Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that has troubled me for many months, and that is the disappearance of an Alabama teenager, Natalee Holloway, from the island of Aruba. Most people have heard about this. It has been in the news for months.

More than 5 months ago, on the early morning of May 30, Natalee Holloway disappeared from the island of Aruba. Since the start of the investigation into Natalee's disappearance, I, along with others, have been deeply troubled by the process that has taken place in Aruba. From the outset, there has been miscommunication and misinformation from the Aruban Government. The investigation has been plagued by inconsistencies and conflicting information, calling the integrity of the investigation itself into question. Since Natalee's disappearance, a number of suspects have been arrested, detained, and released without the benefit of any substantive information regarding her disappearance.

I have made no secret of my concern regarding the handling of this case and the careless and inappropriate manner in which it appears the evidence has been handled. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that without the will of Natalee Holloway's mother, Beth Twitty, Natalee's disappearance would not have received the level of scrutiny in Aruba and around the world we have witnessed.

It is disturbing that so many months have passed with no clear answers regarding the circumstances surrounding Natalee's disappearance. To that end, I joined Alabama GOV Bob Riley and others yesterday to call for a boycott of Aruba. Today, I call upon my colleagues to join me in that call.

I understand this is a drastic measure, but I believe that we as Americans, along with others around the world, should carefully weigh our travel options until the Government of Aruba exhibits a good-faith effort to solve this case.

For the safety, security, and well-being of our citizens, I do not believe we can trust that we will be protected while in Aruba. Quite frankly, if this can happen to Natalee Holloway, a teenager from my home State of Alabama, it could happen to any of us. That is why I believe a boycott is the answer. I hope the American people, when they think of traveling to the Caribbean this winter, will look at other options.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Reed amendment. In the Banking Committee, as part of the reconciliation process, we save, in this instance, $270 million. This proposal simply makes the FHA's use of rehab grants and below-market sales subject to appropriations.

If these programs are, in fact, beneficial--some of them are-- appropriations can still be granted in the future, and using the appropriations process allows the Congress to better oversee the use of these dollars and to ensure that our resources are well spent.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This $270 million is a lot of savings that we can put forth today.

Mr. President, I agree with what my colleague from Maryland has said. SAFETEA is the culmination of many years of work by the committees of jurisdiction, who held dozens of hearings with transportation stakeholders to share ideas on how to respond to our nation's transportation needs. I believe that SAFETEA made some very important improvements to our previous transportation law and struck a good balance between the various modes, and I hope to see those changes reflected in this appropriations legislation when it emerges from the conference committee.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts is a man of integrity whose reputation is irrefutable. He has been widely praised for his affable and humble personality as well as his integrity and intellect. Judge Roberts is already greatly respected by his colleagues and current Supreme Court Justices who know him as a leading advocate before that Court.

I believe that Judge Roberts is eminently qualified for this position. He earned both his bachelor's degree and his law degree from Harvard University. In fact, after earning his bachelor's degree summa cum laude, he managed to earn his law degree magna cum laude while serving as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following graduation, Judge Roberts earned a clerkship on the Supreme Court for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Since that time, Judge Roberts has had a long and distinguished career of service to this country, including serving as an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor General. Most recently, he served as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered the second most powerful court in the Nation. During his service on the court, he has been consistent and fair.

Judge Roberts has also been a private practice attorney representing the full range of clients before the Supreme Court. He has argued before the Supreme Court 39 times, an impressive record even if you do not consider the fact that his client prevailed in 25 of those cases. In fact, Judge Roberts is widely considered by his colleagues to be one of the most accomplished attorneys to argue before the Supreme Court.

For some time I have been concerned that our judiciary was being overwhelmed by activist judges who attempt to legislate from the bench. They appear to make decisions based upon political philosophy and twist the words of our Forefathers and of Congress to serve their ideological goals.

We do not need judges who will make their own laws and interpret the Constitution based on one political philosophy or another. Rather, we must insist on judges who maintain a fair and judicious tone--judges who rule without the influence of ideology or personal opinion.

After 20 hours of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe the Nation learned a great deal about how Judge Roberts views the judicial role and what kind of service he will provide the Nation as Chief Justice. Judge Roberts is a skilled lawyer who understands and respects the Constitution. I believe he understands that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law--not make law. It is clear from his testimony that his goal will be to fairly and effectively interpret the Constitution and the law without prejudice and with the utmost respect for the rule of law.

I commend President Bush for his continued efforts to put judges in place who respect the rule of law. I believe that Judge Roberts is a shining example of this type of jurist, and there is no doubt in my mind that he should be confirmed as our country's 17th Chief Justice, and I am proud to support his nomination.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment No. 1713 be modified to be a first-degree amendment and that at 11:45, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Grassley amendment No. 1713, as modified, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 1665, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes and with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the second vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Grassley amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendments I now send to the desk be considered and agreed to en bloc. These amendments have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to Snowe-Kerry amendment No. 1717, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

For the information of my colleagues, we are now down to one or two outstanding issues. That is good news in the Senate on a Thursday afternoon. During the next vote, we will try to finalize those amendments. Senator Mikulski and I, the managers of the bill, have been working with everybody in the Senate to try to move the bill forward. It is our expectation that we will quickly proceed to passage of the bill. I, therefore, alert all Senators now that they should remain close to the Chamber, following this upcoming vote, hopefully for final passage.

I yield to my colleague.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, we have three additional amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I send those amendments to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. This has been cleared with the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Lieberman amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate; provided further that the amendment to the title then be agreed to, the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

I further ask unanimous consent that following the first vote there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I would like to thank the Senator from Texas and my colleague from Alabama for their willingness to work with me to resolve their

concerns. This program, as with many programs for which we struggle to find adequate funding, is important. This program received no appropriation in the fiscal year 2005 conference report. I understand related funding has been appropriated in the House CJS bill and I will work to address the concerns of my colleagues as the appropriations process moves forward.

I agree with the Senator from Florida. NOAA's National Weather Service has the unique expertise and responsibility to provide the nation with general weather and flood warnings and forecasts to protect life and property. The National Weather Service shall have the continued flexibility to disseminate these warnings and forecasts in all formats necessary to ensure timely delivery to the taxpayers. Furthermore, I want to commend the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for their exceptionally accurate Katrina forecasts.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada and recognize the importance of the basic research done through NSF. I share his interest in basic research funding and look forward to working with him to strengthen our Nation's capabilities through basic research.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Colorado and Maryland and recognize the importance of their interest in funding science education. I share their interest in supporting education funding at NSF and will work to find opportunities for science education funding during conference.

Mr. President, I would be happy to do so.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Allen has had a long-

time interest in this issue and appreciate the point he is making with regard to the benefit of aeronautics research and development to our national defense and our economy.

I would tell my colleague I agree that we must find ways to support sciences and disciplines that contribute positively to the United States trade relationship with its partners.

Mr. ALLEN. Yet, even as our national security and economy are dependent on the breakthroughs in aeronautic research and developments, in recent years, NASA has significantly reduced its investment in this vital science. The administration's 2006 budget proposes to cut over $700 million out of NASA's aeronautics budget over the next 5 years. That will reduce the effective levels of NASA's aeronautic investment to about half the level it is today--and today's level is about half the level which existed--adjusted for inflation--that the U.S. made just a decade ago.

Moreover, the President's budget called for eliminating NASA's entire ``vehicle systems'' program--the very initiative that over the last five decades has provided major technology advances that have been used on every major civil and military aircraft over that period of time.

The last two administrations have consistently reduced NASA's aeronautics funding and allowed a valuable competency and the human resource to atrophy and now the U.S. is second to the Europeans in aircraft sales.

I would like to point out that there have been a number of well researched, thoughtful reports on the importance of aeronautics research to our economic and national security. The National Institute of Aerospace recently released a comprehensive study that outlines priorities and funding requirements to meet the challenges we face from foreign competition and realize the innovations and breakthroughs of the future. Specifically, the report finds that NASA's aeronauts budget requires an average 5-year increase of $885.5 million over the fiscal year 2005 levels. This proposed budget would bring NASA's aeronautics programs back to 1998 levels when factoring inflation. Further, the NIA report finds that NASA is uniquely suited to carry out this kind of research, given its vast infrastructure and world-class. Importantly, the report follows by noting that the outcome of aeronautics research adds to the nation's wealth, not to any particular aviation company.

I understand we are not going to make those types of commitments in the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. However the House version of this measure includes some additional funding for aeronautics programs within NASA. The House provision would appropriate $54 million above what the President requested in his fiscal year 2006 budget recommendation to the Congress. This relatively small increase would maintain aeronautics funding at levels appropriated in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I am aware that our House counterparts have appropriated funding for NASA aeronautics programs at the fiscal year 2005 levels.

I say to Senator Allen that I will give every consideration to his request when we begin conferencing this bill.

I thank my colleague for his interest in this legislation and his work on this issue.

Mr. President, I will try to be brief. We are getting toward the end.

I am pleased we have completed consideration of this 2006 Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. This is not an easy bill, as everyone knows. With such broad jurisdiction, this bill attracts a lot of attention--sometimes too much--on the Senate floor and throughout the process.

It is our job--Senator Mikulski's and mine, with the help of leadership on both sides--to ensure the bill addresses my colleagues' concerns and effectively supports the operations of its Federal agencies. We have tried to do this. I think we have.

I thank my colleagues for understanding this and for working with us to ensure the viability of this bill, both here in the Senate and in conference.

I believe overall this is a good bill. It reflects the priorities of this body, and it addresses the needs of the Nation. Some needs are now more urgent than others, as we know in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and we have and will continue to make adjustments in the Small Business Disaster Loan Program, the Economic Development Administration's Public Works Grants, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane-related programs.

We will take this bill to the House of Representatives in conference. We have only a short time left in the year, as the leader keeps telling us. We will do our best to get a conference report to the President as soon as we can.

I also offer my thanks to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, for all of her work and the work of her staff. We have worked together for years. Without us working together in a bipartisan spirit, we would not be where we are today. She and her staff have worked with our side of the aisle in a truly bipartisan manner, and it is reflected in the bill.

I also thank Senator Cochran, chairman of the full committee, for all of his work and advice. It has been appreciated. I also thank the leaders, Senators Frist and Reid, and the floor staff, especially Dave Schiappa, Bill Hoagland, and my staffer, Katherine Hennessey, and others. They did an excellent job helping us move this bill along, and we are in their debt.

I thank the Chair.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

On the previous vote, I move to reconsider.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment 1670.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates rule XVI.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to suspend the rules occur at 12:30 today and that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Clinton amendment No. 1660.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates rule XVI.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the motion to suspend the rules on the Clinton amendment immediately following the vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment with 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote, and further that no second degrees be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided, further, that all time until the vote be equally divided in the usual form.

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

I call for the regular order.

Amendment No. 1670

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendments, which I now send to the desk, be considered and agreed to en bloc. These noncontroversial amendments have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I call for the regular order with respect to the Coburn amendment No. 1648.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. This amendment would terminate funding for the Advanced Technology Program, what we call ATP. ATP is unique among Federal research programs. Most Federal research is focused on advancing scientific knowledge. However, there is a very long road from scientific discovery in a university lab to the commercialization of that product.

According to the National Science Foundation, less than 1.5 percent of venture capital funding in the private sector is available as seed funding for proof-of-concept. ATP seeks to fill that gap in funding.

The program was founded to ensure that not only do we win the Nobel Prizes with our excellent venture research but that we also commercialize our discoveries ahead of our foreign partners and thereby create jobs for our own people.

Some have said the idea that we are in a global technology race is outdated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether it is semiconductors in China and Taiwan or nanotechnology in Europe, our global competitors are investing heavily in programs to beat us to the marketplace. Surely we can afford the $140 million investment included in this bill to stay competitive.

The Advanced Technology Program projects have succeeded in a wide range of fields. They are already delivering cheaper, better bone marrow transplants, mammograms, and cartilage repair. They are enabling companies to make biodegradable plastic from corn, improving manufacturing, and powering longer lasting lightweight fuel cells.

Moreover, this program has helped small businesses. More than 75 percent of all ATP projects include a small business. Sixty-six percent of ATP projects are led by or involve only a small business. Of the single-applicant awards, 78 percent have gone to small businesses and 11 percent have gone to medium-sized businesses and nonprofits. By contrast, only 11 percent of solo awards have gone to large businesses.

In a more extensive and comprehensive review, the National Academy of Sciences found ATP to be an effective Federal partnership that they said ``could use more funding effectively and efficiently.''

Measurement and evaluation have been part of the ATP program since its inception. The most recent ATP annual report showed the program has generated $17 billion in economic benefits from 41 of its 736 completed projects.

In short, this program works. After all, the Council on Competitiveness's National Innovation Initiative report noted that ``innovation will be the single most important factor in determining America's success through the 21st Century.''

If we adopt the amendment offered by my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, we would cut off a program which has as its sole purpose investing in American innovation.

This program has the support of the Senate. On March 17 of this year, the Senate voted 53 to 46 in favor of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the budget resolution stating:

It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate Committee on

Appropriations should make every effort to provide funding

for the Advanced Technology Program in fiscal year 2006.

That is exactly what we are doing. This bill funds technology initiatives which fuel our economy. The program works. In this austere budget environment, there is no room for programs that do not work. We do not have that luxury.

I oppose the termination of the Advanced Technology Program. I move to table the Coburn amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Grassley has been in some negotiations regarding the amendment. Trade is under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. I don't know where he is now. I do not know if he voted, but we have been working with him.

I know the Senator wants to bring up his amendment as soon as he can. But I want to make sure Senator Grassley is ready and on the floor. We will try to locate him.

Mr. President, I take a minute and commend the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for his leadership and for reaching out to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Domenici, and Senator Mikulski and Senator Talent, and so many others. This is a bipartisan approach. Senator Pryor is the leader.

Nobody likes gouging. Gasoline is too high. We want the markets to work. If market forces work, there won't be gouging. It will be an orderly movement of supply and demand--if the demand is too high, the prices will go up, but not like that, not like I have seen it at the pump, as we have seen coast to coast.

The American people fear there is gouging going on. Senator Pryor should be commended for pursuing this issue. We hope the Federal Trade Commission will do its work. I support the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1652, Withdrawn

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I now call for the regular order with respect to DeWine amendment, No. 1671.

We have a second-degree amendment which has been agreed to on both sides. Therefore, on behalf of Senator DeWine, I send the second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I now ask for the regular order with respect to Sarbanes amendment No. 1662.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge the adoption of the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be suspended.

I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 67.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 221 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 238, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 15. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and the pledge the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2862, the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, and as manager of the bill, I announce to my colleagues that we are very close to completing action on the bill. Earlier, we had hoped to finish this evening but we were working on just a few remaining issues.

Tomorrow, we will resume consideration of the bill shortly after 9:30 a.m. At that time, we hope to clear several of the remaining amendments. That will then allow us to proceed to votes on those few amendments which require votes.

It is the expectation of the leader that we will begin voting around 10:45

or 11 tomorrow morning. We should continue voting until we proceed to final passage.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation on the bill today, and I look forward to completion of the bill at an early hour tomorrow.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

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