Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY. Does the Senator wish to continue?

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. 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.