John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I understand both sides have agreed to the amendment, as modified, and I ask unanimous consent this amendment be agreed to.

Mr. ENSIGN. I send a modification to that amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment 1104.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President; last year when the Senate was considering the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. One of those recommendations was to hire an additional 2,000 new custom and border protection agents each year for the next 5 years. This body agreed with the recommendation. We agreed that our national security depended on such an investment, and we enacted that recommendation into law. We are now considering the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The bill that was reported out of committee includes funding for 1,000 new agents in the coming fiscal year. I understand there are problems with training 2,000 agents. My amendment as modified would provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with the discretion to shift $367 million to hire 2,000 new agents next year. This amendment is fully offset. I rise today to urge the Senate to adopt my amendment so that we can keep the commitment that we made to the American people last year. I thank John McCain for cosponsoring our amendment. The threat of illegal border crossing by people who wish to kill us is very real. The 9/11 Commission found that many of the 19 hijackers that attacked on 9/11 could have been placed on watch lists. But without adequate staff and coordinated efforts, the terrorists were allowed to enter the United States. Once here they learned how to fly airplanes at American flight schools. They conducted surveillance to assess our weaknesses. And they attacked. In order to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must improve every aspect of our Nation's security. Our security is truly only as strong as our weakest link. For too long, the lack of funding for border agents has been a weak link. By funding additional agents, we protect both our southern and our, often neglected, northern border. This will make it harder for terrorists to enter the United States and attack us. There have been several news reports recently that I want to bring to my colleagues' attention. A few months ago, intelligence officials confirmed that the terrorist Zarqawi plans to infiltrate America through our borders. He plans to attack targets such as movie theaters, restaurants, and schools. My amendment commits the resources to make sure that this does not happen. Just last month, in Detroit, a Lebanese national named Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, who was in the United States illegally, pled guilty in Federal court to conspiring to raise money for a recognized terrorist group. He was in the United States raising money to fund terrorists. That is outrageous. But what is equally outrageous is how he came into the United States in the first place. Kourani took advantage of our porous border. Kourani paid a Mexican consular official in Beirut $3,000 for a visa to enter Mexico. Once in Mexico, he snuck across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001 and settled in Michigan. According to Federal prosecutors, Kourani and another member of his family are heavily involved with the same group that killed 214 marines in Beirut in 1983 and which is also responsible for bombing two U.S. embassies. While in the United States, Kourani also helped harbor other illegal immigrants. Thankfully, he was prosecuted before he could inflict any direct harm on any American. Given how easy it is for people like Kourani to enter the United States, I believe that my amendment is imperative to our national security. My amendment does not require any additional spending. It gives the Secretary discretion which, if used, is completely offset. This amendment is paid for. Homeland security spending must be based on priorities. The fact that terrorists would use our borders to gain access to the United States to attack is a real threat. So we must provide funds for customs and border protection. Three and a half years ago it only took 19 people to change the course of this country. We must do everything that we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the terrorists used our open and trusting society against us. We cannot allow a repeat of that tragedy. This amendment will help those who guard our frontiers by providing the necessary, and I stress necessary, tools to ensure the safety of our citizens. In conclusion, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Gregg, for the job he has done prioritizing what we are doing in the area of Homeland Security. His is a very difficult job. We have limited resources. It is a question of where are we going to manage our risk with the limited resources we have in this global war on terrorism. Chairman Gregg has a huge, huge task ahead not only this year but in the years to come. This year's bill is going a long way to reprioritizing what we need to do to defend ourselves against the terrorists. Although the bill goes in the right direction, our amendment takes the bill that much further toward protecting our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you for your support and for your personal commitment to be as helpful as possible. I appreciate very much your assistance and the hard work of your staff.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for taking the time to engage in a colloquy to discuss a program funded in the Legislative Branch appropriations measure that is important to many Nevada educators. In this bill, the Library of Congress is slated to receive $4 million for continued development of the Adventure of the American Mind program. AAM facilitates the incorporation of digital collections into school curricula. AAM provides teacher training so they can learn how to use primary resources in their classroom instruction. I think it is important to give educators and students--regardless of where they live--access to what the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, calls ``the world's largest repository of knowledge.'' I commend the chairman for his support for AAM. I know that he is aware of two Nevadans who have performed extensive work to develop AAM. I am proud of my constituents. George and Carolyn Breaz of Las Vegas have traveled all over the country to train teachers in the five States that participate in the AAM Consortium. I believe it is through an oversight that my State of Nevada was not included as a member of the consortium. It was perhaps my staff's oversight for not communicating my support for Nevada's participation to the previous chairman, Senator Campbell, during the expansion of this AAM consortium. I think that participation in AAM should be based on merit. I am not asking for special treatment for Nevada. Some states may get special treatment. I don't know. I do know that Mr. and Mrs. Breaz have worked hard to get this program to where it is today, and I believe that taxpayers have a right to expect that technical experts are developing AAM. The Breazes were quite devastated when they were not invited to participate in the AAM consortium, particularly given the amount of work they devoted for the past 5 years. It is my understanding that the chairman and his staff will advocate Nevada's participation in this important project, whether it is through a legislative or administrative solution, prior to the Legislative Branch appropriations bill becoming law. Is this correct?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose Senator Dorgan's attempt to waive the rules of the Senate. All of us operate under the constraints of the rules. The rules create a level playing field, provide stability, and bind the Senate together. According to CRS, similar attempts to waive the rules to legislate on appropriations bills have been tried twice since 1989, and failed both times. There is a good reason why the rules have not been successfully waived in recent Congresses. If waiving the rules becomes the practice of the Senate, just another tool for Senators, there will be chaos. Many of my colleagues were Senators during times when authorizing on appropriations was routine. Do we want to potentially go down this path again? I think not. Is my colleague seeking to waive the rules for a national emergency, an emergency in his State, relief from a terrorist attack, or a wartime emergency? No. He is seeking to waive the rules of the Senate to overturn regulations on travel to Cuba. The regulations targeted by Senator Dorgan's amendment do not eliminate family travel. They simply limit the amount of times you can travel to Cuba for family visits--once every 3 years; in case of necessity--and limit it to visiting actual direct relatives. There used to be a tremendous abuse of people vacationing in Cuba claiming to visit their third uncle on their grandmother's side. According to the State Department, the new regulations, which went into effect in July 2004, have cost the Castro dictatorship up to $375 million in lost revenue. I believe this is a good thing. Most of the money from travel, dollar stores, and hotels go directly to Cuba's military. Recently, great media attention has been given to the case of SGT Carlos Lazo of Spokane, WA, who has two sons in Cuba. It is for cases of this nature that U.S. law allows his sons to visit him in the United States on a visitor's visa or to immigrate to the United States. The proper statement for the Senate at this time is to go on record to demand that Castro let these boys go so they can see their father. I, for one, will do everything possible to see that his sons get here and have been assured that our State Department will work to facilitate this. The proper statement for the Senate is not to waive the rules of the Senate to create chaos in this Chamber and let more money go to subsidize Castro's repressive regime. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have found myself in similar situations as the Senators from Alaska, with my State of Nevada being singled out and, for this reason, I am very sympathetic to their concerns. I believe that we cannot overemphasize the importance of this road funding to the people in southeastern Alaska. Local lumber jobs in the Tongass have decreased from 5,000 in 1990 to just a thousand today, putting a strain on the surrounding communities. Furthermore, the price of lumber has skyrocketed in the United States. My State is home to Las Vegas, which is the fastest growing city in America. We have seen the cost of lumber and other products soar. I believe it is important to preserve funding for these roads so that we can continue to have a reliable supply of lumber across the country. I urge my colleagues to join with the Senators from Alaska in keeping this small part of the Tongass accessible to development.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1026

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleagues for including a provision in this bill which give the people of Nevada a fair chance to keep their hard earned money away from the clutches of Enron. Enron is still seeking to extract an additional $326 million in profits from my State's utilities for power that was never delivered. Enron, after all of its market manipulation and financial fraud, is still trying to profit from its wrong-doing at the expense of each and every Nevadan. Section 1270 of the Energy Policy Act ensures that the proper government agency will determine whether Enron is entitled to more money from Nevada. That agency is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. When FERC was established by Congress, its fundamental mission was, and remains, to protect ratepayers. FERC has specialized expertise required to resolve the issues surrounding some of the contracts that Enron entered into and eventually terminated. Many of my colleagues know that Enron has filed for bankruptcy protection. There is an issue in the bankruptcy case as to whether Enron can enforce contracts that it terminated. The enforceability of these contracts should not be decided by a bankruptcy court. A bankruptcy judge does not have the specialized expertise required for this job. A bankruptcy court is responsible for considering different equities than an oversight agency, like FERC, would. The bankruptcy court is responsible for enhancing the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of creditors. FERC, on the other hand, sees a more complete picture which includes protecting the interests of the general public. This is why section 1270 is so important. It is a provision that is limited in scope. It does not seek to resolve the issue in the favor of one party. Though many Senators from affected States may have been tempted to legislate the outcome, we have refrained from doing so. Let me set the stage for why this provision is so critical. It is a complicated story. It is one that should be told in order to understand why I so strongly support this provision and why I believe the provision should be enacted into law. There are two major utilities that serve Nevada: Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power. Both need to buy power in the wholesale power market to meet the growing energy needs of Nevada. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the country. It takes a lot of power to keep the lights on in Las Vegas, Reno, and other parts of our growing State. At the height of the western electricity crisis, when spot market prices for electricity were going not just through the roof but through the stratosphere, FERC urged utilities like the Nevada utilities to reduce their purchases of spot supplies and enter into long-term contracts for electricity. That is precisely what the Nevada utilities did. Enron was one of the biggest suppliers of wholesale electricity at the time. Starting in December 2000, the Nevada utilities entered into long-term contracts with Enron to meet a significant portion of their long-term needs. At the time, no one was aware of Enron's on-going criminal conspiracy to manipulate the market. No one knew that Enron had engaged in fraud to hide its true financial picture. The prices that the Nevada utilities agreed to pay Enron for long- term power were truly outrageous. The prices fully reflected Enron's success in manipulating the market. Prices were three times as high as the threshold that FERC had established as a ceiling price that would trigger close scrutiny under the just and reasonable standard. As a result, in November 2001, the Nevada utilities asked FERC to review the rates to determine whether those contract prices were just and reasonable. Two days after the Nevada companies filed their complaints against Enron, Enron filed for bankruptcy. Its financial house of cards had finally collapsed. As one definitive study of Enron concluded, Enron had been insolvent at the time the company entered into each and every contract with the Nevada utilities. The contracts between Enron and the Nevada utilities incorporated the Western Systems Power Pool Agreement, a master agreement on file and approved by FERC. This master agreement governs transactions of more than 200 parties throughout the west. Under the terms of that agreement, if one of the parties files for bankruptcy, the other party may rescind the agreement. So in this case, Enron's bankruptcy would have given the Nevada utilities cause to terminate the contracts. Under the unique terms of this agreement, however, the commercial party that is ``in the money'' will still be able to benefit if the contract is rescinded. So while the Nevada companies could terminate the contract, they still would have had to pay Enron the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of terminating, to say nothing of the need to buy replacement power. When Enron entered bankruptcy, the price for electricity had fallen to the level power had sold for prior to Enron's market manipulation. This demonstrates that there was a huge difference between the artificially and unlawfully manipulated price that Enron commanded at the time of the contract and the market price at the time Enron filed for bankruptcy. Given the huge financial hit that the Nevada companies would have had to pay to terminate the Enron contracts, the Nevada companies continued to honor their commitment to purchase power under these contracts. In March 2002, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada refused to allow the Nevada utilities to pass more than $400 million in purchased power costs on to ratepayers. As a result, the credit ratings of the Nevada utilities fell below investment grade. Under the terms of the WSPPA, this downgrade gave Enron the right to request assurances regarding the Nevada companies' intentions with respect to their contracts. In meetings and in telephone calls, the Nevada Companies assured Enron that they would be able to pay Enron everything that would be owed under the contracts. The WSPPA required Enron to use ``reasonable'' discretion with respect to the contracts. Despite this requirement, Enron terminated the contracts with the Nevada companies and demanded that the Nevada companies pay Enron termination payments totaling approximately $326 million. These termination payments represent pure profit to Enron on power than Enron never delivered. By pure profit, I mean just that. The termination payments are calculated, as I previously noted, by the difference between the cost of power today and the outrageous, manipulation-based prices Enron was able to extract during the energy crisis that Enron had unlawfully created. The Nevada companies refused to make payment. At this time, it was known that Enron had manipulated the entire western market. As part of Enron's bankruptcy, an ``adversary proceeding'' was initiated to determine the enforceability of these contracts and whether Enron would be allowed to continue to profit under fraudulent contracts at the expense of Nevada's ratepayers. At this point, the legal proceedings become very complex but the proceedings should be summarized so my colleagues will understand exactly what has happened. On June 24, 2003, FERC determined that the ``just and reasonable'' standard of review is not available to the Nevada companies with respect to their long-term contracts with Enron. This decision was made because FERC argued that it had previously ``pre-determined'' that the contracts would be just and reasonable when they granted Enron its authority to sell electricity at market-based rates years earlier. On the very next day, FERC withdrew Enron's authority to sell electricity at market-based rates because of its ``market manipulation schemes that had profound adverse impacts on market outcomes'' which violated its ``market-based rate authorizations.'' The bankruptcy court judge, on August 23, 2003, ruled on a summary judgment motion that the Nevada utilities were required to pay Enron $326 million in termination payments. The court held that, because FERC had not found that Enron's contracts should be modified by virtue of its market manipulation, the filed-rate doctrine applied. It further ruled that it did not need to defer to FERC on whether Enron had complied with the tariff since it could interpret the tariff as well as FERC. On October 6, 2003, the Nevada Companies filed a complaint with FERC. The complaint sought to have FERC determine: Enron's termination was unreasonable under the tariff; Enron was not entitled to termination payments on equitable grounds; and, assuming Enron was otherwise entitled to termination payments, the contract provision should be set aside as contrary to the public interest. Then, on July 22, 2004, FERC set for hearing the narrow question of whether Enron's termination was reasonable. FERC deferred ruling on the issue of whether the contract should be set aside under the public interest standard until that issue became ``necessary.'' At the hearing, FERC did not address the issue of equitable claims. On that same day, FERC ruled in a separate case that Enron could be required to disgorge all of its profits. On September 30, 2004, FERC's administrative law judge denied Enron's motion to dismiss the case, finding, among other things, that FERC's specialized expertise is required. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones reversed a ruling of the bankruptcy court on October 15, 2004. The district court considered the issue of whether the Nevada companies owed Enron the termination payments. The district court found that the Nevada companies had offered timely assurances and that the issue of whether Enron rejected those assurances and terminated reasonably were issues of fact which required a trial. On December 3, 2004, the bankruptcy court enjoined FERC from further proceedings after finding that FERC had violated the ``automatic stay'' provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. A hearing on termination payments was tentatively scheduled for this coming July. Currently, motions for interlocutory appeal are pending before a U.S. District Court Judge. Despite the ruling of a FERC administrative law judge that FERC's expertise was necessary to interpret the master tariff's requirement that a terminating party act ``reasonably,'' the bankruptcy court has enjoined FERC from further considering this issue. Section 1270 of this legislation confirms the decision of the FERC administrative law judge. This section says the judge is correct and the bankruptcy court is wrong. It makes clear that, in this limited matter, FERC has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claims at issue. This provision is very reasonable. It is a targeted response to a clash among competing jurisdictions over which tribunal, FERC or the bankruptcy court, should decide this issue. If Congress doesn't address the issue of jurisdiction now, the Supreme Court will have to do so years from now. That need not happen. Congress can decide this jurisdictional issue. The decision of the Senate, as reflected in Section 1270, is the right decision. The language of the amendment tracks Supreme Court precedent that recognizes that Congress can choose to give jurisdiction over issues to administrative agencies when the jurisdiction is consistent with the core functions of the agency. In this instance, the recognition of authority to FERC to decide this matter is narrow. It relates solely to the legality of Enron collecting additional profits in the form of termination payments for power not delivered. It is also directly related to the agency's core function to ensure just and reasonable rates and guard against market manipulation. I want to assure my colleagues that this provision does not encroach upon the sanctity of contracts. It merely picks the proper forum for determining whether Enron complied with its tariff obligations. Likewise, it also does not alter the standard of review for challenging the contract. Congress is not picking a standard; it is only picking a forum. Mr. President, this reasonable provision has the support of key industry leaders such as the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Edison Electric Institute. It has bipartisan support. Anyone who has been as harmed by Enron as ratepayers in my state have understands the need to ensure that only the most qualified tribunal should rule on whether Enron can collect an additional $326 million in windfall profits.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today about a very serious issue that is threatening the disbursal of justice in the western United States. My home State of Nevada, along with eight other States, has been part of an unbelievable population boom over the last several decades. As a result, we face the frustrating challenges of increased traffic congestion, crowded schools, and a shortage of many services. However, there is one consequence of that growth that has reached a critical level because it is delaying and denying justice for too many Americans. That is the situation with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The largest circuit in the country, it encompasses 20 percent of the entire Nation's population. The Ninth Circuit has the highest cases per jurist ratio. And the trend is not changing. The Circuit is just too large. Each of the States covered by the Ninth Circuit saw population growths over the last decade, and three of the States-- Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona--are in the top five in the country for population growth. Something must be done, or the Ninth Circuit will continue to bust at the seams. That is why I am introducing legislation today that would divide the current Ninth Circuit into 3 new circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would include California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands. The new Twelfth Circuit would be comprised of Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. And the new Thirteenth Circuit would contain Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. This splitting of the Ninth Circuit is absolutely necessary if the residents of Nevada and the other western states are to have equal access to justice. Right now, citizens living under the Ninth Circuit face incomparable delays and judicial inconsistencies. Recently, the Ninth Circuit had more cases pending for more than one year than all other circuits combined. And because of the sheer magnitude of the number of judges in the Ninth Circuit, it has become increasingly difficult for judges to track the opinions of the other judges in the circuit. In fact, it happened that on the same day, 2 different 3-judge panels in the Ninth Circuit issued different legal standards to resolve the same issue. Can you imagine the headache this causes for district judges who are supposed to follow the standard set by the Ninth Circuit? It compromises the system of justice that is the cornerstone of our democracy. As a Nevadan, I am also angered by some of the decisions made by the Ninth Circuit Court. I know how Nevadans feel about issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance. Like me, they were outraged that the phrase ``under God'' was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. This wasn't the only case of the Ninth Circuit misinterpreting the Constitution and our laws. In 1997 alone, the United States Supreme Court overruled 27 out of 28 Ninth Circuit decisions. I wish I could say that was just an ``off' year for the court, but their track record wasn't much better in the 6 years before that. Rather than continue down this path of judicial destruction, it is time to use a forward looking approach to the access of justice in the western United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in our Constitutional duty to establish courts for the sake of justice in this country. Failure to act will cost the citizens of my state, and many other western states, dearly.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today about a very serious issue that is threatening the disbursal of justice in the western United States. My home State of Nevada, along with eight other States, has been part of an unbelievable population boom over the last several decades. As a result, we face the frustrating challenges of increased traffic congestion, crowded schools, and a shortage of many services. However, there is one consequence of that growth that has reached a critical level because it is delaying and denying justice for too many Americans. That is the situation with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The largest circuit in the country, it encompasses 20 percent of the entire Nation's population. The Ninth Circuit has the highest cases per jurist ratio. And the trend is not changing. The Circuit is just too large. Each of the States covered by the Ninth Circuit saw population growths over the last decade, and three of the States-- Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona--are in the top five in the country for population growth. Something must be done, or the Ninth Circuit will continue to bust at the seams. That is why I am introducing legislation today that would divide the current Ninth Circuit into 3 new circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would include California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands. The new Twelfth Circuit would be comprised of Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. And the new Thirteenth Circuit would contain Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. This splitting of the Ninth Circuit is absolutely necessary if the residents of Nevada and the other western states are to have equal access to justice. Right now, citizens living under the Ninth Circuit face incomparable delays and judicial inconsistencies. Recently, the Ninth Circuit had more cases pending for more than one year than all other circuits combined. And because of the sheer magnitude of the number of judges in the Ninth Circuit, it has become increasingly difficult for judges to track the opinions of the other judges in the circuit. In fact, it happened that on the same day, 2 different 3-judge panels in the Ninth Circuit issued different legal standards to resolve the same issue. Can you imagine the headache this causes for district judges who are supposed to follow the standard set by the Ninth Circuit? It compromises the system of justice that is the cornerstone of our democracy. As a Nevadan, I am also angered by some of the decisions made by the Ninth Circuit Court. I know how Nevadans feel about issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance. Like me, they were outraged that the phrase ``under God'' was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. This wasn't the only case of the Ninth Circuit misinterpreting the Constitution and our laws. In 1997 alone, the United States Supreme Court overruled 27 out of 28 Ninth Circuit decisions. I wish I could say that was just an ``off' year for the court, but their track record wasn't much better in the 6 years before that. Rather than continue down this path of judicial destruction, it is time to use a forward looking approach to the access of justice in the western United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in our Constitutional duty to establish courts for the sake of justice in this country. Failure to act will cost the citizens of my state, and many other western states, dearly.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that The Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during The session of The Senate on Thursday, May 26, 2005, for a committee hearing titled ``Battling The Backlog: Challenges Facing The VA Claims Adjudication and Appeal Process''. The hearing will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to Rule 26.5(a) of The Standing Rules of The Senate, that The Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet after conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of The Senate commences on May 26, 2005.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Serving Our National Economy'' on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Steven Law, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. Panel II: Tom Donahue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC; Dan Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, The CATO Institute, Washington, DC; and Douglas S. Massey, Ph.D., Professor, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``An Assessment of Federal Funding for Private Research and Development.''

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations Terrence W. Boyle, II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia; Richard Griffin, to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit; David McKeague, to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Paul Clement, to be Solicitor General of the United States; Anthony Jerome Jenkins, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands; Stephen Joseph Murphy III, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina; Rachel Brand, to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy; Alice S. Fisher, to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; and Regina B. Schofield, to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. II. Bills: S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham]. III. Matters: Senate Judiciary Committee Rules.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``The Container Security Initiative and The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism: Securing The Global Supply Chain or Trojan Horse?''

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that The Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 10 a.m. on Aviation Capacity and Congestion Challenges-Summer 2005 and Future Demand.