Floor Statements

Mr. President, last night the U.S. military, as we know now, working hand in hand with the Iraqi counterpart, located and killed al-Qaida terrorist Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi. We know who this terrorist is. He is a brutal terrorist who has repeatedly encouraged violence against Americans and Iraqi citizens.

Al-Zarqawi is credited with ordering kidnappings, beheadings, and killings of innocent civilians with insurgent attacks. Al-Zarqawi was the operational mastermind of the al-Qaida network in Iraq. He sought to destroy America and our coalition partners to create a sanctuary for the al-Qaida organization in the Middle East. His death marks the fragmentation of al-Qaida's primary leadership and the silencing of a ruthless terrorist.

The military operation against al-Zarqawi was performed by our dedicated, professional Armed Forces in concert with our coalition partner. Our military servicemembers should be commended for their remarkable efforts in eradicating the enemy of a free and democratic Iraq.

Our war fighters worked tirelessly with our Iraqi counterparts tracking the movement of al-Zarqawi's followers, leading to his demise in last night's airstrike.

We are proud of the success of this operation, but even prouder of the job that our Armed Forces have accomplished in their commitment to peace and stability in Iraq. Although this is positive development and significant step in the global war on terror, our fight in Iraq is far from over. We are making significant strides toward eradicating terrorism, developing a free government, and reviving the economy. But Iraq will not become a democracy overnight. While our involvement continues to be difficult, our resolve must remain strong. We must remain focused on our fundamental goal--preserving the freedom and security of the United States. This is an enormous challenge that will take determination, global cooperation, and fortitude to succeed. I am confident the United States will triumph over global chaos and tyranny, as it always has. But whatever it is, we must back our troops.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong and unwavering support for a full repeal of the estate tax, or the death tax, as we often refer to it.

Until World War I, the Government only imposed an estate tax or inheritance tax to raise revenue to fund expenses directly related to the necessities of war. Even then, the rate was measured. However, that practice changed after World War I, and unlike four previous occasions, the tax was not repealed once a peace agreement was reached. In fact, the tax continued to increase until it reached 70 percent during Franklin Roosevelt's administration.

What was once a means to finance war eventually became a significant revenue stream that funded all aspects of a growing Federal bureaucracy. Today, the estate tax continues to provide a significant revenue stream to the Federal coffers and functions as a redistribution of personal wealth and punishment, basically, to those successful business owners seeking a better way of life.

The death tax places an undue burden on our Nation's family-owned farms and small businesses. These individuals work tirelessly day in and day out to make their own way, to contribute to society and the economy, only to be told their loved ones will be punished when they die. Too often I hear sons and daughters forced to sell a piece--if not all--of the legacy their parents worked to create and sustain simply to pay the estate tax. That scenario is wrong. We should not punish hard work and entrepreneurship; we should reward it. We should reward those who choose to continue their family businesses rather than shut them down. These people work hard to promote prosperity and growth in their local communities, only to be told by the Federal Government that in addition to the taxes they have paid each and every year, they must now pay an additional tax, the death tax, because someone died.

Taxing death has a negative impact on the desire of Americans to invest and to save. A basic economics class will teach you that savings and investment are positive for individuals, families, and our economy. Punitive taxes such as the estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and the gift tax all have a negative impact on our overall economic growth.

In 2001, as my colleagues well know, Congress acted to eliminate the estate tax by January 1, 2010. Unfortunately, this provision sunsets in 2011, just 1 year after it is fully repealed. As it currently stands, in 2011 the Tax Code is set to completely reverse all progress we have made to reduce the tax burden on our Nation's entrepreneurs. So those who are not fortunate enough to die, can you imagine, in 2010 will be faced with the prospect of their loved ones being responsible for as much as 55 percent of the estate's assets.

Whether it is a construction company, a cattle farm, a medical practice, or any of 100 other businesses, they all require significant capital investment in land, equipment, and materials that quickly overcome the threshold we will return to in 2011. These investments are not part of the business; in most cases, they are the business.

I am also concerned that, like other taxes I mentioned earlier, the estate tax serves as a second bite at the apple. Our current tax system too often taxes income and then asks for more. The estate tax or death tax is one of the more egregious examples of this situation.

I believe the Federal Government should work to minimize the burden on the American taxpayer and to simplify our tax system. The estate tax is contrary to both of these purposes. It not

only taxes assets a second time, it also is one of the more complicated taxes to comply with in our bloated Tax Code.

I believe repeal of the estate tax is one of the many steps we as elected representatives of our respective States and people should take to spur economic growth, remove the burden on small business, and simplify our tax system, and I urge my colleagues to support immediate and full repeal of this tax.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise tonight as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Marriage Protection Amendment before the Senate.

If you had told me 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, that I would be standing before the Senate advocating a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I would have thought you had lost your mind. Why in the world would you ever need to do that, I would have asked? Doesn't it go without saying that men and women get married? Yet tonight I do stand in the Senate advocating a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing else. What was once thought preposterous is now reality. We are faced with this new reality because activist judges throughout the Nation have decided to redefine marriage.

The courts, not the people, not the States, are redefining a fundamental institution of our society, the very foundation of our civilization.

Ironically, this new definition of marriage runs contrary to what a majority of Americans believe. In fact, 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, nothing else. On average, those measures have passed with more than 70 percent of the voters' support.

Today, the voters in my home State of Alabama--and we will know the outcome later tonight--will vote on a State constitutional amendment regarding marriage. I think I know what the outcome will be in my State. Regardless, no judge should be able to impose his or her will on Alabama or any other State if the voters have decided otherwise.

What appears to be a broad consensus throughout the country for protecting the institution of marriage is being undermined and redefined by activist judges. These judges have struck down numerous State laws intended to protect the traditional definition of marriage. State courts in California, Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Washington have overturned laws or amendments protecting marriage, and a Federal judge in Nebraska invalidated a State amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

I have long thought that it was the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, not make the law. However, these activist judges across the country have taken it upon themselves to make laws that, in many cases, redefine the definition of marriage. These judges have taken it upon themselves to make decisions reserved for State legislatures who have worked to be responsive to their constituencies and to define marriage in the traditional sense. The difference is that these activist judges do not have to be responsive to anyone and are accountable to no one.

Abraham Lincoln reminded us in the Gettysburg Address that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Activist judges, accountable to no one, should not be allowed to govern this country. The basic foundation of our Constitution does not invest total control in the judiciary. It is not government by the judiciary; rather, it is a government by the people. On this issue, the people have spoken and will speak again.

Activist judges should not be permitted to redefine the sacred bond of marriage. For generations, humanity has defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman upon which families are built. It is the institution of marriage upon which our society has flourished.

Mr. President, States, in my judgment, must be allowed to continue to exercise their will. States that pass laws on constitutional amendments should not be overridden by an overactive judiciary that believes it has the power to redefine the moral character upon which our Nation was built. I believe the President recently summed it up when he said:

The union of a man and a woman in marriage is the most

enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every

culture, human beings have understood that marriage is

critical to the well-being of families. And because families

pass along values and shape character, marriage is also

critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to

strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the

definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

Therefore, tonight I stand before you in strong support of this constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

I yield the floor.

I believe that is going to happen today.

Oh, it will.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, while S. 2611, the immigration bill, contains important titles addressing border security and worksite enforcement, the bill, as everyone knows, also contains titles relating to amnesty for illegal aliens and the creation of a massive new guest worker program which will undermine true immigration reform, in my opinion.

The most problematic provisions of S. 2611 are as follows:

One, I want you to know I opposed amnesty 20 years ago. It did not work then, and I do not believe it will work now.

Two, our first priority should be to secure our borders. Any discussion of amnesty takes away from that priority, in my judgment.

Three, supporters of these amnesty provisions say it is not amnesty but what they call ``earned legalization.'' I am not here to argue about semantics or labels. Whether you call it: ``amnesty,'' ``status adjustment'' or ``guest worker,'' the result is that individuals who came here illegally will now be considered legal workers and on their way toward citizenship. That is the bottom line.

Four, under the so-called compromise that is working here, those who have broken the law the longest are treated the best.

Five, those who can prove they have been here 2 to 5 years still do not have to leave the country and are, hence, still treated better than those waiting to enter legally.

Six, the bill has minimal requirements on proving that an illegal alien has worked or will work in the future. What few provisions there are seem very vulnerable to fraud.

Seven, this bill mandates that illegal workers are paid a higher wage than many American workers in the same position with the same qualifications.

Eight, the supporters of this bill claim that back taxes will be paid for past labor. But a close reading of the bill shows that these back taxes will only be paid, if at all, 8 years down the road when applying for a green card, not as a requirement to receive the H-2C visa.

Nine, this bill drastically increases the number of employment-based green cards issued annually. What will happen to the American worker when unemployment goes up and so many foreign workers, who are willing to work for less, have been given citizenship?

Ten, today, before the implementation of any reforms, the ability of our immigration officials to process applicants who are following the law is severely taxed. This bill will surely have a negative impact on those foreign workers who have followed the rules and are waiting patiently in their home country to legally come to this country.

Eleven, while others say comprehensive immigration reform must include these amnesty provisions, I feel strongly they will only serve to encourage further illegal immigration in the years to come.

And my 12th reason, the bottom line is, this bill, in my judgment, rewards past lawbreaking and encourages future lawbreaking. I am willing to bet that if this bill is enacted, we will only revisit this problem 20 years--perhaps before 20 years--down the road. Only then, we might be talking about 20 million to 30 million illegal immigrants.

Those are some of the reasons--and there are many others--why I will vote ``no'' on the final passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 99 yesterday, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, today we continue to debate the provisions of H.R. 4939, the bill providing additional 2006 supplemental appropriations for

the war in Iraq and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

Other supplemental appropriations bills have been previously signed into law dealing with the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, but none of those bills directly support the needs of the devastated fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Senate's funding recommendations affecting the gulf coast fishing industry were developed by the States Fisheries Commission and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to meet local needs in cooperation with Federal partners, including NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to a significant share of the U.S. fishing industry, representing almost 20 percent of commercial landings and roughly 30 percent of saltwater recreational fishing trips. The 2005 hurricane season had a major impact on both of these maritime sectors, but it also devastated their shore-based infrastructure, ports, and facilities that commercial harvesters and fishermen rely on, such as docks, wharves, processing plants, distribution centers, and marinas.

Offshore, the hurricanes annihilated entire oyster beds along the gulf coast which has an immediate and long-term impact to the oyster harvesting industry. Considering that it will take years for many of the oyster beds to rebound, the current economic impacts are only part of the assessment.

Throughout the gulf coast, over 2,300 vessels were federally permitted for shrimping. The Presiding Officer, coming from Alaska, knows a lot about fishing boats. The exact number of shrimp vessels damaged or destroyed by the 2005 hurricanes is still largely unknown. However, one only needs to visit coastal communities such as Bayou La Batre, Gulfport-Biloxi, and Empire-Venice to see the overwhelming effects these hurricanes had on the entire fishing-based communities along the gulf coast. With their boats gone and shoreside facilities destroyed, many businesses are having to rebuild literally from the ground up.

It is logical to presume that the damage from last year's hurricanes, coupled with the rise of diesel fuel costs, could result in the increase in the percentage of fishermen filing for bankruptcy. This bill will stabilize the number of vessels in the fishery and rebuild fishing facilities, allowing fishermen the opportunity to harvest a greater proportion of the annual fish crop and increase their economic returns.

Finally, I want to touch on the funding that has been included in this bill for seafood marketing efforts because it has been the target of much criticism on the floor. I believe this funding is extremely important to the overall effort to restore this industry. We cannot deny the fact that many consumers became increasingly wary of gulf coast seafood following Hurricane Katrina. That is natural. To that end, I believe it is imperative that we restore consumer confidence. All the work that has been done and all that we propose to do with the additional spending in this bill will be wasted if no one purchases the seafood that comes from the gulf. Therefore, marketing efforts to reassure consumers that the seafood is safe are not wasteful but, rather, essential to the efforts to restore this industry.

The 2006 supplemental appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, contains significant funding to address many needs of the devastated fishing industry in the gulf coast. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill as reported and oppose any amendments that might propose to strike funding provided for fisheries assistance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Jessie Tehranchi was a passionate advocate for improved public transportation and universal health care from my State of Alabama. Jessie dedicated her time to helping others as she worked to advocate on behalf of the issues that shaped her life.

Jessie's passion was personal; diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1987, she spent much of her adult life confined to a wheelchair. Faced with seemingly insurmountable odds, Jessie used her experience to better the lives of many others with similar handicaps. A fixture in transportation activist groups, she spoke across the country on behalf of her causes.

Jessie testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2002 at a Housing and Transportation Subcommittee meeting. Jessie emphasized the need for effective public transportation and cited her own experiences as a person unable to drive. Her testimony was powerful and useful as the Senate worked on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Jessie was optimistic, energetic, and passionate. I am proud of her efforts, and I am grateful for her dedication to this important cause. I know that she will be missed not only by her husband, Jim Tehranchi, and two sons, David and Michael, and her many friends, but by the many people whose lives she touched through her devotion to public transportation.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Alito's education, legal training, and judicial record have positioned him well to serve our Nation with honor and dignity on the Supreme Court. A graduate of Princeton and Yale, Judge Alito has more than 30 years of legal experience. Over the years, he has served as a judicial clerk, a prosecutor, an appellate lawyer before both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has served as legal counsel to the U.S. Government and most recently as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District. Judge Alito has a full breadth of experience in both criminal and civil cases as well as the trial and appeals phases of the judicial system.

I believe Judge Alito's record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District shows that he is a fair and impartial jurist. During his tenure on that court, it has been clear that he takes all legal theories and arguments into account when making decisions and issuing rulings. Judge Alito is well respected by his colleagues and has even received their praise for the manner and tone he takes in working through the facts to arrive at a decision. I do not recall anyone questioning his ability to do the job and in fact, he received a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, its highest rating.

While many have criticized Judge Alito's supposed judicial philosophy, I believe that his written decisions and statements as well as his appearance before the Judiciary Committee confirmed his ability to set personal views and ideology aside so as to not cloud his interpretation of the law. I commend Judge Alito for his poise and composure throughout one of the most arduous hearings in recent memory.

The time has come for Congress and the President to serve as a check on the judicial activism that has become so prevalent in the judiciary today.

I believe that we must have judges that interpret the Constitution and the law rather than manipulate it to meet their personal ideologies. Judge Alito fits that mold.

Mr. President, I am proud to support Judge Alito and look forward to him becoming the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

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

Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the nominations of Benjamin S. Bernanke to be a member and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

In November of 2005, I chaired our Banking Committee hearing regarding this nomination, and we heard from Dr. Bernanke on a wide range of economic issues. In reporting this nomination to the floor for consideration, I would reiterate that President Bush has made a superb appointment in selecting Dr. Ben Bernanke for this position.

This nomination is of great importance to our Nation and our economy. As the central bank, the Federal Reserve has the responsibility for conducting monetary policy to maintain maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. As the U.S. continues to lead the world economy, sound stewardship of the Federal Reserve also affects the global marketplace.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve would certainly have a big enough job to do if he were tasked only with serving as head of the central bank of the United States. But his job also entails the supervision and regulation of financial institutions, including some of the largest financial entities in the world. The Federal Reserve must ensure the safety and soundness of these institutions and monitor any potential for systemic risk. The American consumer also counts upon the Federal Reserve to foster the fair and efficient delivery of services to customers of financial institutions.

The Federal Reserve also plays a major role in operating the Nation's payment system. Evolving technology continues to change the way we pay for goods and services. The Federal Reserve must oversee these innovations and adaptations and make certain the U.S. payment system is effective, reliable, and safe.

For nearly two decades, it has been impossible to raise the topic of the Federal Reserve without also mentioning Alan Greenspan, and I will do so briefly here today. Alan Greenspan has been the face and the voice of the Federal Reserve for over 18 years. Today he is chairing his last session of the Federal Open Market Committee.

Chairman Greenspan has made a big impression on all of us--here in Congress, our Nation, and across the world. During his tenure, the U.S. economy and our financial system have withstood a number of significant shocks, including the stock market crash of 1987, the Asian debt crisis which affected capital globally, and, of course, the catastrophic effects of 9/11, which hit the heart of the U.S. financial industry and which affected all of us and our economy in many ways.

Chairman Greenspan also oversaw the longest economic expansion in American history. Because of our economic success, even in the face of great challenges, some consider Chairman Greenspan to be the greatest central banker of all time. I commend Chairman Greenspan for his exemplary service and dedication to our country.

Now it is time for a transition at the Federal Reserve System. As I noted, this will be the first time in nearly two decades that the Congress has had a new nominee before us for consideration. Certainly stepping into Mr. Greenspan's shoes will be a tremendous challenge.

While it may seem a daunting task to follow as distinguished a chairman as Alan Greenspan, we should be mindful of two things.

First, in 1987, many observers wondered whether an economist named Alan Greenspan could successfully follow in the wake of the vaunted Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Each person who sits in the Chairman's seat has the opportunity to make that position his own and to become a leader in his own right. That is what has been done, in large part, due to the caliber of the men who Presidents of the United States have chosen for the task.

Second, I would also note that many individuals who hold diverse viewpoints on other topics are in agreement that President Bush has selected the best possible candidate to serve as the next Federal Reserve Chairman. Indeed, Dr. Ben Bernanke may well be the finest monetary economist of his generation. He has both a distinguished career in academia as well as in the policymaking arena.

The list of his experience and achievements is long. I do not have enough time this morning to mention all of them, but I want to mention some of his most important qualifications because his nomination requires someone with the rare expertise that Dr. Bernanke has acquired.

As he moves on to become the Federal Reserve Chairman, Dr. Bernanke will be completing his duties as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. During his service at the CEA, Dr. Bernanke provided the President and our Nation with sound economic advice on a variety of significant policy issues. But before his service at the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Bernanke served with great distinction as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 2002 to 2005. This experience gives him an inside knowledge of the Federal Reserve and the financial markets.

Dr. Bernanke has earned the tremendous respect and confidence of policymakers in this country as well as around the world. He previously served as chair of the economics department at Princeton University, and prior to that tenure he was an associate professor of economics at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. He also served as a visiting professor of economics at New York University and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economic Research. In 1975, he received his B.A. in economics from Harvard University, where he graduated with honors. In 1979, he received his Ph.D. in economics from MIT.

It will be difficult to follow the long and successful tenure of Alan Greenspan. Dr. Bernanke is an excellent choice for the job. Few individuals have this mix of practical and academic experience, especially his prior experience at the Federal Reserve. The Banking Committee reviewed this nomination thoroughly, and we believe Dr. Bernanke will serve this country well at the helm of the Federal Reserve.

I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Does the Senator wish to continue?

Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to the Senator from North Dakota some of my time.

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

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time at this point.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on video content.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 2 p.m., in SD-106.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing tit1ed, ``Challenges in a Catastrophe: Evacuating New Orleans in Advance of Hurricane Katrina.''

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 347, I was recorded as not voting. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, introduced by my colleagues on the Banking Committee, Senators Dodd and Bennett and reported out unanimously by the Banking Committee.

In the wake of the events of September 11, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, also known as ``TRIA.'' The law was intended to ensure the continued availability and affordability of property and casualty insurance for terrorism risk, and to provide for a transitional period to allow private markets to stabilize.

At this point in time, it seems that this program has largely achieved both of its stated objectives. Over the last 3 years, the property and casualty insurance market has rebounded and is now far more profitable and competitive. Indeed, despite the enormous losses incurred as a result of the hurricanes, insurer capital has grown tremendously and now greatly exceeds pre-September 11 levels.

While the private insurance markets have made tremendous strides during the course of the TRIA program, however, the private insurance marketplace has not yet entirely stabilized.

As a result, without some form of backstop, it is very likely that there would be gaps in some terrorism insurance coverage.

S. 467 extends the TRIA program and addresses this market dysfunction. Additionally and importantly, it also recognizes the positive developments in the insurance markets and contains reforms to the original law intended to require more private sector responsibility and to facilitate further recovery in the insurance markets. It strikes the proper balance between ensuring that terrorism insurance remains available and affordable, while also protecting the American taxpayer.

I note that I did not support enactment of TRIA when it was first considered 4 years ago. My reservations were based on concerns about the Government intruding into private markets. While my concerns are not entirely diminished, I believe that the Banking Committee has produced a responsible, targeted product that will help the marketplace smoothly transition to efficient function.

This bill, this bipartisan compromise package, could never have been achieved without the cooperation and commitment of the members of the Banking Committee. Specifically, I commend Senators Dodd and Bennett, the original cosponsors of this bill, for their leadership, their effort and their willingness to work together. I also thank Senator Sarbanes, who, in his usual manner, was extremely helpful to achieving this result.

Additionally, I thank the various staffers whose hard work behind the scenes helped get this bill done. Particularly, I want to commend the efforts of Alex Sternhell from Senator Dodd's staff, Sarah Kline and Steve Harris from Senator Sarbanes's staff, Mike Nielsen from Senator Bennett's staff, and Jim Johnson, Andrew Olmem, Mark Oesterle and Kathy Casey from my staff.

Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking Senator Mikulski, the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee. The Senator from Maryland and I have worked in a bipartisan manner to produce the bill that is now before the Senate.

I thank Chairman Wolf and Congressman Mollohan. They have worked with us to resolve some considerable differences in our two bills, and I commend them for their efforts.

Finally, I thank Chairman Cochran, the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

The bill before us today is the conference report for H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill. Overall, this is a very good bill. Make no mistake, this was a lean year, a very lean year. The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation did not account for several sizeable programs which were proposed for termination in the administration's budget, which this subcommittee restored.

In the Senate, the subcommittee that I chair is called the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, CJS, Appropriations Subcommittee. The Senate CJS Subcommittee no longer has jurisdiction over the operations budget of the State Department, which has been merged with the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Under a previous arrangement, however, the State Department is being considered under the House framework, therefore the bill before the Senate is the Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations conference report.

The bill that we are considering today provides a total of $61.8 billion in budget authority to agencies under the bill's jurisdiction, including the State Department. For those agencies under the Senate subcommittee's jurisdiction--the Departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA, NSF, and others--approximately $52.2 billion in budget authority is provided.

The bill includes an increase of just over $1 billion above the budget request for the Department of Justice. The bulk of this increase is due to the restoration of many of the proposed cuts to State and local law enforcement grant programs.

The bill provides $6.5 million for the Department of Commerce. Several programs within the Department of Commerce were proposed for termination in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget. This bill restores funding for these programs, among them the Economic Development Administration and the Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction grants.

The bill provides increases for NASA to move forward with the vision the President has proposed, while fulfilling our commitments to important existing programs.

At a time when there are so many demands being made on scarce Federal dollars, difficult decisions had to be made. We have tried to address the priorities that so many of our colleagues brought to our attention. Though we were able to accommodate many of our colleagues' requests, we were obviously not able to do everything everyone has requested.

I believe that we endeavored to produce a bill that is bipartisan and that, we feel, serves the need of this country and we were successful.

I yield to Senator Mikulski, my esteemed ranking member, for her statement.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.