457,000 Hispanic higher education students in the United States. Although HSIs account for 5 percent of all institutions of higher education, almost one-half of the 1.5 million Hispanic students currently in college programs attend them.

Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Hispanics earning master's degrees grew 136 percent and the number of doctor's degrees grew 85 percent. Our Nation's economic strength and prosperity will depend on the knowledge, skills, and leadership of a population that already makes up one of three new workers joining the U.S. labor force today.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been committed to increasing federal support of HSIs. Since 1995, Title V funding has increased from $12 million to $95 million in fiscal year 2005. I believe this is an important investment to ensure our nation's youngest and largest ethnic population has access to the educational opportunities needed to excel.

Because I believe the success of Hispanic students will play a critical role in determining this country's future, I am proud to offer this bill that will improve options for graduate and postgraduate study, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that will bolster our energy independence by clarifying current tax law regarding domestic oil and gas production.

We need to promote domestic energy supplies because we are increasingly dependent on foreign oil to meet our energy needs. We currently import almost 60 percent from foreign countries. Promoting domestic production is both an economic and national security issue.

The rational treatment of costs associated with exploration and production of energy resources is vital to attracting and retaining financing in an inherently capital-intensive industry. The bill I am introducing helps in this regard by allowing accelerated deduction of geological and geophysical (G&G) costs and delay rental payments. Specifically, this legislation will allow these expenses to be amortized over a 2 year period. This will encourage further development of the United States oil and gas industry.

There is no reason G&G expenditures should be considered capital expenditures with a long amortization period rather than treating them more like research and development costs. Our current tax code needlessly limits the ability of domestic producers to develop our national petroleum reserves.

Congress also needs to clarify that delay rental payments are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. 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.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill as an important step in developing energy independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that will bolster our energy independence by clarifying current tax law regarding domestic oil and gas production.

We need to promote domestic energy supplies because we are increasingly dependent on foreign oil to meet our energy needs. We currently import almost 60 percent from foreign countries. Promoting domestic production is both an economic and national security issue.

The rational treatment of costs associated with exploration and production of energy resources is vital to attracting and retaining financing in an inherently capital-intensive industry. The bill I am introducing helps in this regard by allowing accelerated deduction of geological and geophysical (G&G) costs and delay rental payments. Specifically, this legislation will allow these expenses to be amortized over a 2 year period. This will encourage further development of the United States oil and gas industry.

There is no reason G&G expenditures should be considered capital expenditures with a long amortization period rather than treating them more like research and development costs. Our current tax code needlessly limits the ability of domestic producers to develop our national petroleum reserves.

Congress also needs to clarify that delay rental payments are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. 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.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill as an important step in developing energy independence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the division basically is going to be from 9:30 we will have Republican speakers and from 10:30 to 11:30 there will be Democratic speakers and then we will be going back and forth.

I am pleased to be able to open today's discussion on the nomination of my friend, Alberto Gonzales. I am pleased because I know Alberto Gonzales personally and have been able to work with him both during the time he was a distinguished supreme court justice in my home State of Texas, and as White House Counsel.

As the senior Senator from Texas and formerly the junior Senator from Texas, I have had a lot of commerce with Alberto Gonzales. I can tell the American public without reservation: He is honest. He is a straight shooter. He has told me some things I didn't want to hear on more than one occasion. But I was absolutely assured that he was doing what he said he was going to do and that he had reasons for what he did.

On the other hand, I have been able to persuade him on issues where our views differed, because he listened. He is not rigid and impenetrable, as some people have described him. Again, he is a person who listens, who is thoughtful, who is a straight shooter, and someone for whom I have the utmost respect.

I am proud to be able to start the floor debate today on Alberto Gonzales, who was nominated and is to be confirmed as Attorney General of the United States.

Alberto Gonzales is the American story. He is the American dream. He is the American dream, not because he wants his piece of the pie. He is the American dream because he worked hard, never complained. Without many advantages growing up, he persevered, maintained a positive spirit, and it is fair to say, Alberto Gonzales made it. He made it on his own because he prepared himself and because he didn't act like a victim. He understood that this country is filled with opportunities and he took responsibility and seized that opportunity.

He grew up in Humble, TX. Alberto Gonzales was one of seven siblings living in a two-bedroom house that was built by his father and his uncles. His father was a migrant worker, as was his mother. They did not have an education beyond elementary school. But Judge Gonzales learned through his parents' example that, with dreams and commitment and hard work, you can be rewarded in this country.

He excelled in the public schools around Houston, TX. He was a star. He was a star on his own merit because he studied, worked hard, and was always looking for that extra thing he could do to make himself better. Because of that, he was accepted into one of our Nation's most prestigious universities, Rice University in Houston, TX.

He was not only a graduate of a great university, he was the first person in his family to graduate from college and from a great university such as Rice. From there he went on to Harvard Law School, where he earned his law degree. He served in the Air Force. He was a partner at Vinson & Elkins, a prestigious international law firm. He then became general counsel to Governor George W. Bush, and that is where they came to have the bond that has been so important in their relationship through the years.

Then-Governor Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales to be secretary of state of Texas. The secretary of state is the person in charge of running elections, making sure we have fair elections in Texas and that the elections are well publicized so we would have a strong voter turnout. He also served as Governor Bush's liaison to Mexico.

It has become a tradition of Governors in our State to have a secretary of state who will work on border issues and issues with Mexico, because that is such an important bilateral relationship for our State as well as our Nation.

Then Governor Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court of Texas. He had a distinguished career. He gained experience and respect every step of the way. When the George W. Bush became the President, he brought Alberto Gonzales with him to Washington to be his White House Counsel.

As White House Counsel, the President wanted someone he could trust and someone who knew the law, someone he knew was smart, would do thorough research, would not shoot from the hip. He wanted someone who could be a steady hand at the wheel in the White House Counsel's Office. So, Alberto Gonzales came to the White House with the President and did an outstanding job as White House Counsel, and adviser to the President. He made sure the President knew all of the options and his perspective, but also provided him with the views and perspectives of others. This is very important.

I think Alberto Gonzales sometimes, because he is so fair-minded, would give the President options even though he personally disagreed with some of them. That is what made him such a trusted lawyer for the President. He wanted the President to make the decisions and he wanted the President to make the decisions with the best possible information he could have--whether he believed in that particular option or not. His loyalty to the President was, of course, absolute.

Judge Gonzales answered a very important question about his service as White House Counsel as opposed to the different role he would have as Attorney General. I think it is important because I think some of the criticism that has been made in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor has revolved around the role of a White House Counsel and the very different role that the Attorney General of the United States would play. Alberto Gonzales understands the difference. He knows there is a difference. He agrees that there is a difference.

As White House Counsel he had one role, loyal adviser to the President of the United States, and he fulfilled that role superbly. He gave the advice; he gave different options; he let the President make the decisions. But he knows that the Attorney General of the United States is not just loyal to the President. Of course, he is in the President's Cabinet. Of course, he will be loyal to the President. But that is not his primary function. I want to read his response because it addresses exactly what the Attorney General's role should be, in my opinion. I agree with Alberto Gonzales, and I think he is right on the mark.

I do very much understand that there is a difference in the

position of Counsel to the President and that of the Attorney

General of the United States. . . . As Counsel to the

President, my primary focus is on providing counsel to the

White House and to White House staff and the President. I do

have a client who has an agenda, and part of my role as

counsel is to provide advice so that the President can

achieve that agenda lawfully. It is a much different

situation as Attorney General, and I know that. My first

allegiance is going to be to the Constitution and the laws

of the United States.

Judge Gonzalez in a written response later said: ``All government lawyers should always provide an accurate and honest appraisal of the law, even if that will constrain the Administration's pursuit of desired policies.''

Judge Gonzales said if he becomes Attorney General, he will no longer represent only the White House, he will represent the American people. He is absolutely right on that point. That is what all of us expect and that is what he intends to deliver.

I think it is the most important point.

As we look at history and as we look at past Attorneys General, sometimes the impression is that an Attorney General is only loyal to the President. Of course, the Attorney General will be loyal to the President, but that will not override his loyalty to the Constitution, the law, and the American people.

Of course, the President too wants to do what is right for the American people. But the Attorney General is the one who will make the determination if something is lawful. And I know that Judge Gonzales will do a great job in representing the law and the American people.

I am disappointed some have suggested that maybe Judge Gonzales has not been responsive enough in his confirmation hearings about his role as White House Counsel. He was at the committee hearings for over 6 hours of questioning, and 450 questions were submitted to him after the hearings. He answered all of them--over 200 pages of single-spaced responses to Senators.

To put this in context, President Clinton's nominee, Janet Reno, received 35 questions. Alberto Gonzales received 450 questions.

I think it is a very important point to make that Judge Gonzales has been forthcoming. He has answered every question, either in the open forum, or in 6 hours of hearings, or in the 200 pages of written answers to questions that were submitted after the hearings by Senators. No one can claim this man has not been forthcoming.

In an article in the December 25, 2004, Christmas Day, Houston Chronicle entitled, ``A Dem on Gonzalez,'' a Democrat and former colleague of Judge Gonzales, Lynne Liberato, now a partner in the Houston office of Haynes and Boone wrote: `` . . . in the back of my mind [over the past four years] I have taken solace in the fact that the President had an adviser like Al. Certainly, I wish he were a Democrat, appointed by a Democratic President. But we lost. This President has the right to appoint the attorney general, and I do not think the President could have done better.''

In addition, I have to say how very impressed I am with the new Senator Salazar from Colorado, who I am told made a speech in his caucus yesterday in which he said, Please vote for Alberto Gonzales. I do not know firsthand what he said or exactly what his words were, but Senator Salazar has taken a position on principle. He took a position on principle on behalf of Dr. Condoleezza Rice and has done so with Alberto Gonzales. I must say I respect and admire his willingness to step up to the plate and talk about the record

and the principle of giving the President his nominee, and I commend Senator Salazar for that bipartisan effort.

I hope my colleagues will not use this debate to continue to attack the President. I hope today is filled with speeches about Alberto Gonzales, about his qualifications, and about his background. I hope we will stay on the issue of Attorney General of the United States. I have seen the rhetoric go in a different direction, both for Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice and for our nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. I don't think this is the time to be attacking the President. There is plenty of opportunity to disagree with the President of the United States. Our duty today in this body is to give advice and consent on the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States.

I am very hopeful we will be able to take this opportunity to do the right thing, to confirm Judge Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, the first Hispanic American who will hold the office of Attorney General. He is a remarkable leader. He has shown great strength and resolve during a difficult time for our country. Furthermore, he has a record of public service over years that shows his remarkable character. He is a man who will be a great Attorney General of the United States.

I think it is going to be a very important vote that we will see tomorrow.

I hope during the debate yesterday the Democratic colleagues decided they will say their peace, hopefully on the merits or whatever they think of the qualifications of Judge Gonzales, and I hope the vote will come soon. We need to allow the President to fill his Cabinet so they can take over in a reasonable time frame.

I hope we can have the full debate today. It would be my hope we would have an early vote tomorrow. If people do not have anything else to say, let us have a vote. Let us allow Alberto Gonzales to be confirmed and take the oath of office and get about the business of our country.

There is no reason to hold him up. He is going to be confirmed. I think it was a mistake to hold Condoleezza Rice for hours and hours and hours. It was not the right thing for our country. I hope that for Alberto Gonzales we realize there is going to be a huge responsibility on his shoulders and he needs to be able to start. He needs to put a deputy in place, to see what is happening in the Department and have the time to make the appropriate adjustments. The Attorney General of the United States is essential to an efficient Justice Department. There are many issues he faces. The sooner he gets started, the better.

I hope the President's State of the Union speech tonight will allow him to lay out his case for the future of our country, and then I hope we can early tomorrow confirm Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States.

I am very pleased one of our new Senators from the State of Florida has arrived on the floor. He is certainly a person, having served in the President's Cabinet, who knows how important it is to have a fair discussion and then go forward.

I would like to yield the floor to Senator Martinez.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona, a member of the Judiciary Committee, who has done a wonderful job on that committee. It is a tough committee, but he has done a terrific job. That was an outstanding statement on behalf of Alberto Gonzales.

Looking at this man's incredible background and how far he has come clearly shows the great country that America is and the great perseverance and intellect that Alberto Gonzales has.

I yield the time he may consume to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the Republican time to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak until 10:32 or until the Democrats arrive.

Mr. President, today in honor of the memory and sacrifice of seven astronauts whose lives were tragically cut short two years ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia, I bring to the floor a bill to authorize the construction of several memorials in communities along the Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery Corridor; specifically, Lufkin, Hemphill, Nacogdoches, and San Augustine, TX.

Each of these communities will memorialize the disaster and the indomitable spirit of adventure and courage, the spirit that defies complacency and accepts challenge, the spirit that each of these astronauts and each of these communities showed.

This search for adventure turned space travel from dreams to a reality. It is this spirit of challenge which fueled the courage and ambition of seven men and women into the sky on January 6, 2003. It is also this same spirit that drives these communities to permanently commemorate the high price we sometimes pay for reaching new horizons.

Hemphill, TX, where the nose cone of the Shuttle was found, is also where the remains of the crew were recovered. The VFW post in Hemphill fed thousands of volunteers for weeks without so much as a complaint or a dime. The men and women of Hemphill did not take their task lightly, but rather with a solemn grace and dignity.

The greatest amount of debris came down in the populated areas of Nacogdoches, TX. Backyards and streets were littered with debris, permanently altering the community. The citizens of Nacogdoches pulled together and focused on the recovery, working day and night with NASA until the job was complete. A spirit of courage filled the community of Nacogdoches and their efforts should never be forgotten.

The population of Lufkin, TX doubled overnight as the retrieval effort

started. The community's residents welcomed thousands with hospitality and made their civic center NASA's Columbia retrieval command center. From combing the streets and fields for debris to making home cooked meals for the recovery workers, the people of Lufkin mustered around the Columbia tragedy.

The citizens of San Augustine, TX were a driving force behind the recovery effort. Local elected officials and countless volunteers opened their hearts and their homes to strangers also affected by the tragedy. Searching the piney woods of deep east Texas on horseback and walking the streets in search of shuttle fragments, the spirit of San Augustine could not be crushed.

In recent years, America has experienced grief with the loss of many heroes. But our collective loss with the Columbia tragedy still sears our souls and the pain is never easy to bear. Today, two years after they vanished into the deep blue skies of Texas, we pause to remember and honor Rick Husband, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Ilan Roman, William McCool, David Brown, and Michael Anderson.

And though the families' losses cannot be diminished, their pain and grief is shared around the world and our prayers are with them. This bill will memorialize their sacrifice and will honor the courageous spirit of the communities affected. Their sacrifices will never be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, today in honor of the memory and sacrifice of seven astronauts whose lives were tragically cut short two years ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia, I bring to the floor a bill to authorize the construction of several memorials in communities along the Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery Corridor; specifically, Lufkin, Hemphill, Nacogdoches, and San Augustine, TX.

Each of these communities will memorialize the disaster and the indomitable spirit of adventure and courage, the spirit that defies complacency and accepts challenge, the spirit that each of these astronauts and each of these communities showed.

This search for adventure turned space travel from dreams to a reality. It is this spirit of challenge which fueled the courage and ambition of seven men and women into the sky on January 6, 2003. It is also this same spirit that drives these communities to permanently commemorate the high price we sometimes pay for reaching new horizons.

Hemphill, TX, where the nose cone of the Shuttle was found, is also where the remains of the crew were recovered. The VFW post in Hemphill fed thousands of volunteers for weeks without so much as a complaint or a dime. The men and women of Hemphill did not take their task lightly, but rather with a solemn grace and dignity.

The greatest amount of debris came down in the populated areas of Nacogdoches, TX. Backyards and streets were littered with debris, permanently altering the community. The citizens of Nacogdoches pulled together and focused on the recovery, working day and night with NASA until the job was complete. A spirit of courage filled the community of Nacogdoches and their efforts should never be forgotten.

The population of Lufkin, TX doubled overnight as the retrieval effort

started. The community's residents welcomed thousands with hospitality and made their civic center NASA's Columbia retrieval command center. From combing the streets and fields for debris to making home cooked meals for the recovery workers, the people of Lufkin mustered around the Columbia tragedy.

The citizens of San Augustine, TX were a driving force behind the recovery effort. Local elected officials and countless volunteers opened their hearts and their homes to strangers also affected by the tragedy. Searching the piney woods of deep east Texas on horseback and walking the streets in search of shuttle fragments, the spirit of San Augustine could not be crushed.

In recent years, America has experienced grief with the loss of many heroes. But our collective loss with the Columbia tragedy still sears our souls and the pain is never easy to bear. Today, two years after they vanished into the deep blue skies of Texas, we pause to remember and honor Rick Husband, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Ilan Roman, William McCool, David Brown, and Michael Anderson.

And though the families' losses cannot be diminished, their pain and grief is shared around the world and our prayers are with them. This bill will memorialize their sacrifice and will honor the courageous spirit of the communities affected. Their sacrifices will never be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to honor Secretary Principi for his diligent and effective tenure as the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Secretary Principi has served our Nation during a historic time, and has done an impressive job with one of the most challenging positions in the government. I am proud to have worked with him.

When I travel around the State of Texas, I am reminded of the work Secretary Principi has done on behalf of veterans. He was always available to discuss the needs of Texas veterans and provided an open dialogue to our communities. I am particularly grateful for the time he spent with me touring VA facilities in Texas to learn what was important to our veterans. Over the years, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans it serves have been severely challenged by the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and the surging demand for services from an aging veteran population. Throughout his time at the Department, Secretary Principi worked to ensure healthcare accessibility was a priority. Across the country, the VA has opened 194 community clinics and 87 percent of the veteran population now lives within 30 minutes of a VA medical facility. Additionally, under Secretary Principi's leadership, the Department reduced the number of veterans waiting more than 6 months for primary care and cut in

half the wait time for an appointment. These important accomplishments have improved the healthcare for our service men and women.

Secretary Principi also understood the importance of further investigating the causes of Gulf War Illness. He kept his promise to attend a meeting in Texas with Dr. Robert Haley, a world renowned researcher on the issue of Gulf War Illness. After meeting with Dr. Haley, Secretary Principi recognized the need for a study on this illness, which ultimately led to the dedication of $60 million over the next 4 years for research. We cannot thank him enough for his leadership and attention to this important issue.

I thank Secretary Principi for his tireless service to the veterans of Texas and throughout the United States. He and his work will not be forgotten by a grateful Nation.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

No objection.

Mr. President, I do not know. I thought I was supposed to speak at 12:15, but if----

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman, are there any other speakers or are Senator Bayh and I the last two?

I would suggest, then, that Senator Bayh go next and I be able to follow him.

Mr. President, I have listened to some of the debate on this nomination. It is unfortunate that we have lost focus about what we should be doing in the confirmation of the Secretary of State. I don't think rehashing potential mistakes some think may have been made in the war on terrorism, specifically in Iraq, is something that should be brought up as a reason to vote against Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.

I, for one, will say mistakes have been made. I don't think war is ever perfect. You can't make an outline and say this is how a war is going to go and expect it to go in that exact way. However, I don't think anyone could have anticipated all that has happened or the kind of enemy that we face. An enemy that is willing to blow itself up to kill innocent people requires a different strategy and approach. We are making the adjustments.

One of the leaders who has kept a steady focus on the war on terrorism and our efforts in Iraq is the woman who is before us today. It is Condoleezza Rice who has kept the steady aim and helped our President see all of the minefields out there. This has strengthened our country, to stay the course in the war on terrorism. The stabilization of Iraq is a step forward to promoting peace worldwide.

Condoleezza Rice is absolutely the most qualified person to succeed a wonderful Secretary of State, Colin Powell. What do you want in a Secretary of State? What do you look for? What would foreign leaders look for in a Secretary of State?

No. 1: Somebody who has a deep understanding of foreign policy. Condoleezza Rice has had a 25-year career in foreign policy, an exemplary academic background, graduating with a Ph.D. in international studies with a Russian focus--concentration on Russian history and Russian relations--cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She has the absolute ability to do this job, unquestionably, and she has the experience. For 25 years she has served three Presidents, been a key adviser in the one of the most tumultuous times of our history, and after 9/11, brought our country together by focusing on an

enemy that is a new kind of enemy. Condoleezza Rice has done that, and she has done a great job.

No. 2: In looking for a Secretary of State, you want someone who is known to our country and known to foreign leaders. She will not be a stranger, speaking for our President. She is known to foreign leaders because as national security advisor, she has dealt with foreign leaders throughout the world. She has strong working relationships with world leaders, foreign ministers, national security advisers, and our closest allies. These relationships have been developed for over a quarter of a century. They will be valuable assets to our country and to her.

Having been a Soviet affairs specialist, who worked during the Cold War, she helped guide our Nation's efforts to promote freedom and democracy throughout that part of the world in the emerging Soviet republics. She helped guide our Nation to promote freedom throughout the world, by stressing the virtues of democracy, defying those who suggested that communism was here to stay and Eastern Europe could not be liberated. With the unification of Germany and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Reagan administration made history with Condoleezza Rice in a key position.

No 3: You want a Secretary of State to be a trusted adviser to the President. There is no doubt the President and Dr. Rice know each other well. The President trusts her. And when foreign leaders talk to Condoleezza Rice, they will know she is speaking for the President, through offers made and pronouncements stated. Being a trusted adviser to the President is very important.

And, No. 4: You need someone who can manage a very large and important department of our Government with offices strewn throughout the world and with ambassadors reporting affairs in those countries. It will be important to have someone who is a good manager. She has served as Provost of Stanford University during her 6 years there, managing a diverse population.

On a personal note, I wrote a book called ``American Heroines,'' and one of the interviewees I had was Condoleezza Rice. I was talking to contemporary women who have broken barriers, and I interviewed Condoleezza Rice. I asked her the question: What is the best preparation for the rough and tumble of your job? She said: Without a doubt, being provost of Stanford University, because I dealt with 1,400 very smart people who were basically independent contractors, and I had to learn when to persuade, when to inform, and when to demand.

If that isn't a recipe for Secretary of State, I don't know one: When to persuade, when to inform, and when to demand. Diplomats need to know when to do each of these and she has honed these skills during her time as National Security Adviser, and most certainly while managing the 1,400-member faculty at Stanford University.

She has become a person uniquely qualified for this position. I am so proud to support her. She is a woman who is unflappable and has comported herself with dignity through the most trying times, through trying hearings and trying questioning. She has dealt with the largest crisis that we have had in our country, surely in the last 25 years, 9/ 11, finding out who the enemy is, where that enemy was being trained, and trying to make sure that we had a strategy to combat it.

Condoleezza Rice will be a great Secretary of State. She will make her mark on this position as some of the best Secretaries of State in our history have done. She has the capability. She has the trusted ear of the President. She has the knowledge of foreign policy from 25 years of experience and relationships with heads of state and foreign ministers, friend and enemy alike, and will work well with them.

She is going to collaborate when collaboration is called for in our foreign policy but more importantly, she will protect America when it is necessary.

I am proud of this nomination. I am proud of the President for bringing her in as National Security Adviser, working with her, learning from her and teaching her at the same time. The relationship is perfect for the new challenge she will face.

She is up to this challenge. I have every faith in her. I hope our colleagues will look to the future, look to what she can do, and will not rehash things in the past for which she was not responsible. She deserves the opportunity to represent our country, and, more important, give the President of the United States the person he wants in this job. As we face a very difficult 4 years, he deserves to have the person he chose. I hope the vote will be overwhelming.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past decade, Congress has approved over $46 billion in disaster relief and emergency spending. This is an average of $4.6 billion a year. The majority of this funding--$34 billion--has been provided through supplemental bills, not subject to the normal appropriations process.

Supporters of supplemental spending suggest it provides Congress flexibility to respond to emergencies and to priorities that did not receive the proper consideration during the budget cycle. While supplemental bills do offer flexibility, they are not always helpful for fiscal responsibility. Millions of dollars are put in emergency spending bills that should go through the regular budget process, adding more and more to the bottom line.

America is at a critical time--we must be prepared to address domestic emergencies without increasing the deficit or being forced to fund non-emergency projects in order to release necessary funds. Supplemental spending circumvents budgetary enforcement mechanisms and can lead lawmakers to under-fund programs in the regular appropriations process, because they know they ultimately can get what is needed through a supplemental.

Supplemental bills allocate funding for emergencies, and we have all witnessed, firsthand, how a natural disaster can impact a country severely. Merely because something is unforeseen does not mean we should not prepare. Congress needs to plan in a manner that is fiscally responsible and procedurally transparent.

Today, I offer a bill to create an emergency fund under the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an interest bearing account, containing 1.2 percent of the annual non-defense domestic spending, or roughly $4.6 billion. This will be America's rainy day fund--a savings account ready for almost any potential unforeseen domestic emergencies.

This account is not designed to eliminate the need for supplemental bills but rather lessen the need for them.

Last year, in supplemental spending alone, Congress spent $2.5 billion on disaster relief in America. Domestic discretionary supplemental bills enacted in response to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes, rose steadily through the 1990s. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, was the second-largest recipient of supplemental spending during the 1990s. Supplemental appropriations for ``non-natural'' disasters such as the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 as well as the September 11 terrorist attack have also demanded quick and efficient funding. History is teaching us a lesson; while we do not know what the

emergencies will be, we can feel certain there will be something to which we will need to respond.

Beyond the clear fiscal conservatism we need, I believe this rainy day fund would reduce the time it takes to respond to emergencies by giving Congress a more efficient, less political process. My bill would require the contingency fund to be expended before supplemental spending for domestic disasters can be pursued, with the exclusion of defense spending.

As we seek to be more fiscally responsible, our next step forward should be this account, from which the funds we draw upon are planned for and set aside through the normal appropriations process. Our current system regularly underfunds FEMA and other agencies for emergencies, and this should end.

As we prepare for the future, it is my goal that we save and prepare for the vital needs of our people should there be a domestic emergency. Recent events worldwide demand we be fiscally responsible and procedurally capable of this, our most important duty, the protection and safe-keeping of the American people.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation.

State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of what they pay by receiving a deduction on their federal taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.

The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government.

Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.

It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.

This discrepancy had a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, the ability of taxpayers to deduct their sales taxes will lead to an additional $740 million staying in the hands of Texans each year, the creation of more than 16,500 new jobs, and the addition of $920 million in State economic activity.

Last year, we took an important step by reinstating a sales tax deduction. As a result, everyone now has the opportunity to deduct either their State and local income taxes or sales taxes. For the 55 million of us in the 7 States with a sales tax but no income tax, this means the tax code no longer discriminates against us. Unfortunately, the new deduction is only in effect for 2004 and 2005. We must act to prevent the inequity from returning.

The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction.

This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide

permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision that has been in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

Over the past four years we have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 44 million married couples, including 2.4 million Texas families, paid an average penalty of $1,480.

Enacting marriage penalty relief has been a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and 43 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively.

Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because we cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event.

I call on the Senate to finish the job we started to make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

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

Mr. President, I strongly support the confirmation of Margaret Spellings as the eighth Secretary of Education. Ms. Spellings is a longtime public servant who for the past 4 years has served as President Bush's chief domestic policy adviser. In her White House efforts, she has helped implement policies on education, health, labor and housing. Her familiarity with America's students and teachers will prove invaluable in her new role managing our public educational system.

Ms. Spellings also assisted President Bush when he was Governor of our home State of Texas, where they worked together on a number of important education programs including the Texas Reading Initiative to improve literacy, the Student Success Initiative to eliminate social promotion, and the State's accountability standard which is the forerunner to the No Child Left Behind Act. Because of her educational accomplishments, each year the United States develops more qualified teachers, better facilities and superior resources.

A veteran of the Texas Association of School Boards, Ms. Spellings knows firsthand the advantages afforded by education and has pledged to ensure every child acquires the skills necessary to realize the American Dream. I am proud to support her in that effort, and to support her confirmation so she may continue her important work.